05/31/2017 – 10:11 | 10:28 – 05/31/17
- They prevent the ceded players from jumping the field against their home clubs
- Merman the right to effective occupation of the player
In the world of football, it has become customary to talk about the 'clauses of fear', a name that receives the provisions of a transfer contract by which clubs that lend their players prohibit those same players from facing their home team unless that exorbitant amounts are paid. An imposition modality that became custom after Real Madrid suffered it in their meats in the middle of 2000, with ceded as Fernando Morientes or Pedro Munitis turned into executioners of the targets in Champions or the League. The objective is that workers to whom a team pays do not end up ruining their sporting objectives.
In general terms, the hiring of workers to temporarily transfer them to another company is prohibited, it can only be done through temporary work companies. However, this possibility exists in the professional athlete's employment relationship so that the clubs can temporarily transfer the services of one of their players to other groups with their express consent.
The so-called 'fear clauses' are usually found within the terms of the agreement. They are clauses that establish, as a condition for the assigned player to play against the transferor club, the payment of an amount that is fixed in the contract – disproportionate in many cases – under the following approach: the assigned player may not play against to the transferor club unless it pays the amount agreed upon to it.
Few haggle them
Few have been the cases in which any club had paid any amount so that the player could participate. An example was the Oier Olazabal, ceded from Granada to the Royal Society. Gerónimo Rulli, titular goalkeeper, could not dispute the duel against the Nasrids, so the Txuri-Urdin had no choice but to pay the 100,000 euros fixed by Olazábal's contract so that the goalkeeper played that game against the club at that belonged. Otherwise, the third goalkeeper should have been the owner.
Many are the voices that understand that the 'fear clause' directly undermines the rules of the integrity of the competition in which UEFA has been emphasizing so much in recent years. In this sense, the Regulations on the Statute and Transfer of Players leave no doubt about the assumption that if a transferred player wishes to play against his home team he can compete without problems.
Specifically, the rule indicates that “no club will enter into a contract that allows the opposing club (s) and vice versa or third parties, to assume a position whereby it can influence labor matters and transfers related to independence, policy or performance of club teams. “
Violation of fundamental labor rights outside of what is established by UEFA, the reality is that these clauses diminish the labor rights of soccer players, without going any further than that of effective occupation. It is true that the clubs are protected by the autonomy of the will that allows the freedom of pacts between the contractors but this freedom finds its limit when the law is violated, a circumstance that could occur in this case since the Statute of the Workers includes as basic labor law for athletes, that of effective occupation.
When we talk about effective occupation we talk about the right of the athlete – like any worker – to carry out his work. The worker is not only obliged to work; It also has “the right” to work, which translates into the corresponding obligation of the employer to provide the committed activity. The lack of work attentive to the professional dignity of the worker, impairs his training and is a grievance to his professional image.
As a consequence of the 'fear clause', the athlete is violated the possibility of intervening in the matches or what is the same violates his right to effective occupation to the extent that the athlete could only be dispensed with in cases of sanction or injury .