Thought any agreement with minor is void?

Even if there's reversed case, I don't think there's loads of English boy willing to go abroad in such a young age. How many Englishmen in recent seasons that willing to play abroad? Somehow, just like the Italian, they don't like to go abroad. Maybe it stems from their mind that their leagues is among the best in Europe so there's no need to go abroad. Funny, have a feeling that they're pampered in their country instead

I disagree. It is like the doping of thoroughbred racehorses in america (google eight belles). The 'solution' is obvious - for racehorses stop the use of dopes), for football stop the transfer of under 18s.
In both cases, it will change the face of the sport, and most are not willing to do this.

If NO kids are allowed to leave their countries to learn their trade elsewhere until they are 18, then clubs will have no choice to either develop their local lads or spend money developing an academy on foreign soil in partnership of local club. And yes, it is true that not one club can have 100 academies in 100 nations, so it is again a matter of making priorities. Heck, this even levels the playing field imho.

It will change football, for the better imho.

Big clubs can simply uproot the families, no? Instead of transfer of minor, it became emigration of family. So when a family start a new life in other country, cant the kids enrol in big clubs academy?

Well, if the whole family moves, then that in itself solves part of the problem - the trafficking of young kids who are left to fend for themselves when they are either found to be not good enough or when some other kid breaks their legs for good in training.

okay verx fair enough maybe other european clubs practice the signing of youngsters when they're younger, but like u said it will still come down to one's definition of poaching. i mean..younger doesn't necessarily make it right. and i support the idea that a suitable compensation fee should be agreed.

however like vreis said this could cause even more headaches as clubs will struggle to agree on a certain amount. some players show a lot of promise when the're young, but flop later on instead, and some peak much later. so most clubs would be reluctant to splash out millions due to the huge risk involved. regarding kakuta, its still a complicated problem as a pre-contract shouldn't be legally binding especially when u signed it at 15 or below.
and one thing i still can't quite understand is why they're bringing it up now instead of 2 years ago when we signed him.

its as if they've decided he's suddenly starting to look like a star and they want more money for it.
so who's the one being greedy now? if they really think that's the case, then obviously kakuta started to rapidly develop under CHELSEA'S TUTELAGE not theirs. imagine if clubs who couldn't care less about releasing their young hopefuls, suddenly realise they just let the next messi/lampard/ronaldo slip through their grasp and they demand an extra (insert obscene amount here) euros/pounds because the boy happened to train with them in the past.

isn't that unethical too?

Or clubs deem it not commercially viable to shift whole families across continents and the kids are left to fend for themselves for the rest of their lives because their parents are too poor to care for them. See what I did there . Not every single one of these kids will turn out to be a Essien or Drogba or for the heck of it a Messi but if they had a chance they should be given that chance. If the clubs can give a full education in addition to training the kid then why not? Even if he doesn't make it as a pro footballer he would be better off starving in poverty in Africa.

Let me give you an example. Let's say in some alternate reality you were born a genius and you discovered you had great talent in maths . By 15 you were offered a full scholarship by some prestigious university to go and study Maths. You're saying that you shouldn't be allowed to go there and chase your dreams just because in an off-case you fail your course, there will be no one there to baby you?

---

Added on September 11, 2009, 5:12 pmIf they're younger they probably haven't trained at another club academy yet. You're basically giving them their first real education about football. They all have to start somewhere regardless of their nationality. Of course it's not the case in South Americans being brought over to Europe. Brazil and Argentina, it's not like they have never complained about the exodus of young talent from their leagues and I think they have a U-18 rule over there if I'm not mistaken. I think it's about time FIFA drew up some guidelines.

I could be wrong but I think Lens filed their case to FIFA even back then. I just think that it has taken that long for FIFA to act upon it.

This post has been edited by verx: Sep 11 2009, 05:12 PM

i remember read the same thing, the case was 2 yrs back..i think the case only surface recently because there were evidence provided by his family members.

wow. if they really did take 2 years to complete the investigation, then someone please resurrect sherlock holmes.
for me that still raises a few eyebrows...why the obscenely long timeline and i for one cannot recall lens getting all flustered in the media over losing him. let's see how far this particular can of worms is going to go, and whether fifa are really beckoning in a new era. btw i think wenger's argument is a very good one as well. players should have the right to receive the best education and not forced to remain where they are, just so their parent club can receive a bigger paycheque when they're older. they actually risk damaging or curtailing the kid's progress due to substandard facilities, training methods, etc.

@Verx, no system is perfect and nothing is fair, but for every one 'genius' that is given a shot for a better life, they are another nine (if not more) who fail and are abandoned.

People will always find loopholes, and no decision will cater for everyone, but clearly in this case the majority is suffering for the benefit of the chosen few.

madmoz I think that you need to differentiate between a club actually sending scouts to scout a player and bringing them back to their own academy like what Wenger has done, compared to unlicenced agents trafficking youngsters from poverty-stricken countries. I personally do not condone the latter. But if it's done right then I don't see why these youngsters can't be allowed the opportunity to train with the best facilities and coaches. Banning transfers of U-18's aren't going to solve the trafficking problem. That is a whole other matter altogether. And if these youngsters can't make it at a big club they can always carve out a decent pro career at a smaller club in the lower leagues.

The important thing is that it must be done right. The clubs should be the ones who directly brings the player over not some greedy unscrupulous agent.

Why don't implement professional contract at younger age then? Labour's rule? Clubs will have to pay like a normal transfer fee for say they want to buy a 17 years old kid.