A turning point could be forthcoming regarding the way contracts work in Serie A, as eight-year deals could be introduced.
According to Corriere dello Sport (via RadioRossonera) and the lawyer Felice Raimondo, Italian football and consequently Milan are preparing for an important change: the extension of the maximum contract period from five to eight years.
The reasoning
The decision came following the latest Legislative Decree approved on Friday by the Council of Ministers. Italian professional clubs will be free to bind athletes for a maximum period of eight years, no longer than five as it was since 1981.
This will bring enormous economic advantages to clubs that will be able to make the most of performance rights, transformed into real long-term assets. This change will essentially allow teams to spread the costs of contracts over a maximum of eight years, making investments more sustainable.
In today’s edition of Corriere dello Sport, Mattia Grassani, a lawyer and expert in sports law, has described the most important consequences of the temporal extension of contractual stability. FIFA will have to adapt its regulations taking into account this innovation in Italian football.
It should be emphasised that in England this long period of time (8-10 years) has already been allowed for a few years and this explains the enormous market operations that many English teams carry out every year.
Raimondo states: “Revolution in Italian football: in the latest decree law approved by the government, the possibility of negotiating contracts of up to EIGHT years is extended. A change that aligns Serie A with other European realities.
“[…] To stem the flow and take away power from the agents, a first solution could be legislative intervention. Therefore the modification of art. 5 of the Law of 23 March 1981, n. 91 thus extending the maximum contractual duration of 5 years (in Spain it is already 6).
“An enlightened Federation would have already activated the right political channels for an amendment of that type. In doing so, the protection of the team that ‘owns’ the player would be extended in a conspicuous manner and would be more flexible given that clubs could offer a long contract duration, designing it in a way that encourages the player to sign it.
“For example, with a basic salary that increases progressively over the years based on the team’s personal results. But not only that: a longer contract would also lighten the burden of amortisation, therefore the cost for each season of the relative item in the income statement.
“But not only that: imagine also the possibility of stipulating 4/5 year contracts with unilateral options in favour of the club for another 3/4 years. The infamous ‘Granovskaia clauses’ with which Chelsea protected themselves to maintain bargaining power and always get something from the sales.
“Finally the future I imagined has arrived. Better late than never.”
I like the idea of five year maximums, but sadly this is needed to give an extra chance to compete with English clubs. It will mean teams spending more than they should because they can spread the payments longer for UEFA though.
This can easily make things worse. Dud players like Origi can end up on the books for nearly a decade. The flip side is that young talents could be signed long term for relatively cheap, that if they developed they’ll be under club control for some prime years, avoiding Donnarumma situations.
Depends how its worded. The Granovskaia clause as alluded to there, gave the club (chelsea) the option to auto-extend not the player. So if we can make this the norm, then someone like Origi would not be extended, while Leao would for example.
True, but that kind of clause can be used now. An extension is technically a new contract, the clock begins to run anew, so there is nothing preventing clubs from having auto-extensions written into contracts right now.