You know very well that the contracts between a football club and a player is not comparable to the ones between your regular salaryman and his employer.
Those contracts are worth millions, this is why players have so much leverage. Bar?a can decide they are fed up with Umtiti and Demb?l? and not to pay them but then the players would be free to sign wherever they want as the contract could be nulled. They could ask compensation since Bar?a is the one to break unilaterally the contract. Why do you think clubs keep loaning unwanted players ?
If Bar?a don't want to pay full wage to players like Demb?l? and Umtiti they should have made contracts with clauses related to the number of games played. It is entirely possible but players and their agents would obviously fight against it.
And i know you are a Bar?a fan but this situation happens in every club. Bayern had Ribey and Robben often injured, let alone Coman who is Demb?l? 2.0 injury wise. PSG paid even more money on Neymar (wage + transfer fee) than Bar?a on Demb?l? + Umtiti and Neymar missed half of the games. What about Oxlade Chamberlain at Liverpool ?
It sucks for the clubs but the risk is more than often worth it, reason why clubs keep doing it and don't go bust even with two players "stealing" a living.
I agree with you about the regular employee/employer : if the employee is not doing what he is paid for, you better get rid of him.
To be honest, I am not aware of UEFA's contract rules and regulations, but I believe as you have mentioned in your post that the clubs can annul any contract if the player has not participated in certain amount of games in the calendar year. In that case of course the player has the right to choose where he will play next. In that case, here is how the American professional sport clubs resolve this problem.
Lets just say (for example) Umtiti's weekly salary with Barcelona is 13 000. After the annulment of his contract with them, he signed with Newcastle Utd. But the EPL club is willing to pay him 10 000 per week. That difference of 3000 goes to Barcelona. They have to pay the difference till the end of their previous contract with Umtiti, which I believe was June 6, 2023. That is fair. Barcelona will freed an roster spot and save 40 000 a month. Umtiti will have the chance to play more regularly and eventually regain his previous form. That is how it should be.
Now. "You know very well that the contracts between a football club and a player is not comparable to the ones between regular salary-man and his employer."
Exactly. They are not comparable. A regular salary worker gets 100 times less than a football player per week. Exactly for that reason, it should be a lot easier for a club president to get rid of always injured players because that cost the club millions. Can you sense my point? The loses for that football club from two players like Umtiti and Dembele would be 100 time more than the owner of a company where two injured salary employees work. And for that reason the Spanish Royal Federation and UEFA have to rewrite all this rules that concern situations like this one.
Bottom point is. No matter if you are a football player or regular salary worker in a company, when you don't work, you don't get pad. Every professional player in Europe or USA is very well insured. In cases like Umtiti, Dembele or whoever else you want to name, that Insurance Company has to cover about 75-80% of his salary. If Barcelona have to pay 100% of their wages without getting any contribution from them, then why all this players pay for insurance?
