Can someone please explain to me why soccer clubs bother with contracts when they're basically worthless?

Can someone please explain to me why soccer clubs bother with contracts when they're basically worthless?

>Player: I want to play for club X
>Club Y: B-but you're in the middle of a 5 year contract with us
>Player: Though shit, I want to play for club X, and my agent told me to bitch, moan and strike (which is called "breach of contract" in real sports) until I get my way.
>Club Y: O-okay, sold.

Why did you allow your """""sport""""" to be filled to the brim with disloyal crybabies and their agents?

There are many reasons why but I don't like your snarky attitude so I won't bother explaining.

>sold
key word right there, my fellow amerishart

>wah wah wah wah this top class player should be stuck playing somewhere he doesn't like playing because muh loyalty even though he has no link whatsoever to said club or it's retarded ''fans'' or the city it plays in

It's called FREEDOM, Amerilard.

>bitching and moaning is 'breach of contract'
>Americorporations
By your logic, everyone working a shitty job will be sued for complaining

Btfo

Clearly OP's focus was on contracts and not loyalty.

contracts are meaningless when enough money is circulated

capitalism 101

*moves entire team to a different city if taxpayers are not willing to be blackmailed into building a billion dollar stadium for the owner*

In not sure you understand the situation. Contracts exist so the player can't leave for free. That's it. And part of being in a business worth billions is that a lot of your players will be whiny bitches who have had everything served to them all their lives. That's where the manager comes in.

you are not obliged to sell them just because he wants to leave you retard

Because it's actually better for the club for someone to get sold while their contract is still running because the club that's going to buy that player is going to pay a transfer fee. If they don't sell the player and the player doesn't want to renew their contract, the player could leave the club for free which is really wasteful when they could have just sold him and get money.

you're the owner of Liverpool, what do you prefer:

keep a whiny unhappy player disrupting the squad, potentially underperfoming or purpose, faking injuries and so forth for years in order to "prove a point" about contracts, all while paying him £200k/week

OR

free up the payroll, make the second/third biggest transfer in football history, strengthen your defense, have a cohesive squad, buy a fucking keeper

Soccer is gay anyways.
Pretend to get injuries to acquire that money.

When there is zero contact it's fem sport

A little something called free will.

>Have a contract for a player
>Sell him for money

>Have no contract for a player
>He leaves for free

Hmmm tough one.

They aren't worthless. There's something called "buyout clause"
It had to be paid in the case of neymar, for example.
>However, there is another, crucial part of Neymar’s transfer that has been somewhat overlooked. Since it involved activating the buyout clause on his Barcelona contract, PSG had to deliver all €222m in one single payment.

>Neymar did not have a buyout clause because he negotiated one in case he ever wanted to leave. In Spain, buyout clauses are mandatory for every worker. If you are Neymar or a foreman at a construction site, there will be a buyout clause in your contract. The principle is that workers should have the right to seek a higher paying job.

If I was a pro player, I would give 0 fucks about loyalty and use my skill set to travel around the world and make as much money as I can.

Then what’s the point of contracts?

Binding retards like you to a building so they grind their whole lives for their rich boss

>Giving a shit where a bunch of faggots go to slurp up semen
Life's too short, burger. Just watch some real sports instead.

This is the answer you're looking for OP

Test.

you forget the meme players and injuries.