On February 4, 2010, Chelsea Football Club entered into a “confidential” Settlement Agreement with RC Lens that lifted the ban imposed on Chelsea by FIFA of registering any new players for two successive transfer periods. Considering the amount of personnel turnover at the top clubs these days, such a ban could potentially cripple a club’s success. FIFA initially imposed the ban on Chelsea until the January 2011 transfer window as a disciplinary sanction for improperly inducing former RC Lens player Gael Kukuta to breach his contract and transfer to Chelsea. In November 2009, Chelsea appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (”CAS”) and the CAS Panel stayed the ban pending the outcome of Chelsea’s appeal.
Essentially, FIFA found Chelsea to be in breach of the FIFA Regulations that govern international transfers of players and awarded Lens 115,000 pounds and imposed the ban on Chelsea. However, such a finding was dependent on there being a valid employment contract between Lens and Kukuta at the time the player signed for Chelsea. Well, until last Thursday, that was the position that Lens took. One needs to remember that it was Lens who originally sought relief through the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber. So, what happened to cause Lens to change their minds about what happened? Hmm, could it be the payment of money? Duh! The Guardian reports that Chelsea agreed to pay Lens 1 million pounds – or almost 10 times what FIFA found him to be worth. Whatever the cause for the change of heart, with Lens admitting that they did not have a valid employment contract with Kukuta, Chelsea could not have been in breach of the FIFA regulations and therefore there was no basis to impose the transfer ban (or the playing ban on Kukuta for that matter).
While we will never officially know what transpired given that the settlement agreement between Chelsea and Lens is confidential, we can safely assume this – we are far, far away from the day when there is true transparency in football matters especially when it comes to transfers. With FIFA set to roll out its new electronic Transfer Matching System in March of this year, one would think that you simply could not buy your way out of a rule violation after the fact. By not publishing the contents of the settlement agreement, the CAS is letting members of the football family know that the only thing that matters in navigating the football regulations is how much money you have – which is especially troubling at a time when club debts and wanton spending by billionaire owners are taking attention away from the pitch (whose attention exactly is another matter). While Lens had little personal gain in seeing a transfer ban imposed on Chelsea, the ban gave them significant leverage in negotiating the settlement agreement and one would think that leverage will have a positive impact on Lens’ balance sheet. The beauty of the transfer ban was that it was a win for the little guys – the clubs that don’t have owners with bottomless pockets.
Oh well – long live money!
Once again, lack of transparency makes things worse for everyone. But I guess Lens did well for themselves by holding Chelsea’s feet to the fire. I wonder who got the better deal? I wonder how much Kukuta is worth in comparison to what Chelsea paid.
It’s hard having money. But I enjoy it.
Not surprising that Chelsea bought their way out of trouble, but to be fair all top clubs poach players.
Well, what we know is that Chelsea have agreed to pay the compensation costs as mandated by FIFA in their original ruling. And that totals little over three quarters of a million pounds, a paltry amount in footballing terms. We don’t know which club is picking up the case costs.
Essentially there are a lot of unanswered questions so far as the case is concerned – most notably why Lens and Chelsea accepted such a compromise solution if they were both confident of a successful outcome. Undoubtedly Chelsea had the most to lose – the theoretical threat of a transfer ban is definitely worth a small pay out, even if you’re confident of proving your innocence. The fact that Lens accepted such a compromise when they were originally demanding five times as much suggests to me that they recognised that they had a less than watertight case.