The controversial anti-Madrid clause

The next transfer market at Primera Iberdrola will be very different. The collective agreement, signed just over a month ago, includes several points that regulate the termination of contracts and the signings. One of these articles, specifically number 20, has generated great controversy. This is the preparation compensation whereby clubs can establish a clause in the contracts of the players under 23 years old whose connection is close to ending.

A clause that many refer to as 'anti-Madrid', since many of the players that appear on the list, which has a total of seventeen names, were on the white club's agenda for the project with which Real Madrid Femenino will debut from next June. However, from the employers deny this idea. “This point is to defend small clubs against big ones, exactly the same as occurs in the male covenant. He has not gotten into going against Real Madrid. Simply It has coincided that the agreement has been signed with the entry of Real Madrid“, they confirm to AS from the Association of Clubs.

The controversy has taken hold after the statements of the father of one of the players affected by this clause, Athletic footballer Damaris Egurrola, in an interview with La Ser. “We did not expect it. She believes she has the right to decide her future. The sports director told me that if the club wanted, he could ask for a million euros. I replied that how could they ask for that after what they paid my daughter, which is a salary of 24,000 euros gross, “says the midfielder's father, whose name has been strongly linked to Real Madrid. the case of his partner Maite Oroz, who also appears on the list and who would already have tied his future as a Real Madrid player, as AS has learned. His cases are the most famous these days, but not the only ones.

Compensation is a replica of the masculine

The compensation clause, and not of training rights, has received the same treatment in the feminine agreement as in the masculine one. Unions and clubs agree that a copy was made on these types of articles. One of the parties to the agreement, Footballers ON, admits that there are certain “gaps”. “Nobody opposes this article, but we must claim that these clauses are consistent with the salary that the players have”, declare from the union, that it has put a claim for the figures set in this list. To this, they add: “as it stands, it is subject to interpretation. That is why we have asked that a limit be attached according to wages.”

For its part, the employers reiterate that it is something “that has been in force in the masculine 35 years” and that it must be taken into account that if this clause is given, 15% of the amount is for the player. If nobody pays the compensation and the player is still in the club, he is forced to raise his salary by 7% of the amounts that was requested in the compensation clause.