As arguments continue across Twitter, the football press, and elsewhere about the merits of certain transfer targets, we’ve seen quite a bit of ire directed towards Mino Raiola and Henrikh Mkhitaryan for their demands* for service fees and/or wage increases if the player is to move to Arsenal. To that end we took a look at this sobering (and fascinating) document, the 2016 FiFPro “Top Findings” Global Employment Report.
Reading through the FiFPro report (which identifies several significant concerns about players’ rights and the difficulties they face in general), the 4th item in the list of top findings is “career path interference”. The report states that 29% of all players are “forced to change their clubs against their will, despite having an ongoing contract”. Additionally, that “the transfer system not only continues to limit employment opportunities for many players, but that a significant number are being sold to clubs they had no intention to play for.” Now, we know that Mkhitaryan is earning weekly wages beyond most comprehension, and that he isn’t representative of the bulk of players who toil at the lower levels and face more likely exploitation. But that should have no bearing on his rights as a worker, on his ability to negotiate (in good faith) a resolution to his employment status. He entered into a contract with Manchester United; he is labor. He owns nothing. He must fulfill this contract. And so too must United. They do not have the right to move him without sanction.
If the team, for their own benefit (and the Sanchez acquisition, enabled by a Mkhitaryan exodus, would most certainly be for the club’s benefit), wants him to move to a club for which he did not choose to play then he has every right to negotiate the terms of that shift. If we, as supporters, become the defenders of the club in this scenario then we have been blinded by our own ambition, our thirst for talent. We lose our own moral standing as workers should we deride a player for exercising their extremely limited contractual rights. We must take care to recognize that this scenario, where Mkhitaryan is asked to move to a club with whom he has no contract and for no considerations, entails a dictatorial mandate: that a player moves to benefit the club and the club only. And that the player should subjugate their own best interests to that of the corporate entity. A corporate entity that, were there not a legal document protecting said player, would cast them off like yesterday’s tabloids. Mkhitaryan may choose to move for no additional wages. He may demand his agent take no money in order to catalyze such a move. He may rather be a squad player under a monster of a human being than a regular starter. But these must be his choices, not the clubs’. We are better off for that.
* let’s be clear on where we stand – these demands are all rumored, and we have great skepticism about ANY of this reporting. In fact, we don’t believe much of it at all.