As it has been published in press, Kylian Mbappé, a football player (soccer in the USA), has communicated to his employer, the club Paris Saint Germain, that he intends to fulfil his contract, but not to extend it. That means playing for the club during next season and leaving it afterwards, to play somewhere else. The football club has expressed his intention to sell the player unless he accepts to extend his contract beyond the remaining year, lest he leaves without the club receiving any money for the sale.
Here, when we talk about a sale, we don´t mean that a man is sold as the property of another (or of a football club), as in the case of slavery. What is sold is the contract that links a worker to his employer, the labour affiliation instead of the person as a being. However, one thing evokes the other as the language we use when referring to these events clearly shows.
Football clubs (and employers in general) have an organization that depends on their employees. When a worker breaks his contract and leaves the company, that can produce a damage that needs to be compensated in a way that is commensurate with the circumstances. Similarly, when the employer dismisses an employee, he has to pay some severance money to compensate him.
It seems odd to me that football players in some countries can´t leave their employment without the approval of their employers, no matter the compensation, and can be forced to remain in their club for years until their contract expires. In a time when even marriage contracts can be broken unilaterally, this is peculiar and resembles a temporary serfdom. I am also struck by the compensation some players have to pay to their clubs when they leave, many millions of euros, the equivalent to many and many years of their salary. This doesn´t appear to be a proportionate compensation for the damage they cause.
This is not a racial issue. Mbappé being black has nothing to do with the situation, which applies equally to white players. However, when a man is pressurized to keep on working against his will beyond the duration of his contract, or threatened to be sold if he refuses, reminiscences of slavery come to mind. Then, the race helps to evoke events of the past that we better don´t forget.
It is easy to dismiss the woes of wealthy football players who earn millions every year. When most people struggle to make ends meet working all day long, it doesn´t appear too troublesome to be forced to play football in exchange for a fortune (plus fame and other perks). Even if envy didn´t come into this, it seems there are bigger problems to address.
Indeed, there are bigger problems. There is a war between a nuclear power and an invaded nation. The ecological crisis is not advancing towards a resolution. Global economy doesn´t precisely bloom, etc. But the rules that regulate the job market are important for everyone. If high class employees can be bullied, lower class ones have every reason to worry.
Football players are treated like merchandise (luxurious as it might be), bought and sold without embarrassment, setting a standard for how people can be treated by the economy.
It should be easy to establish what a fair compensation would be when an employee wants to leave his employer abruptly and unilaterally. I would propose that the equivalent to the salary for a determined period of time could be a proportionate measure for a quick departure. Also, it could be considered appropriate that if the employee gives a reasonable notice before leaving his post, he shouldn’t have to pay compensation. These are possible arrangements, there might be others.
What worries me is that we are publicly treating people as merchandise. As if they were properties to be bought and sold in a public market. This reeks of a slave trade, even when the players aren´t black.
Comentarios recientes