Is Carlos Tevez the Real Modern Day Slave?

By: Daryl | May 15th, 2009

Remember when Sepp Blatter likened Cristiano Ronaldo’s position at Man Utd to “modern day slavery“? It was stupid then, and it’s stupid now. But I can’t help thinking that if any professional footballer is in a slave-like position right now, it’s actually Carlos Tevez.

Ronaldo was simply under contract to a football team who didn’t want to sell him to another football team. Tevez is… well, we don’t know exactly what Tevez’ situation is. But he’s basically owned by a group of men fronted by Kia Joorabchian.

Maybe “owned” is a strong word. But they do own his economic rights, which in football terms mean they own him. These men have “loaned” Tevez to Man Utd for about £4 million a year. Man Utd pay his wages (and I’ll bet Joorabchian and co. are taking a % of those wages in agents fees) and when that loan period expires next month they’re asking for something like £20 million if Man Utd want to sign him permanently. Otherwise they’ll just loan or sell him on to another big team next season.

So these man have final say over which team Tevez plays for and they don’t pay Tevez any wages. But they do plan to get rich off of his labour. Everything about that seems very very wrong.

Some Related Stories:

Category: World Football

« Weekend Predictions: Man Utd, Marseille and Munich | Home | Censoring The Nat’l Anthem Will Get You Canned »

The Offside RSS Feeds

aj

Ibracadabra, I was under the impression that United agreed a price to buy him when they signed him on loan, but they have chosen not to take this option. Is this incorrect?
aj

He gets paid lots of money, therefore he is not a slave. The real modern day slaves are slaves. Slavery still exists. To suggest that a professional footballer, who is paid millions, is a slave was stupid when Sepp Blatter said it and it is stupid now.
Ibracadabra

yeah Blatter is really off the reservation - http://socialbaron.wordpress.c...

as for 3rd party ownership - it's sketchy, but at the end of the day - the player is getting paid high wages either way - and agents/handlers are omnipresent whether they have official 3rd party ownership or not.

if tevez scores against arsenal tomorrow or barcelona in the CL Final, it may ironically actually HURT United whilst helping them- as his price will just go up even higher.
Afshin

"Slave"?! Come on! Carlos is doing fine thank you! He is an excellent footballer and he is getting paid good money. Could he do better? Yes he could, but to suggest that he is a slave because the club does not own his contract outright is great exaggeration.
Drabik

I dont think there is a date on the contract im afraid. Why anyone would sign a contract with no length is beyond me!
Rob

Kenny - It just makes things complicated though, the clubs don't "own" players they employ them. Tevez is employed by Man United, but they don't get any of the rights that that would usually entail (like compensation if he goes someplace else).
Rob

Indeed, Liverpool basically just bought Masch outright, which someone needs to do with Carlito, its just the cost.
kenny

There is no big difference to me than a club "owning" a player.
Dan

I think Liverpool just paid a lot of money for his services. I read something that the South American clubs are now pressuring the authorities to outlaw third party ownership. Obviously not before time.
el_horse

How did they sort out mascherano? He was in a similar situation...
Rob

Everything about the whole thing is ridiculously wrong really. I've no idea why the powers that be haven't just said "No man can own a player" or whatever.