Tuesday, April 8, 2014

In the Best Interest of the African Child?

This week, FIFA imposed a one year ban on Barcelona FC for contravening its rules on the transfer of players under 18 years. Specifically, the club was found to be in breach of Article 19 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.





The ban centers around ten players under 18 years who were recruited by the club to its famed La Masia academy between 2009 and 2013. Among these are three players with African parentage, one Nigerian, Bobby Adekanye, and two Cameroonians, Patrice Sousia and Andrei Onana.

In taking this decision, the FIFA Disciplinary Committee sought to underline the seriousness with which it takes the protection of minors in football. The Committee stated that the "protection of minors is one of the key principles included in the agreement concluded between FIFA, UEFA and the European Commission in 2001". The Disciplinary Committee acknowledged that "young football players are vulnerable to exploitation and abuse in a foreign country without the proper controls".

Accordingly, the Committee emphasized that the protection of minors in the context of international transfers is an important social and legal issue that concerns all stakeholders in football. The Committee agreed that while international transfers might, in specific cases, be favorable to a young player’s sporting career, they are nonetheless very likely to be contrary to the best interests of the player as a minor. Thus, the committee concluded that “the interest in protecting the appropriate and healthy development of a minor as a whole must prevail over purely sporting interests.” Link

In writing this, my interest is not Barcelona, although it is a club I admire. My interest is, the best interest of the African child, the thousands of talented African kids with the ambition to be the next JJ Okocha, Kanu Nwankwo, George Weah, Samuel Eto'o or Didier Drogba.

It is instructive that the principles that motivated this Regulation, emerged from an agreement between FIFA, UEFA and the European Commission in 2001. I am left wondering, where was the African representation? In what ways did these principles recognize the specific circumstance of the African child footballer? Or does it assume the interest and the circumstance to be the same, and thus to know and act in his best interest?

While Article 19 of the Regulation expressly forbids the international transfer of players under 18 years, it creates three exceptions, one which directly impacts the African player and  states as follows:

a) 'The player’s parents move to the country in which the new club is located for reasons not linked to football'.

I would imagine that the primary intent of this provision is to help provide a stable home environment to enable these young players navigate the transition to a new life and a new culture. Why is it then necessary that the relocation of the parents be for 'reasons not linked to football'? In what specific way does the fact of the parents moving for non-footballing reasons, as opposed to reasons linked to football, help in "protecting the appropriate and healthy development of a minor"?

Commenting on this provision, Arsenal manager Arsene Wenger  suggested that the rules may need to be changed, "because there is more competition now to get the young players, and you will always be in a debate as to why did the parents move? There is more money in the game, so the parents will be tempted to give their young boys a chance to have a great career" (Link).

In my opinion, the provision for relocation of parents for reasons not linked to football, imposes an extra burden on the transfer of African young players  and thus constrains their chance to develop a successful career, without any corresponding additional benefits to the child.

It lacks understanding of the enormity of the challenge an African parent would face in adjusting to a new environment, culture, language and weather, in relocating with the child, who in any case, is often better equipped to handle such transitions. I am an African in the diaspora, and I live this reality everyday!

It appears presumptuous and arrogant and puts FIFA in the unlikely position where it assumes to know better than Bukola Mosunmola and Ademola Adekanye, what is in the best interest of  their son Bobby Adekanye.

More importantly, it is ineffective because it doesn't address the two major mechanisms through which African minors are exploited in the transfer market, fraudulent agency representation and slave contracts, both of which continue, irrespective of the age of the player!

With specific reference to Barcelona, it is  rather ironic that a law that is designed to prevent the exploitation of minors, is punishing a team, whose facilities and conditions of work, as well as the management of young players is probably of the highest standard in the world.

It has been argued that this will force U-17 players to stay at home and play locally until they are 18. But this does not address the primary economic factors behind the desire of young, talented African footballers to move to Europe. Besides, many of the clubs interested in U-17 African players would simply conclude agreements with them and wait for a year, as may already be the case with some of Nigeria's championship winning players.

Like FIFA, I too believe that protecting the appropriate and healthy development of a minor as a whole must prevail over purely sporting interests. However the mechanisms for achieving this laudable goal does not often lend itself to simplistic, one-size fits all approaches.

The case of ex-Liverpool youth player, Victor Palsson readily comes to mind, and how the relocation of his family rather than be a source of comfort, became the source of instability that eventually cost him, what was projected to be a career in the first team (Link). 

What is required here is a regulation that sets high minimum standards for the international transfer of minors, retains the important provisions on education, but is flexible enough to allow each club and the concerned parents to mutually arrive at the best arrangement that protects the interest of the child