Harry_Perkins
Ben Thatcher
Well, that didn't happen after 1963 when the retain aspect of the system was abolished after it was defeated in the courts. Like with the maximum wage being abolished, I don't think either had a massive impact on the competitiveness of the game anyway. The FA were maybe being too cautious on both fronts. That said, what you describe was rarely much of an issue. The reason players are so keen to move now is for more money and the chance to play in the CL/win trophies. Before clubs were allowed to keep more and more of their income, naturally, the gap in income between clubs in the top flight (and in fact, the whole football league) was much smaller than it is today. Therefore, the league was more competitive and the wages players could earn did not differ greatly. And certainly before 1961, you could only earn a maximum wage. If you were at a club like Tottenham and they were struggling, there was no one really about to poach you, offer you more money and guarantee trophies every year. So you were 'forced' to stay.
Take the example of Glenn Hoddle staying with Tottenham when we were relegated in 1977. He was one of the best young players in the country at the time. Just imagine that happening now? It would be like Rooney having gone down with Everton but still playing for them in the Championship. It just doesn't happen anymore. Or even after that, we signed Ossie Ardlies as a newly promoted club! LOL. He was a world cup winner, ffs. One of the best performers at that. Yet he joined a club that had been struggling for a few years before finally being relegated. Why? Well, why not? He wasn't going to earn much more at other English clubs and we offered a good a chance as winning trophies as most of the others.
But whilst there is a case against the system pre-1963, what was wrong with the system post-1963? After that, if you came to the end of your contract and still wanted to leave then your club, in practice, had to accept an offer from another club. But it couldn't be a tinkle take offer. Arsenal, for example, would have had to pay 20m for Sol Campbell. If we still refused the offer, it would go to tribunal, where they risked the tribunal setting the fee higher. What was majorly wrong with that system? We still have the registration system now and you still have to pay a fee for the registration of a player. If the club doesn't get an acceptable offer and the player is under contract then the player can't leave. As was the case with Modric last year and in numerous other cases. In practice, however, the player is usually allowed to leave at some point.
All Bosman did was say that you can't demand a fee when the contract has run out. We lost a player we'd nurtured for decades to our nearest rivals for nothing because of this! Of course, clubs have adapted and try to sell before the contracts run out now. But it is still leaves the power in the hands of richer clubs. A large part of why we sold Berbatov and Carrick to Man Utd was because a) they wanted to leave but more importantly b) they had 2 years left on their contracts. If not, then we might have done what we did with Modric last year. I don't think it has/had a massive impact but it is another little advantage for already wealthy clubs against the less wealthy. One that they really don't need!
So sneer all you want at the old regulations but they were put in place for good sensible reasons and not because they wanted to arbitrarily punish players. They were geniune custodians of the game, concerned about the richer city clubs coming to dominate everyone else. Of course I prefer that to today, where the people who run the game and owners of the clubs are by no means custodians. Most are in it for a quick buck and don't give a damn about the long term future. They'll have sold their shares and long gone by then. The early FA rules were put in place for reasons which are now all too evident and will continue to become evident until something is done. That or until people, bored, starting walking away.