Talk:Bosman ruling

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Football Mid‑importance

	Association football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

European Union Mid‑importance

	European Union portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject European Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the European Union on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European UnionWikipedia:WikiProject European UnionTemplate:WikiProject European UnionEuropean Union articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on December 15, 2006, December 15, 2010, December 15, 2013, and December 15, 2015.

Untitled

I was thinking that there ought to be an article on the Football (soccer) maximum wage but perhaps it's part of a larger article on Football (soccer) contracts that also incorporates the Bosman ruling, stuff about transfer windows etc, history of players' wages, etc ... Any thoughts?Cutler 17:49, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with the contract page, as football contracts tend to be different to many other sports. For example, most major leagues don't feature 'salary caps' (maximum wage). The eccentricities of transfers though, such as transfer windows, the UK work permit laws, etc might be interesting to add to this 'new' article. --Cory 08:26, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've started the Football (soccer) contracts page and would encourage others to start contribute further so as to improve this section. --Bosmanblog 16:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not only soccer

I am pretty sure that Bosman ruling does not refer only to soccer but also at least to basketball, and maybe to other sports in Europe. If anyone knows more on the subject, please help.--Stellea 07:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign player quotas

The situation pre-Bosman was slightly more complicated than described in this article. In UEFA competitions a team was allowed to field 3 foreign players as well as 2 assimilated foreign players. In pratice this meant that English clubs could field Scottish, Welsh and Irish players as assimilated. (http://www.liv.ac.uk/footballindustry/bosman.html) I think the best example would be the pre-Bosman 1992 European Cup tie between Leeds United and VFB Stuttgart. At the end of the two matches the aggregate score was 4-4 and Leeds should have exited the competition on the away goals rule. However it was noticed that the Germans had fielded too many foreign players in the second match and so a third match was ordered to be played at a neutral ground on appeal (with Leeds winning 2-1 at the Nou Camp.) More to the point the following players played for Leeds in all the matches of the tie: Gary McAllister (Scottish) Gordon Strachan (Scottish) Gary Speed (Welsh)and Eric Cantona (French) (http://www.leeds-fans.org.uk/leeds/links/VfBStuttgart.html) Presumably at least one of the British players was counted as a naturalised player, otherwise Leeds would also have breached the quota in both previous matches. IrishPete 14:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the above text, I believe that Gary Speed came through the youth system at Leeds so he would automatically have counted as an assimilated player. 90.240.189.196 18:56, 25 May 2007

Recent Update

I add new information on the Webster ruling and did some minor modification on the layout to reflect Wikipedia styles. Added the implication based on the Times article and recent newscasts but am having a hard time finding internet citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.21.234.190 (talk) 09:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Webster's case is entirely irrelevant to the Bosman ruling and thus should be removed. -- Crazyknight (talk) 13:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that the Webster case is irrelevant to the Bosman case, but it's entirely relevant to the practical outcome of the Bosman case regarding European sports. I think that the Webster case should be put in a separate article. Sebisthlm (talk) 15:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 4 January 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved, restoring status quo. Jenks24 (talk) 12:48, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Union Royale Belge des Sociétés de Football Association ASBL v Bosman → Bosman ruling – This article has long been at Bosman ruling but was moved a few minutes ago to its present title by Wikidea. I understand Wikidea's reasoning in moving the article to the full legal title of the decision, but in my opinion per WP:COMMONNAME it is better to keep "Bosman ruling" as the title. — Cliftonian (talk) 10:33, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cliftonian - I'm personally pretty agnostic about this; thanks for opening a discussion. I'd think it's good to have the names of the pages going according to the legal case name; anyone searching will find it anyway because of the redirects. But if everyone wants it back, then I won't object. Wik idea 10:35, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Only ever heard it referred to as the Bosman ruling. Number 5 7 10:48, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bosman ruling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100107212633/http://fourfourtwo.com/blogs/fourfourtwoview/archive/2009/01/06/how-money-took-over-football-in-1879.aspx to http://fourfourtwo.com/blogs/fourfourtwoview/archive/2009/01/06/how-money-took-over-football-in-1879.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:01, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly was the position before?

The article isn't really clear as to what the situation was before.

For example before Bosman what exactly did it mean to be 'in contract'? If your contract ended and your current club couldn't agree a fee with a new one, what happened? Did your old club have to carry on paying you, and if so how much, given that your contract was complete? And where did those old rules originate from; who imposed the requirement to agree a post contract fee, and what was the purpose? 78.147.76.57 (talk) 15:24, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]