內(nèi)馬爾轉(zhuǎn)會(huì)背后的“人口販賣”模式

內(nèi)馬爾轉(zhuǎn)會(huì)背后的“人口販賣”模式

內(nèi)馬爾高昂的轉(zhuǎn)會(huì)費(fèi)震驚了世人，卻也提醒了我們：足球世界仍保留著“人口販賣”模式，球員在違背俱樂(lè)部意愿的情況下轉(zhuǎn)會(huì)，往往有著巨大的代價(jià)。這對(duì)于超級(jí)巨星來(lái)說(shuō)也許算不上絆腳石，但它嚴(yán)重地傷害著小俱樂(lè)部球員的利益。

測(cè)試中可能遇到的詞匯和知識(shí)：

volition自決，自主[v?'l??n]

barter物物交換，交換['bɑ?t?(r)]

plight困境，境況[pla?t]

stipulate規(guī)定，保證['st?pjule?t]

harasse使……困擾，使……煩惱['hær?s]

exploit利用；剝削[?k'spl??t]

exemplary可做模范的[?ɡ'zempl?ri]

exorbitant（價(jià)格）過(guò)高的[?ɡ'z??b?t?nt]

bedrock根底，基礎(chǔ)['bedr?k]

Neymar transfer exposes football's modern-day trafficking scheme（765 words）

By Stefan Szymanski

The agreement by Barcelona to transfer the football player Neymar to Paris St Germain for €222m has provoked media outrage — but of the wrong kind. We should not be incensed by the pricetag, but by the fact that it remains legal for a business to sell an employee to another business.

Barcelona sold Neymar to PSG. That is the only reason he is allowed to move. He could not have sold himself, and had he sought to transfer to another club of his own volition, and without Barcelona's agreement, he could have been banished from professional football.

Most readers of this column will have a job — how would you feel if your current employer said you could not take up an opportunity at another company unless they received compensation equal to four or five times your annual salary? How would you feel if your employer said you could not even talk to another company interested in hiring you without their prior consent? You would almost certainly go to court to defend your rights — in the EU, you would almost certainly win. The free movement of labour clauses of EU law protect your autonomy in this regard. We accept this as right and good. Why, then, are we comfortable with the bartering of professional football players?

Consider further that this business transaction actually hurts Neymar financially — the money PSG pays to Barcelona could have been part of his individual compensation had he been allowed to bargain on his own behalf. Of course, he is already a multi-millionaire; few will have sympathy for his financial plight here. But FIFPro, the player's union which by its own account represents more than 60,000 professional players, does not speak just for the superstars and the mega-rich. I estimate, in fact, that the median salary of its members is less than $50,000.

For the vast majority of players, the restrictions imposed by the transfer system can create genuine hardship. For example, in many countries, players in the lesser leagues routinely do not get paid their wages. Yet the transfer regulations stipulate that they cannot even begin the process of finding another employer until they have gone without pay for a full six months. Imagine you are a middle-class employee, perhaps with a family. You have not seen a paycheck in four months, but you cannot leave or even try to find another job.

The transfer system as it currently stands was created in 2001, following the 1995 Bosman judgment of the European Court of Justice, which declared the old transfer system illegal — precisely because it did not respect the right of free movement. Astonishing as it may sound, the new system was agreed between Fifa (then headed by Sepp Blatter) and the European Commission, without the consent of the players' representatives. Unsurprisingly, it favours the employers.

Research by FIFPro has identified other forms of abuse in the transfer system. Players who ask to leave their club against owners' wishes are bullied, harassed, and at times even physically abused. No one would tolerate this state of affairs in any other business (with the possible exception of organised prostitution), but naive young professional players can be easily exploited.

To be sure, many clubs are exemplary employers and treat players well — but basic rights should not be a matter of your employer's goodwill. Consequently, FIFPro has now brought a complaint to the commission seeking to have the current system ruled illegal. In an economic analysis for the union, I found that the transfer system helps cement the dominance of the largest clubs: exorbitant transfer fees act as a barrier to smaller clubs. As a result, a large fraction of transfer fee revenue just circulates among the dominant clubs in Europe.

The idea of abolishing the transfer system makes many football fans weak at the knees; they fear that small clubs that rely on transfer fee income would collapse. There are two responses: first, small clubs depend on transfer revenue far less than fans believe, and the transfer market is of little help when it comes to financial crises because prices fall in a fire sale. Even if a small club occasionally does well out of the system, the second point is far more important: equality before the law is a bedrock principle of liberal democracies. We simply must not deprive one class of people of the rights that the rest of us enjoy just because the victims supply us with entertainment.

The transfer system is nothing less than a global trafficking scheme in human labour — shockingly, it represents an agreement between the representatives of national governments and employers to erase employees' rights.