Player punishment after poor performance

[Conardo]

Hi, how do you penalize your players?

Personally, I have a gradation here that starts with a warning at 6.5 and then ends in salary deductions if the performance is worse.

What's your grade here?

[DP]

Penalising the poor players because the match ratings are flawed, shame. 

[vikeologist]

1 hour ago, Conardo said:

Hi, how do you penalize your players?

Personally, I have a gradation here that starts with a warning at 6.5 and then ends in salary deductions if the performance is worse.

What's your grade here?

Same, although the benefits of doing so seem to have diminished, and you can't do it for reserve / youth fixtures anymore.

[ANGL]

hace 1 hora, Conardo dijo:

Hi, how do you penalize your players?

Personally, I have a gradation here that starts with a warning at 6.5 and then ends in salary deductions if the performance is worse.

What's your grade here?

After almost every match, as follows:

6.4 and 6.3 - 1 day fine

6.2: 1/2 week fine

6.1 and lower: 1 week fine.

 

Effect was much higher in FM21 and 22, but I still use it

[Conardo]

6.5 a warning ?

[phantombandit]

I dont punish players for poor preformance. I would however punish players for drawing penalties, but the game seems not to take those into account. I had a player draw 3 penalties in one match, and still leave the match with a 7.2.

[Conardo]

vor 40 Minuten schrieb phantombandit:

I dont punish players for poor preformance. I would however punish players for drawing penalties, but the game seems not to take those into account. I had a player draw 3 penalties in one match, and still leave the match with a 7.2.

Good idea. That would be a next level Maybe you can sell him?

[XaW]

4 hours ago, Conardo said:

Hi, how do you penalize your players?

Personally, I have a gradation here that starts with a warning at 6.5 and then ends in salary deductions if the performance is worse.

What's your grade here?

I don't do it. Simply because it's illegal in real life based on a CAS ruling from when it happened in Greece some years ago.

https://sportlicitors.com/just-a-day-an-ordinary-day/

So SI should actually remove it from the game if it were to follow the real life rulings, as they do in most other things.

Also note that this means demotion from the first team is also not allowed. Following this the only actual reactions possible are non-selection (ie reduced playing time), transfer listing, and some form of termination of the contract.

[Conardo]

Unfortunately I can't access the page without my Bitdefender warning me

 

But if that's the case, then I'd like to take it to heart. Ashes over my head, I didn't know anything about that

Edited March 18, 2023 by Conardo

[XaW]

5 minutes ago, Conardo said:

Unfortunately I can't access the page without my Bitdefender warning me

 

But if that's the case, then I'd like to take it to heart. Ashes over my head, I didn't know anything about that

Yeah, they have an issue with the certificate here is the text:

Quote

A Case Study of Olympiacos Football Club

On Saturday 31st March 2018, Olympiacos FC of Greece played to a 1-1 draw against a mid-table club, i.e Levadiakos. This result left the club in third position in the league standings.

The President of the club was irked by the result and a perceived accumulated “poor performances”. Consequently, he fined the first-team players the sum of £350,000 and also banished them from the club until the beginning of the next football season. What shall be considered in this article is whether (by the regulations of FIFA and the jurisprudence of sports dispute resolution bodies) a club can fine and/or banish its player for “poor performance(s)”.

The two sanctions of the president of the club will be treated as follows”:

I. Fines, Deductions or Withholding of Salaries:

The question that comes to the mind is, can a club fine, deduct from, or withhold the salary of a footballer if the level of his performance is not at the same level as that of when the club signed him? Will the club not be justified since they are not getting a commensurate return for the salary the player is being paid?

By the jurisprudence of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) of FIFA and the Court of Arbitration for Sports (CAS), an employer cannot deduct from, or refuse to pay the salary of a professional footballer based on low performance(s). The imposition of fines on a player based on his low performance is also not valid.

In the DRC decision of 27 April 2006, a player and a club  signed a one-year employment contract. At the expiration of the contract, the player wrote to the club that it had breached the employment contract due to non-payment of USD 32,750 as appearance fees. When the club failed to respond, the player lodged a formal complaint against the club at FIFA.

There, the club stated that it had paid all monies that it was obliged to pay in accordance with the contract and furnished a list of payments to support its claim. It was revealed that the club had imposed fines on the player based on his low performance during the subsistence of the contract. The player asked the DRC to order the club to pay USD 42,750. In arriving at its decision in favour of the player, the DRC outlined that low performance, in general, cannot be considered a reason for the club to reduce payments to the player, because it is unilaterally determined by the club and based on pure subjective criteria. The DRC concluded that the imposition of fines and deduction from monies payable to the player by the club cannot be accepted.

Furthermore, it is worthy to note that even if there is a clause in the contract of the player that provides that the player will only be paid the whole or a percentage of his salary per time, only if he plays a particular number of matches, such a clause will be regarded by the DRC as arbitrary and unacceptable since it is at the discretion of the club to decide how many matches the player plays. It would have been legal if the club agrees an amount as his basic salary, and states a bonus payable only if the player plays a particular number of matches; in which case the player cannot enforce the payment of such bonuses if he did not play the required number of matches.

II. Banishment:

Also, by the decisions of the DRC and CAS, a player cannot be banished from the team solely on the ground of poor performance. In the case of Olympiacos FC which is the case study of this article, it does not matter (in my opinion) that it was all the first team players that were banished from the team. If any or all of them were to take legal action, he/they would be successful.

Based on previous FIFA decisions, although a player is not entitled to be selected for matches, he is entitled to partake in training sessions and other activities of the club. This is logical and reasonable because if a player is banished from the club’s training sessions and/or other activities because of poor performance, how would he have an opportunity to stake a claim for being selected in subsequent matches, since a coach usually makes an assessment of his players and selections at training sessions.

In the DRC decision of 12 December 2013 (No. 12132884), it was reiterated that among a player’s fundamental rights under an employment contract, is not only his right to a timely payment of his remuneration, but also his right to access training and to be given the possibility to compete with his fellow team mates in the team’s official matches. It was held that banishment constitutes a serious breach of contract.

However, it is worthy to note that there would be no breach of contract if a player is excluded from training with the first team, and asked to train with the second team; except there is a clause in his contract with the club which forbids it. See the DRC decision of 8 June 2007 (No. 67229) and Dutch KNVB Arbitration Tribunal 29 August 2008, (No.1214.)

So what can a football club do in such a circumstance?

You may begin to wonder, does that mean a football club is helpless and cannot take any action? The answer is no. There are steps the club can take, which include:

a. Non-selection: Generally, a football player is not entitled to be selected for the matches of the club as long as the player is regularly paid his salary and the club respects all other contractual obligations. Thus, if the level of performances of a player drops, the club may refuse to select him for the club’s matches; provided such a player does not have a clause in his contract that guarantees him being selected in the first team of the club.

In a DRC decision of 17 August 2006(No. 86154), the contract included a clause that the player was guaranteed to stay in the first team regardless of his performances. The DRC held that even if the performance of a player had not been at the expected high level, the club had, by explicitly putting this clause in the employment contract, undertaken the commitment to allow the player into its first team.

b. Transfer listing: The player’s club may make the player available in the transfer market. In which case, another club may pay a transfer fee to buy out the contract of the “underperforming” player; if the player agrees to a transfer to the new club.

c. Mutual termination: The club and the player may attempt amicable settlement, by discussing and agreeing at a mutual termination of the contract between the club and the player. This is usually achieved upon payment of compensation to the player by the club. In such a circumstance, the player becomes a free agent and may sign for another club at no transfer fee.

d. Unilateral termination: This is the least-advised action to take. However, in extreme circumstances where no other club has shown interest in the services of the player and an attempt at mutual termination has failed, the club may unilaterally terminate the contract of the player but pay up all salaries, bonuses and any other entitlements of the whole duration of the contract of the player. This is however not advisable as the club may still be subject to a claim from the player, especially where there is a dispute as to the amount of entitlements paid.

Conclusively, it is apparent that based on the legal principles of the DRC and CAS, the President of Olympiacos Football club acted illegally, and the club may be liable to pay their full salaries and compensation if an action is explored by the players concerned.

 

[Daniel Evensen]

Just be careful with whatever you do.  It can be fun to throw a bottle now and then, but if you hurt your morale too much you'll find it almost impossible to recover.  This is how I lost my virtual job with Ingolstadt 04...

[Lord Rowell]

I don't do it at all, its not how I'd manage people IRL so not how I do it on FM.

[autohoratio]

7 hours ago, XaW said:

Also note that this means demotion from the first team is also not allowed

The wording "However, it is worthy to note that there would be no breach of contract if a player is excluded from training with the first team, and asked to train with the second team; except there is a clause in his contract with the club which forbids it. See the DRC decision of 8 June 2007 (No. 67229) and Dutch KNVB Arbitration Tribunal 29 August 2008, (No.1214.)" makes me think the author just forgot a word here: "except if there is a clause in his contract [...] which forbids it."

Reading the DRC decision of 8 June 2007 (No. 67229) backs that up:

Quote

Finally, the members of the Chamber turned their attention to the fact that the Claimant was sent to training out of the permanent team of the Respondent. In this respect, the Chamber took note that the employment contract does not contain any clause that the Claimant may only play and train with the first team. Consequently, the Chamber deemed that this fact neither constituted a just cause for the player to prematurely terminate the employment contract signed with the Respondent.

So it's important to distinguish "banishment" (Refusing the player to train with the club at all) which is not allowed, from "demotion" (Player may not train with the first team squad, but instead individually or with a junior squad) which is allowed.

Edited March 18, 2023 by autohoratio

[XaW]

13 minutes ago, autohoratio said:

The wording "However, it is worthy to note that there would be no breach of contract if a player is excluded from training with the first team, and asked to train with the second team; except there is a clause in his contract with the club which forbids it. See the DRC decision of 8 June 2007 (No. 67229) and Dutch KNVB Arbitration Tribunal 29 August 2008, (No.1214.)" makes me think the author just forgot a word here: "except if there is a clause in his contract [...] which forbids it."

Reading the DRC decision of 8 June 2007 (No. 67229) backs that up:

So it's important to distinguish "banishment" (Refusing the player to train with the club at all) which is not allowed, from "demotion" (Player may not train with the first team squad, but instead individually or with a junior squad) which is allowed.

Indeed, but that also brings in a way to determine what is a "poor performance" in legal terms? I doubt anyone would accept it to be at the whim of the employer... Anyway, the fine was the main thing here, which is deemed illegal for performance based reasons.

[turnip]

32 minutes ago, XaW said:

Indeed, but that also brings in a way to determine what is a "poor performance" in legal terms? I doubt anyone would accept it to be at the whim of the employer... Anyway, the fine was the main thing here, which is deemed illegal for performance based reasons.

"Your honour, I think you will agree that MaguireHater69 is an impeccable judge of player's performances and that the comments he made on YouTube - which you have informed me I cannot read out in court; or indeed within earshot of any children - meet the threshold of 'qualified expert' status, given that the individual in question claims to play at centre-back himself in Sunday League football to - and I quote - "a good standard".

Therefore, I'm sure you will agree that fining Harry Maguire a week's wage for every minute of the match that he played in which MaguireHater69 gave him a 0.0 rating out of 10 is, in fact, thoroughly justified."

[du Garbandier]

Likewise, I don't do it. Not getting selected for the next match and likely several after ought to be punishment enough.

I had a promising youngster on the bench one time. Brought him on early in the 2nd half when we were already comfortably winning. I get "preferred to stay on the bench" and ten minutes later I hooked him, because he was an embarrassment. Hasn't had a sniff since, and he's on his way out next transfer window. But I'm not going to attempt dialogue and get into all the ridiculous backchat you get from the dialogue options.

[FrazT]

I wonder in real life how many companies' discipline systems allow for taking money off an employee due to their boss thinking that they had a bad day- maybe even for the first time.  If you are fair when you decide on the discipline code at the start of the season, there should be no real reason to deviate from it and that will be reasonable for all sides. There are other methods of showing the player that you are unhappy and these should be used first.  I personally find it staggering how many FM users appear to fine their players at the drop of a hat when this would not happen in any other kind of work environment.

[WizbaII]

Yeah, I could see an argument being made to fine players for poor training. But if you think a player is good enough to make the first 11, and they have a poor performance, then the fault is yours for selecting them in the first place. If someone has to get fined, then it should be the coach who selected that player.

[Hovis Dexter]

Here's a picture of the fine system at Chelsea when Lampard was captain. There's no mention of poor performance in the list of punishable offences

[Conardo]

vor einer Stunde schrieb Hovis Dexter:

Here's a picture of the fine system at Chelsea when Lampard was captain. There's no mention of poor performance in the list of punishable offences

Thank you for sharing this.

Good discussion!

[eXistenZ]

If the game lets me fine them because of poor performance, always 1 week. In about 18 seasons managed over different careers only had issues with 2 players. And one of them was a proper nutjob who was even furious when asking for a wage increase...

 

dont care if its irl not allowed, it makes me feel better   bit dissapointed you cant do it anymore for youth players, as especially in older editions you could really boost their determination and work rate with it

[Overmars]

Even if I disagree with fining players in real life, this is a game mechanic that if you don't leverage will really cost you. Nearly every player will drop into a run of poor form in a season, and verbal warnings are generally met with no improvement. So unless you like watching players drop a 6.3-6.4 for a month of games, you are encouraged to use the fining system to "solve" the problem.

[phantombandit]

On 19/03/2023 at 06:01, Hovis Dexter said:

Here's a picture of the fine system at Chelsea when Lampard was captain. There's no mention of poor performance in the list of punishable offences

 

 

O no, how will those players afford that on their 250k a week salary?????

[Dreambuilder]

On 18/03/2023 at 13:34, XaW said:

I don't do it. Simply because it's illegal in real life based on a CAS ruling from when it happened in Greece some years ago.

https://sportlicitors.com/just-a-day-an-ordinary-day/

So SI should actually remove it from the game if it were to follow the real life rulings, as they do in most other things.

Also note that this means demotion from the first team is also not allowed. Following this the only actual reactions possible are non-selection (ie reduced playing time), transfer listing, and some form of termination of the contract.

Agree this feature must be removed. It’s the most gamey thing in the game for me. And yet I use it to project my frustration and increase their stats haha. Would very much like to see this removed.