Topic: Joël Matip (Job Joël André Matip)

[number 168]

Few weeks back on the bbc website,a sports lawyer said that for a contract and players registration to be ratified by fifa,it has to contain a clause so that the club is LEGALLY OBLIGED to release players for internationals.

Possibly, but it's not the club blocking him going Matip has decided himself. That clause would be negated in this case and I reckon we/he could sue under restraint if trade,

[Nessy76]

I reluctantly understand the principle behind that, what I find frustrating is the volition of the player doesn't seem to be given any consideration. It's fucking scandalous.

It's also quite clearly restraint of trade and therefore legally worthless. Joel Matip has no contract with the Cameroon FA. They can no more order him to travel to Africa than they could anybody else. It is patently ridiculous. By taking this stance they are preventing him from doing his job for his legal employers. The fact that FIFA forces players to comply with this is not evidence in their favour. He would not be able to earn his living if they refused to ratify his registration, so he has no choice but to agree to their demands. That is clearly unfair and wouldn't stand up in any reasonable court. As an EU citizen, he has just about the most comprehensive employee rights on the planet. FIFA doesn't have the power to overrule that. FIFA is not above the law.

Compared to Bosman this is simple.

The only recourse FIFA might have is if Matip had not provided written notice that he wasn't going to be available for selection. Even that is unlikely to hold up in court, but it would then be an administrative matter rather than a contractual one.

I hope we, or someone else, does take this to court and we can put an end to this bullshit once and for all. A man has the right to decide whether he wants to play a game of football that it is not part of his job to play. The club are his employers and hired him in good faith to do a job. The Cameroon FA are not a party to Joel Matip's contract of employment, did not train or develop him and have no rights at all in the player.

[thekitkatshuffler]

Few weeks back on the bbc website,a sports lawyer said that for a contract and players registration to be ratified by fifa,it has to contain a clause so that the club is LEGALLY OBLIGED to release players for internationals. 

Cameroon didn't call him up and we didn't block him from going.  The whole thing is nonsense and I can understand us taking our chances and just playing him.

[classycarra]

As someone alluded to on the last page, fifa should be shit scared at the prospect of a precedent being set in favour of players here. International football, and the pathetic friendlies they are forced to play, is a huge earner for fifa and national FAs.

Just make it clear, in writing, that we're playing Matip since they haven't been arsed to sort anything. And make it just as clear (as we have through the echo) that we're confident of resolving this legally if needed. I'd be delighted if we as a club could set a precedent that fucks international friendlies up even a little bit

[John C]

It's also quite clearly restraint of trade and therefore legally worthless. Joel Matip has no contract with the Cameroon FA. They can no more order him to travel to Africa than they could anybody else. It is patently ridiculous. By taking this stance they are preventing him from doing his job for his legal employers. The fact that FIFA forces players to comply with this is not evidence in their favour. He would not be able to earn his living if they refused to ratify his registration, so he has no choice but to agree to their demands. That is clearly unfair and wouldn't stand up in any reasonable court. As an EU citizen, he has just about the most comprehensive employee rights on the planet. FIFA doesn't have the power to overrule that. FIFA is not above the law.

Compared to Bosman this is simple.

The only recourse FIFA might have is if Matip had not provided written notice that he wasn't going to be available for selection. Even that is unlikely to hold up in court, but it would then be an administrative matter rather than a contractual one.

I hope we, or someone else, does take this to court and we can put an end to this bullshit once and for all. A man has the right to decide whether he wants to play a game of football that it is not part of his job to play. The club are his employers and hired him in good faith to do a job. The Cameroon FA are not a party to Joel Matip's contract of employment, did not train or develop him and have no rights at all in the player.

Yep, I agree entirely.

[Nelly82]

The most highlighted part of this situation is FIFA's total incompetence. The buck passing pricks!

[cdav]

Just seen on twitter (Chris Bascombe) that Matip would have been eligible to play for Cameroon in a world cup qualifier (after retiring) on 17th November 2015 but played for Schalke instead on 21st November. If Cameroon had rejected permission, he would have been ruled out to the 23rd so no issues previously- what has changed since?

[plura]

It's also quite clearly restraint of trade and therefore legally worthless. Joel Matip has no contract with the Cameroon FA. They can no more order him to travel to Africa than they could anybody else. It is patently ridiculous. By taking this stance they are preventing him from doing his job for his legal employers. The fact that FIFA forces players to comply with this is not evidence in their favour. He would not be able to earn his living if they refused to ratify his registration, so he has no choice but to agree to their demands. That is clearly unfair and wouldn't stand up in any reasonable court. As an EU citizen, he has just about the most comprehensive employee rights on the planet. FIFA doesn't have the power to overrule that. FIFA is not above the law.

Compared to Bosman this is simple.

The only recourse FIFA might have is if Matip had not provided written notice that he wasn't going to be available for selection. Even that is unlikely to hold up in court, but it would then be an administrative matter rather than a contractual one.

I hope we, or someone else, does take this to court and we can put an end to this bullshit once and for all. A man has the right to decide whether he wants to play a game of football that it is not part of his job to play. The club are his employers and hired him in good faith to do a job. The Cameroon FA are not a party to Joel Matip's contract of employment, did not train or develop him and have no rights at all in the player.

Well put.

You sort of think in a somewhat of a dream scenario that this farce ends ASAP, Cameroon FA publicly speaks out on this matter and from their part resolves it to Joel's wishes and lastly FIFA gets dissolved or this time around genuinely turned around for the better. 

[Machae]

It's also quite clearly restraint of trade and therefore legally worthless.

I hope we, or someone else, does take this to court and we can put an end to this bullshit once and for all. A man has the right to decide whether he wants to play a game of football that it is not part of his job to play.

There's the crux of the argument, Liverpool take it to court and would most probably win, which would set a huge precedent and ramifications for World football. The problem is clubs rarely do and instead moan a little and get on with things.

Really wish they do threaten with legal action and destroy this inept organisation.

[21]

The issue is money.

CFA see a golden opportunity here. If we were skint and or low profile like the Ev then it would be a non-issue.

In the western world it’d probably be called a bribe but in most of Africa it’s just business baby.

[lfc79]

The only issue in relation to  court action would be the idea that international sporting competitions are worthwhile objective under EU law to allow for some derivations as seen with the transfer system, training compensation.
But any measures need to be proportionate to their aims.
In this case FIFA requiring players contacts to include clause requiring clubs to relase them for international duty does that, it protects the rights of players to represent their national team, however ti clearly a right to be conferred on players, to have the freedom to play international football, which clubs may prefer them not too.
However when a player makes it clear they don't want to play attempts to force them through coercion are in no way proportionate to the aim.
Quite simply I would like to see the club take this all the way through the courts and smash the smug useless FIFA.

[Doc Red]

I'm shocked, I tell you, SHOCKED, to see FIFA's ineptness at the heart of all this confusion.
You've got it wrong, that suitcase full of donations shouldn't be heading towards Cameroon, it should be addressed to Zurich. Poor FIFA officials, they probably don't even know how to start any sort of procedure without envelopes of cash being strewn around the meeting room.

We made the mistake of assuming they work akin to any other corporation that provides a service towards clubs. I tell you what,  officials from our side also deserve part of the blame. We've already had firsthand experience on the way FIFA deals with these sorts of technical issues.  Why did we wait so long before determining their position? Why didn't we start sorting things out weeks, if not months ago, behind the scenes? Why did we not discuss things with the Cameroonian FA and reach a conclusion prior to this week?It feels like we almost dared Cameroon to include him, or not, before we thought of reacting to anything.  Being incredibly naive in these sorts of issues seems to be a recurring theme for us.

Quite frankly questions should be asked about the higher ups in the club. It's their responsibility to make sure our players are eligible to play and someone clearly messed up. FIFA have been consistent in the way they operate,  and relying on the Cameroonian FA to sort things out for us, the same FA that regularly has issues with player payments and generally requires a player strike before they pay, is like relying on an drug addict to deposit your cash in the bank.

[Frizzo]

It's in the rules.

Fair enough mate, sorry I realise that may have come across as me having a dig at you.

I'm just astounded if (as it seems) that's the actual rules.

[Anfield89]

Fair enough mate, sorry I realise that may have come across as me having a dig at you.

I'm just astounded if (as it seems) that's the actual rules.

Think everybody is with this whole situation. From what I've read if it's sorted in our favour he'll be cleared play if not we could have to wait for Cameroon to exit the competition

[Fromola]

If we can't play him then Cameroon should pay his wages for that period. How can we be expected to pay for a player we can't play?

[RedKenWah]

Would there be any consequences to our league position should Matip just play in this cup game come Wednesday?

Personally I'd just leave well alone, keep him away until it's absolutely safe to play him. We wouldn't want to win the league and then FIFA decide to deduct points because of this and end up costing us because that is the type of thing they'd do. With us being the big club, it'll be about setting an example and punishing us severely to make a point. 

[theMilkman]

Would there be any consequences to our league position should Matip just play in this cup game come Wednesday?

Personally I'd just leave well alone, keep him away until it's absolutely safe to play him. We wouldn't want to win the league and then FIFA decide to deduct points because of this and end up costing us because that is the type of thing they'd do. With us being the big club, it'll be about setting an example and punishing us severely to make a point.

different competitions, so the league should not be affected regardless (i think). absolute worst is we get expelled from the FA cup.

[nico 8]

The issue is money.

CFA see a golden opportunity here. If we were skint and or low profile like the Ev then it would be a non-issue.

In the western world it’d probably be called a bribe but in most of Africa it’s just business baby.

It's business as usual in first world countries as well. Look no further than FIFA.

[Barneylfc∗]

I'm shocked, I tell you, SHOCKED, to see FIFA's ineptness at the heart of all this confusion.
You've got it wrong, that suitcase full of donations shouldn't be heading towards Cameroon, it should be addressed to Zurich. Poor FIFA officials, they probably don't even know how to start any sort of procedure without envelopes of cash being strewn around the meeting room.

We made the mistake of assuming they work akin to any other corporation that provides a service towards clubs. I tell you what,  officials from our side also deserve part of the blame. We've already had firsthand experience on the way FIFA deals with these sorts of technical issues.  Why did we wait so long before determining their position? Why didn't we start sorting things out weeks, if not months ago, behind the scenes? Why did we not discuss things with the Cameroonian FA and reach a conclusion prior to this week?It feels like we almost dared Cameroon to include him, or not, before we thought of reacting to anything.  Being incredibly naive in these sorts of issues seems to be a recurring theme for us.

Quite frankly questions should be asked about the higher ups in the club. It's their responsibility to make sure our players are eligible to play and someone clearly messed up. FIFA have been consistent in the way they operate,  and relying on the Cameroonian FA to sort things out for us, the same FA that regularly has issues with player payments and generally requires a player strike before they pay, is like relying on an drug addict to deposit your cash in the bank.

When did we first start asking about this and how many times have we asked? Are you party to that information? 
The club's statement says they've asked repeatedly, but got no answer. I remember this being discussed a few months ago. If it was discussed on here a few months ago, I'd be pretty confident the club were acting upon it a few months ago.

[Nick110581]

What's the situation with Nyom at WBA?

[Doc Red]

When did we first start asking about this and how many times have we asked? Are you party to that information? 
The club's statement says they've asked repeatedly, but got no answer. I remember this being discussed a few months ago. If it was discussed on here a few months ago, I'd be pretty confident the club were acting upon it a few months ago.

How were they acting upon it? Are you assuming they've been having negotations behind the scenes for months and the end result is we still lack any clarity on the situation? Or did they fire off a couple of emails and wait for a response? Why didn't they release statements to show the situation and put pressure on FIFA.  Even the response from FIFA makes it seem like we contacted them and they replied and that was that.
How inept do we ahve to be to actually have been in contact with FIFA for months, and not get any headway in something as simple as clarifying if Matip is available to play or not.

[Barneylfc∗]

What's the situation with Nyom at WBA?

The same

http://mobile.wba.co.uk//news/article/2016-17/wba-west-brom-cameroon-fa-fifa-3518553.aspx

[Barneylfc∗]

How were they acting upon it? Are you assuming they've been having negotations behind the scenes for months and the end result is we still lack any clarity on the situation? Or did they fire off a couple of emails and wait for a response? Why didn't they release statements to show the situation and put pressure on FIFA.  Even the response from FIFA makes it seem like we contacted them and they replied and that was that.
How inept do we ahve to be to actually have been in contact with FIFA for months, and not get any headway in something as simple as clarifying if Matip is available to play or not.

As above, it's the exact same situation with West Brom. So they're inept aswell? Not the officials at Cameroon being utter ballbags?

[Doc Red]

The same

http://mobile.wba.co.uk//news/article/2016-17/wba-west-brom-cameroon-fa-fifa-3518553.aspx

Note that they state "The Baggies have made strenuous efforts all week to clarify Nyom’s eligibility to play at White Hart Lane."
I don't think any of the clubs were working on this behind the scenes for months. I'm willing to bet they waited to see if the players would be included into the final squads before deciding their next moves.

[Barneylfc∗]

Note that they state "The Baggies have made strenuous efforts all week to clarify Nyom’s eligibility to play at White Hart Lane."
I don't think any of the clubs were working on this behind the scenes for months. I'm willing to bet they waited to see if the players would be included into the final squads before deciding their next moves.

But that doesn't mean they didn't send an email or fax or whatever a few months ago. They would obviously have had to wait on the clearance after the squad announcement, which neither us nor West Brom have had. It shouldn't take this long, and it's the Cameroon officials dragging it out, not LFC or West Brom.

[Doc Red]

But that doesn't mean they didn't send an email or fax or whatever a few months ago. They would obviously have had to wait on the clearance after the squad announcement, which neither us nor West Brom have had. It shouldn't take this long, and it's the Cameroon officials dragging it out, not LFC or West Brom.

I understand where you're coming from, the Cameroonian FA and FIFA could have gotten this sorted out ages ago. But we knew this months ago, we knew we were in a grey area and we would be dealing with two entities that havea  track record of ineptness (and corruption). Heck, I'm sure some posters probably brought up this very scenario months ago on this thread, so why weren't we ready for it? We couldn't have sent an official to clarify this in Zurich months ago? We couldn't have done the same with the Cameroonian FA?
We couldn't have asked, asumming "XYZ", can we proceed with "ABC"?

We didn't need to be in the situation to start discussing hypotheticals months earlier. There were literally only two options, either the FA gave us permission or they didn't, and if they didn't either we could field him or we couldn't (or we field him and get punished for it). Yes, they're to blame, but so are we because we knew months ago we would be dealing with two inept entities and Matip was a player that was a big part of our team, and we didn't seem to make a lot of effort solving the issue in advance and only seem to have started things rolling over the latter few weeks or so. And the other clubs are also just as partial responsible as us. Heck, the Cameroonian national team seemingly goes into every world cup either on strike or threatening a strike due to their FA's false promises and gestures. If we're dealing with fish, we shouldn't be surprised if they like to get wet, and if we're dealing with monkeys, don't be surprised they want to climb trees.

I'm ranting, but Liverpool as a club just seem to be naive when it comes to dealing with FIFA and Zurich. We assume everyone will do the right thing simply because they should.

[Bunter]

I just don't get it. He's not in the squad and hasn't been for a while... yet all of sudden it's become an issue whether we can play him?

[CraigDS]

I just don't get it. He's not in the squad and hasn't been for a while... yet all of sudden it's become an issue whether we can play him?

Well it's not an issue when he's not in the squad, so of course it only becomes one when he's able to play.

I said it earlier in the thread, I really wouldn't mind betting this situation has been on going for a while now, and we used the high profile nature of the United game to being it into the public eye to put pressure on FIFA for an answer, when in reality it's probably unlikely (he was out a while and had only trained a few days) he was going to play a part.

[paulrazor]

I just don't get it. He's not in the squad and hasn't been for a while... yet all of sudden it's become an issue whether we can play him?

what do you expect from Fifa. This is probably their deciding committee

[PhilV]

6 more games he could miss they are not saying? Am I being overly simplistic or could LFC/FIFA Representative/Cameroon FA Representative no have a Video Conference or something and just go:

• He isn't in current Cameroon Squad
• He has retired officially
• What is the hold up and how do we sort it TODAY?

Whilst I am happy the club have made this public us just sitting waiting for a response is fucking shite, Cameroon FA are obviously useless!

[Giono]

This has more to do with FIFA politics than anything. They don't want to upset African nations as a group by allowing this to easily be done.

The optics are a player who chose to play for an African country in the World Cup, declines when it comes to the African Cup. I would guess that if it was a European player declining to play in the Euros there would not be a problem.

[redtel]

6 more games he could miss they are not saying? Am I being overly simplistic or could LFC/FIFA Representative/Cameroon FA Representative no have a Video Conference or something and just go:

• He isn't in current Cameroon Squad
• He has retired officially
• What is the hold up and how do we sort it TODAY?

Whilst I am happy the club have made this public us just sitting waiting for a response is fucking shite, Cameroon FA are obviously useless!

Because there is no will to sort it from FIFA or Cameroon FA.

They are playing politics and are setting an example of not just Matip but any of the players who have refused to go to the ANC.

They see the tournament being devalued and don't like it. I don't believe they have the power to prevent a player carrying out his trade as his club is paying him but the only way forward is to test the water.

Play him and wait for a response. We appear to be doing that.

Blaming LFC is silly. We have no idea to what lengths they have gone to in order to solve the issue.

[No Way José]

He should play for them, turn up, knock in 5 own goals and make sure he's never picked again.
Job done 😊

[JackWard33]

If FIFA has said it's not a matter for them and it's between us and Cameroon I don't see why he can't just play him. There's a Liverpool echo saying 'play in defiance of FIFA' but he wouldn't be playing in defiance of anything

[reddebs]

I think the issue here is the ambiguity in the wording of "International retirement".

As I understand it there has to be agreement between the manager and the player that the player is no longer available for selection and Matip had that agreement with the last Cameroon manager after the falling out.  It seems that he doesn't have and never has had that agreement with the new manager and until he does he has to be available for selection.

Now I know he wasn't selected in the final 23 man squad but their manager was quite clear that he would object to him playing for his club whilst the tournament was on, hence why FIFA have said it's up to Cameroon to allow him to play or not. 

I doubt Cameroon will let it drop if he plays and I've no idea what penalties we might incur if he does but as an ex footy club secretary the rules are he's currently ineligible to play for us so expulsion from the competition he plays in, a points deduction if a league game, a ban and/or a fine are all possibilities.

Sure it could be challenged in court, course it's against European Human Rights but it's never been challenged before so we have no precedent to know what our chances are.

As a club are we prepared to be excluded from the FA Cup this and possibly next season?   Miss him possible for a few months with a ban?   Take a points deduction and miss out on European footy next season (if it's say 10 points)? 

It's a massive fuck up purely down to that international ruling.

[Frizzo]

If FIFA has said it's not a matter for them and it's between us and Cameroon I don't see why he can't just play him. There's a Liverpool echo saying 'play in defiance of FIFA' but he wouldn't be playing in defiance of anything

Yeah, ok Jack.

Bringing your logic to our proceedings, this is FIFA mate.

Away with that sort of thing, taa.

[CraigDS]

If FIFA has said it's not a matter for them and it's between us and Cameroon I don't see why he can't just play him. There's a Liverpool echo saying 'play in defiance of FIFA' but he wouldn't be playing in defiance of anything

I think it's because it is not a FIFA issue until he plays, at which point it would then become their issue (potentially).

[mc_red22]

Note that they state "The Baggies have made strenuous efforts all week to clarify Nyom’s eligibility to play at White Hart Lane."
I don't think any of the clubs were working on this behind the scenes for months. I'm willing to bet they waited to see if the players would be included into the final squads before deciding their next moves.

Matip has been in contact with the Cameroon boss on numerous occasions and the last I heard, he had wrote a letter to the Cameroon FA saying he wishes not to be selected. That there should have been the end of it. It's irrelevant of how long we've been in contact with FIFA for, Matip has been i contact with them for much longer, this issue has been going on for years. Why would we as a club think there would be a problem if Matip has said he wishes not to be called up an endless amount of times and even wrote to the fuckers?

[Red Beret]

Can't the FA grow a pair ?

The only swift response you can expect from the FA is if Cameroon start screaming down the phone to dock us points, fine us and throw us out of whichever competitions Matip features in should we play him.  The FA fucking hate us.

On a side note, we're in the middle of a transfer window.  Klopp can arrange cover if he chooses.  To my mind a failure to land silverware this season will have very little to do with the absence of Matip should it happen.  Our season is far more pivotal on Mané and Coutinho imo. 

[Doc Red]

Matip has been in contact with the Cameroon boss on numerous occasions and the last I heard, he had wrote a letter to the Cameroon FA saying he wishes not to be selected. That there should have been the end of it. It's irrelevant of how long we've been in contact with FIFA for, Matip has been i contact with them for much longer, this issue has been going on for years. Why would we as a club think there would be a problem if Matip has said he wishes not to be called up an endless amount of times and even wrote to the fuckers?

Simply because the rules clearly indicate otherwise. If it was that simple, we wouldn't in this situation. It's been mentioned countless of times in this thread, a player cannot simply up and retire if their respective FA's choose not to accept it. Ridiculous as that may sound, that was, and is, the current rule. Just deciding we'd ignore all that and use common sense isn't going to fly, especially as we're dealing with two parties that have as much in common with common sense as I have in common with Common.