I obviously don’t know the FIFA player transfer rules all that well, but that seems like an inordinately draconian punishment. And you’re absolutely right about the precedent it sets. I’d be very surprised if it weren’t reduced on appeal. Two years isn’t really that long in the grand scheme of things, but for a top-flight, big-wallet franchise that habitually relies on a lively transfer market, it’s potentially devastating. Fortunately for Chelsea, they’ve been pretty good at holding on to their best players, but I’d be pretty nervous if I worked in their front office.

Just imagine if USC or Florida were barred from offering any new football scholarships for two years, and had to rely on promoting second-teamers and walk-ons. Actually, that’s not much less severe than what happened to SMU in the ‘80s, and they’ve never recovered.

Dear LORD, that’s harsh. But it should be noted Dan (and maybe this is what you meant) it’s really only one year, in terms of competitiveness with the other England teams; they won’t be able to make any team changes until next midseason.

EPL Talk made some points about this punishment not being as unprecedented as it seemed initially.  I think maybe I was too soft about this.  As Scallion said, if someone just took your best player who was under contract and gave you nothing in return, how would you feel?

Even taking the EPL Talk piece into account, I still think this is overly harsh. Should a team be punished for acts like this? Yes, absolutely - but it seems pointless and punitive to make the punishment so strict as to guarantee immediate outrage and intent to appeal from the given team. Yeah ok - they’d probably appeal anything, but if the punishment was less draconian (love that word, Dan) then THEY would seem like the ridiculous ones. If the ban was only in effect for the January 2010 window…fine, okay. That’s reasonable. To extend it through the next offseason…it’s bunk, IMO.

Of course, the Chelsea haters are LOVING it, which is fun to watch

Yeah, that’s one of those karma things.  Chelsea haters who crow about this (especially any Red Devils) will look mighty foolish when the same sort of thing happens to them.  I can’t stand Chelsea but 1) I certainly take no pride in the way any of the big European teams push around the smaller ones, and 2) I don’t presume that my favorite team has much more moral high ground to stand on. Odds are Liverpool has done something equally as bad before.

I’m loving it, but I’m more than sure Man U have done it too. I do think that the small clubs are getting pushed around with impunity by the big boys. But to me, the bigger issue is what FIFA calls “child trafficking.” I think this is exactly what these clubs are doing and it has to stop. What’s strange to me about this punishment is the huge fine and the ban on the player. If FIFA insists that he was a child at the time this happened and was being trafficked, then how can they also find him to be complicit in breaking contract? The draw of big clubs is irresistible and to hold a child responsible for not being able to resist is ridiculous, IMO.

As far as the length of the transfer ban, I bet they went to the max to send a message, knowing it would be reduced on appeal. I’d like to see it held up. Really, seeing huge powerful clubs do this sort of thing with youth, most of whom are young people of color (and the club hierarchies being made up of old white men)...It just has this unpleasant whiff of trafficking and colonialism about it. Not to make it a political issue but, well, it is political, innit?