Messi983
Senior Member
Muniain having no release clause must be a bureaucratic workaround which is why clubs would rather set an unrealistic release clause rather than doing what Athletic has done.
“This was a way to show my loyalty to the club” was Muniain's words when he signed that contract.
Why is that worth more than what Pedri is doing with the 1bn release clause? No club is going to pay that, Pedri is about as 'stuck' at his club as Muniain is.
Because it shows that club trust a player won't leave even if he gets a much better offer and on the other side player also knows club won't sell him against his will. It's a harder commitment from my standpoint than setting a high clause.
For me they're necessary. There's no excuse for a footballer to walk around unshowered with the salaries they're on. At worst use the facilities in the changing room.
Clubs can always demand unrealistic high prices for players they don't want to sell. It works so in other leagues with no obligatory clauses. If a club can afford to reject 20m, 50m or 100m offers for their best players then so be it. If they have to sell then they will often sell even below player's BO clause anyway.
The only thing obligatory BO clause in La Liga has done recently is clubs losing their important players for a price they would probably never agree to sell them. Not even talking about Neymar here. Clubs like Betis, Celta, Valencia, Villarreal and even Sevilla have all lost their starters clubs for something like 15-20m when they would surely prefer to either keep them or sell them for more. And all this affected overall quality and competitivness of La Liga as well. Why Betis shouldn't be allowed to squeeze out 40-50m from a rich EPL club for Fabian Ruiz instead of Napoli paying his 30m clause? OTOH mid/low table La Liga clubs were buying best Segunda players/talents for just 1-2m instead of those smaller clubs potentially earning more selling them abroad (since clubs like Eibar or Levante would have problems paying 5-10m but most EPL clubs wouldn't have problems paying that for a solid 2nd division prospect). Would they do that? We don't know but at least smaller clubs would have better options to get more money.
I think it is just clubs banking on players not challenging the buyout clauses in court. They are illegal but since no one complains they will be ok.
I actually think that buyout clauses will sooner or later be obligatory in all football world. Player association has already negotiated it with FIFA, I think it will be reality in couple of decades
How are they illegal?
Last edited: