CAS Says Messi, Rafinha and Diego Must Return to Clubs (If Called)
Just when you thought the club vs country Olympic argument was settled…
The Court of Arbitration for Sport has sided with Barcelona, Schalke 04 and Werder Bremen by ruling that its NOT mandatory for clubs to releases Under 23 players for the Olympics. CAS found that releasing U-23 players was “customary” but – because the Olympics isn’t in the FIFA calendar – not mandatory.
“The Olympic Football Tournament Beijing 2008 is not included in the Co-ordinated Match Calendar and there is no specific decision of the Fifa Executive Committee establishing the obligation for the clubs to release players under 23 for this tournament,” read a CAS statement.
“The requirements to justify a legal obligation of clubs to release their players for the Football Tournament Beijing 2008 on the basis of customary law are not met.”
And so the court says Leo Messi, Rafinha and Diego have to pack their Beijing bags and return to their clubs. But it’s not as simple as that…
Rafinha and Diego both went to China against the will of their clubs, and it’s not clear whether the CAS ruling will have any affect on their decision. Certainly a CAS ruling that releasing U-23 players was mandatory would have vindicated the two absentees, but the ruling that it’s not doesn’t necessarily mean they’ll return.
UPDATE: – Schalke and Bremen have cleared Rafinha and Diego to play in the Olympics and won’t be recalling them.
With Leo Messi it’s even more complicated. He didn’t meet up with the Argentina squad until Sepp Blatter made it known that – in his eyes at least – clubs had to release players. Now Messi’s stuck between a rock and hard place.
Argentina’s first Olympic game is against Cote d’Ivoire and kicks off tomorrow. Argentina coach Sergio Batista expects Messi to stay and play: “He [Messi] will be on the start list for tomorrow from the beginning and I am sure he can be here with us for the rest of the competition.”
Barcelona won’t like that. They want Messi back in time for the Champions League Third Qualifying Round game against either Beitar Jerusalem or Wisla Krakow on August 12th and now they have CAS on their side.
This whole thing has gotten ridiculous now, and been left far too late (seriously, why make a ruling the day before the tournament starts?) And the bigger problem than what’s mandatory and what isn’t is the short term selfishness shown by the clubs, which has now been approved by CAS.
The reason the release of U-23 players was “customary” is because clubs had been happy to go along with it, to respect the wish of their players and to respect the Olympic tournament. Now clubs are flexing their muscles.
Here’s what Barca President Joan Laporta told our own Dave Martinez (whose interviews with Barca players and staff will be published later today)
“We are simply trying to protect our interests. That is all.”
No kidding Joan.
But do Barcelona really need Leo Messi to beat Beitar Jerusalem or Wisla Krakow? I’m sure Eto’o, Xavi, Iniesta and co can take care of it. And don’t Barca, Schalke and Bremen realize they risk permanently damaging their relationships with their players? If Diego wasn’t leaving Bremen for somewhere bigger and better before, then he almost certainly is now. (Bremen and Schalke won’t be recalling their players, see above)
 |
Soccer Forums | International Results |  |
 |  Travel |
Related Posts
Subscribe
|
Print
|
Share        |
Comments
By Dave | August 6th, 2008 at 8:03 am 
Honestly, I think Barcelona are making a huge mistake, which could potentially ruin the affection Messi has with the club. I know they pay these players’ million-dollar wages and consider them huge investment property, but still, to be so adamant that a player who has already given them so much in his few years of top-flight football cannot participate in a dream tournament of his seems like it can only cause irreparable damage.
By A. | August 6th, 2008 at 8:12 am Next step, make the Olympic tournament FIFA dates, like the WC.
Posted from 
Australia
By diana | August 6th, 2008 at 8:21 am I agree with A. That way, if the clubs want to protest, they can do so in private.
The damage has already been done even way before the CAS ruling. I can’t believe they side with the clubs. Very disappointing.
Posted from 
Singapore
By ursus arctos | August 6th, 2008 at 8:34 am They “sided with the clubs” precisely because FIFA had failed to follow A’s advice. Blatter was trying to win political points with the IOC by “insisting” on a point that he had failed to negotiate for.
From a legal perspective, it was hard to see how the CAS could have ruled otherwise.
That said, I’d be perfectly happy if Barca now agreed to let Messi stay in China, and not at all surprised if a compromise isn’t worked out.
Posted from 
Italy
By A. | August 6th, 2008 at 8:45 am I said that for purely selfish reasons: I would rather watch a good Olympic tournament with these players than a few insipid friendlies and CL third round qualifiers where Messi will likely only play around 50 minutes over two legs.
Posted from Australia
By Jan | August 6th, 2008 at 8:47 am Well, Sepp Blatter appealed to the Olympic Spirit of the clubs, yet FIFA failed to show any Olympic Spirit itself when FIFA didn’t include the tournament into the calendar and failed to make any definitive rules, for which FIFA had plenty of time ahead of the tournament. Why didn’t they do it? It wouldn’t have been that difficult, unless FIFA also followed their own agenda about protecting their World Cup brand…
Anyway, Messi, Diego and Rafinha don’t have to return. The CAS ruling just says that clubs could call them back, but neither Barcelona, Bremen or Schalke will do that. Bremen and Schalke already announced this decision a few days ago prior to the ruling.
By Daryl | August 6th, 2008 at 8:53 am Thanks Jan, didn’t know that.
By diana | August 6th, 2008 at 9:39 am Both Werder Bremen and Schalke have responded to the ruling and the report kind of repeated what Jan was saying, Daryl. At least now we have the official word from the clubs.
Posted from Singapore
By Daryl | August 6th, 2008 at 9:58 am Thanks, will update the post accordingly
By Bart | August 6th, 2008 at 10:10 am It’s Joan Laporta, not Juan Laporta. JOAN is the *Catalan* form of the Castillian JUAN!
Posted from 
Dominican Republic
By Daryl | August 6th, 2008 at 10:12 am easy there, just a typo
By Dave | August 6th, 2008 at 10:23 am Yeah, Bart, take a chill pill.
By Mauro | August 6th, 2008 at 10:55 am Olé, Argentina’s daily online sports magazine, is reporting that AFA President, Julio Grondona, has confirmed that Messi will be staying in Beijing despite today’s ruling.
Bite me, Joan Laporta.
If he is sent back to Barsa and Diego and Rafinha are allowed to continue, the fix is definitely in for Brazil to win their first gold medal.
Posted from 
United States
By Bart | August 6th, 2008 at 11:09 am hehe, sorry about that.
Posted from Dominican Republic
By kovosoccer | August 6th, 2008 at 1:10 pm Let the players play is what I say.
By cibele | August 6th, 2008 at 1:11 pm So Barcelona is plotting to Brazil win the gold medal? Hilarious. Barcelona needs Messi because of Champions League, not because they did a fix. And what Barcelona does has nothing to do with Schalke and Werder. They could have the players, but decided to let them play. If Barcelona decides, they could have Messi.
Posted from 
Brazil
By Sam | August 6th, 2008 at 2:07 pm power corrupts
money corrupts
By ajani | August 6th, 2008 at 2:37 pm considering what Barca did for Messi–and I don’t mean his career, I mean his health as a kid–I don’t think this will have much permanent damage.
By Shazback | August 6th, 2008 at 8:15 pm The ruling is anything but surprising…
FIFA planned for clubs to play their games at the same time as the Olympics. They didn’t call for an international break (like during the World Cup, Euro, Copa America), nor did they arrange for UEFA to change the games played by teams who had players involved in the Olympics to after the Olympics.
Unlike most Olympic sports, there is a problem since the employer of the athlete is not the person who decides if he participates in the Olympics. In pole vaulting, most athletes are employed by the NOC, often via or with the assistance of state or private structures. In football there is no such involvement. What the clubs have been asking for for many years now is that when players get injured during national duty, the clubs receive compensation. Honestly, this is not something surprising since the clubs pay for other employers (national federations) to “use” their employees. Werder Bremen was clear from the start, saying that Diego could go to the Olympics, but that they wanted the Brazilian FA to take an insurance in case he was injured. When the Brazilian FA said they wouldn’t, Werder said that they wanted Diego to not participate… Since they don’t have to release him (non-FIFA break).
FIFA is being excessively hypocritical, by not organising properly international breaks (they already have the problem every two years with the ACN), and now by saying that the compensation system that they have been obliged to set up for injuries to international A players doesn’t extend to players in the Olympics, the U-xx competitions or other… FIFA has been actively undermining the Olympics, and it’s completely normal that clubs ask their best players to… Play for them, and not for another employer when they aren’t obliged to by law.
For the players, it’s between a rock and a hard place. But saying the clubs should just release them to be nice when they have important games to play is pretty ridiculous. Messi would probably be one of the first to complain if Barca get knocked out of the CL, just like Rafinha might ask to leave Shalke if they don’t get into the CL proper. Players should be asking FIFA to resolve these questions, to set real “international breaks” when there are international competitions, even if we all can understand that it’s a hard task (since FIFA is limited to a certain number of “international fixtures” per year). It’s extremely unfair on the clubs who pay these players insane amounts (more per month than lots of people earn in a year, or even several years in the case of Messi) to just say that the players can go off and do what they want, and if they get injured or the club gets knocked out of an important competition because they couldn’t rely on their players then they still have to pay the wages. If I don’t show up at work, I can have all the good reasons in heaven and hell, my boss will count it as one day of the few I can take off each year. And if I take off more than that, then my salary goes down, and I might lose my job (and my boss would be entitled to seek compensation against me if I was in an important position).
FIFA needs to stop being hypocrites, and set up what the clubs are asking for. They earn insane amounts of money, and instead of giving each member of the FIFA board enough tickets for the World Cup (and other FIFA Competitions) to set up a multi-million dollar retail business, they should accept to take out an insurance on all players who participate in international games, so that the clubs receive compensation when a player gets injured on international duty. They also need to agree once and for all how many competitions there are going to be and how frequently these competitions will take place. This is related to the maelstrom of dates between the World Cup, Euro, Copa America, ACN (as well as possible junior and CONCACAF/OCF/ACF versions), but also to competitions such as the Olympics where the participation rules are devoid of sense (U-23 + 3 ?? Why not have it as a U-23? Or as a full international A competition?). Clubs are the ones that pay the players’ salaries, and they should be entitled to honest work by these players. FIFA’s idea that the clubs should be happy their players are internationals is partly correct (most clubs take pride in their players winning an important trophy or being important players of their national side), but clubs also need to rely on these players. Messi, Rafinha and Diego would probably not turn down the semi-final of the Champions’ League to go and play in the Olympics, and yet for the clubs these 3rd round games are just as important.
Posted from Australia
Comments are closed
