image via TeamTalk

12 years ago a man named Jean-Marc Bosman forever changed the game of football, transforming a once highly controlled club sport into a multi-billion dollar industry and allowing player movement all over the world. Now a Scottish International named Andy Webster could be the next Bosman, having invoked a loophole in Article 17 of the adopted FIFA EU law in late 2006 which states any player under the age of 25 MAY cancel his contract AFTER 3 years IF the player were to sign with another team in a foreign country. After a disagreement over contract negotiations led to Webster being dropped from the squad at Hearts in the Scottish Premier League, Russian owner Vladimir Romanov was livid and went to the press suggesting he would be sold. Webster in turn invoked Article 17, notifying Hearts that he had signed on with Wigan, only to head to Glasgow Rangers on loan less than a year later. Today the Court of Arbitration Sport ruled that Hearts are to be rewarded with 150,000 pound as compensation to be paid by Webster, but that the loophole clause and transfer stand as legal, which means that now clubs could essentially find a cheaper way around transfer fees and make buying out contracts easier/cheaper for the players to pay. Stay tuned to see who invokes this clause next and what ramifications this decision could have down the line for MLS.

UPDATE - The more I thought about this last night, the more possibilities sprinkled about.  This ruling forces the players current club to make sure that a new contract is hashed out before the 3rd year time line comes to an end.  As of yesterday, clubs usually left new contract negotiations until the last 6 months to a year because there was no other reason not to wait, but now it almost forces the clubs hand to make sure they protect themselves from having the under 25 player from invoke Article 17.  Here’s an example – Imagine if Michael Essien had spent 3 years at Lyon (Chelsea ended up purchasing Essien for 26 Million Pound).  If Chelsea were to have contact with Essien’s representatives, telling them to have Essien invoke Article 17 and pay the compensation fee back to Lyon himself, Chelsea would have saved 26 Million Pound and undoubtedly would have given Essien a much higher pay wage knowing he had saved them that much money.