Young Players Under Contract and Football’s “Slave Trade”

By | September 17, 2009

We’ve talked briefly in class discussions about what some have called the “slave trade” in young players from the developing world to the power clubs in Europe. There have been two stories in the past week that have brought to light the related issue of European youths who sign binding contracts.

The big story was that of Gael Kakuta who, at age 16, was under contract with the French club Lens but left the club to sign with Chelsea. The punishments doled out are staggering: Chelsea must pay Lens 130,000 euros compensation; Kakuta is suspended for 4 months and must pay Lens 780,000 euros for breach of contract; and most noteworthy of all, Chelsea was issued an unprecedented 16-month transfer ban. For the next two transfer windows, Chelsea is forbidden from registering any new players.

The second is more recent and of a smaller scale, but in one sense a little closer to home: Leeds United, the English League One side for whom Duke University’s own Mike Grella now plays (he has one goal on the year so far), has just had one of their developing 16-year-old players scooped up by Everton. While a tribunal has awarded Leeds 600,000 GBP (could rise to 1.5 mil if the kid plays well), Leeds chairman Ken Bates is saying that money is an insufficient deterrent to “predator clubs” and adding that league points should be deducted, forcing teams that make these types of moves to pay the price in the standings.

(The irony, of course, is that Leeds United would’ve been mentioned in the mix with those very “predator clubs” had their mangled finances not led to the downfall of the club about 6 or 7 years ago. Improper financial practices actually led Leeds to receive a devastating 15-point deduction in 2007-08, so when Bates mentions point deductions he knows of what he speaks.)

The first thing that jumps out at me is that, in both of these instances, the story is always framed around the club: whether its reparations to Leeds or the punishment for Chelsea or Everton, what happens to the player is always a side note (perhaps because the issue deals with players who are so young that they haven’t established themselves on the field yet and aren’t yet of public interest).

How does the issue of exploitation of youth change when the element of the “one-way ticket out of Africa” is removed from the equation? Regardless of background, are these kids really old enough to make contract decisions (and are their parents/guardians pushing them for the right reasons)? Also, does Chelsea’s punishment fit the crime or is it extreme? Is Ken Bates right to call for penalties in the standings as well? (As a Leeds United fan, I personally would say that the times that Bates is right are few and far between, but this could be one of the few.)

I’d love to hear other opinions on either of these stories or the broader “football slave trade”.

– Brad Colbert

Category: News Soccer Business

About Brad Colbert

I'm a senior at Duke, originally from Boston, MA, majoring in Public Policy and earning a certificate in Markets and Management Studies. Favorite Teams: New England Revolution (MLS), Leeds United (Football League One), Fulham (EPL), Celtic (SPL), Real Madrid (La Liga) and of course, the USMNT.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *