Following the tumultuous conclusion of a volatile January transfer window, much debate has been had surrounding player transfer fees, player contract lengths and the playing time on offer for players arriving at their respective new clubs.
These discussions have inevitably pervaded themselves via the medium of social media, where football journalists such as Fabrizio Romano, Chris Wheatley and Ben Jacobs have an ever-growing number of followers. Headline posts such as "here we go" and "done deal" have usually preceded the significant details of a transfer, as well as the niceties surrounding a player's new role. These details are becoming increasingly transparent and the subject of detailed examination via numerous online forums. But the detail is often misunderstood. To offer some degree of clarity, we take a look at the most common misconceptions around player clauses within their employment contracts at clubs.
Buy-out Clauses
Going as far back as 1985, such clauses have become a more or less mandatory inclusion within player contracts when signing for clubs in Spain. Whilst they aren't frequently seen in other jurisdictions, a common fallacy surrounding these clauses is the idea, that they are the same as release clauses (more on this below). In fact a buy-out clause refers specifically to a player's ability to terminate their contract, by personally paying a fee to their employing club. It is worth noting that these clauses tend to be set at extremely high levels, in order to dissuade players from buying themselves out of their contract and moving elsewhere at the drop of a hat. In turn, they rarely reflect a player's true market value, at least at the time they are signed. An interested club may pay the owning club this fee on behalf of a player. This was the case in the transfer of Seydou Keita from Sevilla to Barcelona in 2008, where Barcelona paid a fee of €14 million to Sevilla on Keita's behalf, thereby releasing him from his obligations.
Note that buy-out clauses are relatively uncommon in England due to the differences in legal systems. In addition, English courts would be likely to hold them null and void.
Release Clauses
Conversely, release clauses are an amount set by the employing club which automatically allows a player to negotiate with, and sign for, a prospective suitor. Triggering a release clause involves a club paying a pre-determined fee, which releases the player from his current employment obligations. Although release clauses were relatively uncommon within the Premier League, clubs such as Chelsea and Arsenal have triggered them when acquiring the services of players within Spain and Portugal. For example, Arsenal triggered the release clause in Thomas Partey's contract in 2020, consequently releasing him from his employment at Atletico Madrid. Most recently, Chelsea's gargantuan £107 million payment to Benfica triggered the release clause of Enzo Fernandez, allowing him to secure a move to the Blues on deadline day. The World Cup winner's move to the London outfit is the most expensive in British transfer history.
Good Faith Clauses
One of the lesser known and rarely quoted clauses are so called 'good faith' clauses, where the clubs must negotiate in good faith once a bid has been made. In fact, the Professional Footballers' Association shed light on Luis Suarez's infamous contract with Liverpool, suggesting that it was more of a good faith clause than a release clause. The distinction with a release clause, was that there is no automatic right for a prospective club to enter into discussions with a player, but rather this serves as a gateway to negotiate with a parent club.
It's reasonable to assume that the transfer market will continue its seemingly ceaseless and exponential rise and that arguments around the application (or failure to apply) Financial Fair Play Regulations by FIFA and UEFA respectively will persist, so watch this space.
Want to hear more from us? 
