Are Kolpak players hurting English cricket?

[zaremba]

Well that's where the case was heard, yes. But the court isn't a person (as of course you know). I've often wondered whether it was the Judge himself who made the apparent mistake, or someone else.

I suppose the only way to find-out would be to attain minutes from the case.

There were 5 Judges (plus the Advocate-General who is a little bit like a 6th Judge).

The decision can be found on the Internet if you're interested. Can't say I've ever read it myself! However thinking in terms of someone (or some people) "making a mistake" is likely to be very over-simplistic. These points will have been argued fully before the Court, and the Court will have been required to choose between differently-shaded interpretations of complex and perhaps opaque treaties.

 

[Uppercut]

True. And I think that in general their attitude in that regard is correct.

AWTA, some things just render cricket an irrelevancy.

 

[Goughy]

Who enforces that?

ICC surely wouldn't meddle in these sorts of affairs. SABC, they'd be cutting off their nose to spite their face. The ECB, they'd be breaking EU law, same as they would've been with their attempt to impose the "must not have played for their country within the last 12 months" clause. The EU, they're not concerned with cricket but with employment.

Who else is there?

Richard, this is all well know stuff. It isnt new and has been the same for years.

Its a status issue. To give a simple overview, if a player wants to play as a Kolpak then they count(ed) as a local EU player. However, they then cannot count as a local player at home. Ie. for their legal status they cannot be a local of 2 different places at the same time(for this purpose). Hence, as long as they play as a Kolpak they are no longer able to play for their country.

By not understanding his you seem to have missed the whole point of why Kolpaks were (are) so bad for South Africa.

As Gerald Majola said

"What is most concerning for us is that when players sign Kolpak contracts, they denounce playing for South Africa. We invest a lot of money in young players and then they are lost to the system. We would be quite relaxed about it all if they could still play for South Africa, but sport should not be about trade agreements."

 

[Richard]

Yes, I know, I've heard this before. What I'm asking is, who is it that's imposing this condition that players (EU-players if you like) cannot play as SAfricans in SA? It's certainly not the UCBSA. It can't possibly be I$C$C. It can't possiby be the EU. The ECB would be breaking laws if they tried to impose these conditions.

So who is it?

Who could have stopped SA from calling-up Dillon du Preez mid-tour last summer? If du Preez had wanted to go and play and Leics had agreed to let him?

 

[Richard]

There were 5 Judges (plus the Advocate-General who is a little bit like a 6th Judge).

The decision can be found on the Internet if you're interested. Can't say I've ever read it myself! However thinking in terms of someone (or some people) "making a mistake" is likely to be very over-simplistic. These points will have been argued fully before the Court, and the Court will have been required to choose between differently-shaded interpretations of complex and perhaps opaque treaties.

I guess. If someday I am out of reading material, I may have a look around to see if I can find the ruling.

What I maintain is that it's a shame what was recently made clear (and, I presume, overruled the Kolpak ruling) wasn't made clear then. There doesn't - now - seem to be any doubt that the treaty was intended to apply to trade, and was interpreted as applying to labour.

 

[Goughy]

Yes, I know, I've heard this before. What I'm asking is, who is it that's imposing this condition that players (EU-players if you like) cannot play as SAfricans in SA? It's certainly not the UCBSA. It can't possibly be I$C$C. It can't possiby be the EU. The ECB would be breaking laws if they tried to impose these conditions.

So who is it?

Who could have stopped SA from calling-up Dillon du Preez mid-tour last summer? If du Preez had wanted to go and play and Leics had agreed to let him?

You really talk with false authority on issues you know seldom.

After qualifing for a Kolpak (there is lots of paperwork and a process), a player gets to be registered as a 'local'.

This is (or was) the interpretation of EU law. In order to have that 'local' status they must act as a local. As soon as they act in a manner that made them non-local then their legal status as a local is revoked.

It gives/gave them the right to live and work somewhere and to be considered as local as long as they dont use their status in a foriegn county. They sacrifice their rights in their home country in order to take advantage of this Kolpak status.

If Dillon du Preez has been called up and played for South Africa then his immigration status as a Kolpak would be legally removed as he no longer fulfiled the required criteria.

Once he played he would legally no longer be able to have a Kolpak status. Leics wouldnt have anything to do with it at all.

The Kolpak status comes with legal conditions that must be met in order to qualify. If they are not met then the status is revoked.

This would be clearly set out during the application process.

 

[zaremba]

I guess. If someday I am out of reading material, I may have a look around to see if I can find the ruling.

What I maintain is that it's a shame what was recently made clear (and, I presume, overruled the Kolpak ruling) wasn't made clear then. There doesn't - now - seem to be any doubt that the treaty was intended to apply to trade, and was interpreted as applying to labour.

As I say, I haven't read the thing. But just because some politicians or bureaucrats (ie the European Commission) declare that a judgment was wrong, and give a seemingly very simple reason why, it doesn't follow either that the judgment was wrong, or wrong for the given reason, or that the matter was simple in the first place.

Apart from which I have to admit that I'm not 100% sure of the meaning of the distinction between "labour" and "trade". In England, for example, "restraint of trade" is used to mean (mostly) "restraint of labour".

 

[Richard]

You really talk with false authority on issues you know seldom.

After qualifing for a Kolpak (there is lots of paperwork and a process), a player gets to be registered as a 'local'.

This is (or was) the interpretation of EU law. In order to have that 'local' status they must act as a local. As soon as they act in a manner that made them non-local then their legal status as a local is revoked.

It gives/gave them the right to live and work somewhere and to be considered as local as long as they dont use their status in a foriegn county.

If Dillon du Preez has been called up and played for South Africa then his immigration status as a Kolpak would be legally removed as he no longer fulfiled the required criteria.

Once he played he would legally no longer be able to have a Kolpak status. Leics wouldnt have anything to do with it at all.

This would be clearly set out during the application process.

I see. So the duration of this "non-localness" (to South Africa) would comprise the duration of the contract with his county? What about if a county had players on 6-month contracts? Would a du Preez (say) who might be on a contract for 3 periods April-September of 2008, 2009 and 2010 be able to play for\in SA as a SAfrican in the county off-season?

And the EU are seriously limiting someone's employment prospects elsewhere in order to further them in one place? When they could instead allow both freely? I find that astonishing, frankly - hence my "talking with authority on matters I know seldom". The course of action you tell me they undertake would seem to make no sense at all to what the EU apparently stand for.

 

[Goughy]

And the EU are seriously limiting someone's employment prospects elsewhere in order to further them in one place? When they could instead allow both freely? I find that astonishing, frankly - hence my "talking with authority on matters I know seldom". The course of action you tell me they undertake would seem to make no sense at all to what the EU apparently stand for.

The European Union is not about to give far greater rights to citizens of non-member countries than that of its own.

If people (from countries with certain agreements) wanted to work in the EU without needing a work permit they could but they couldnt take the best of both Worlds. If they wanted European rights then they had to give up theirs in their previous country.

Its a simple and fair process that allows people far more options than before but there is a trade off. Its a choice that noone is forced to make but was not available before.

To allow people the complete rights of EU nationals and also those of their home country without a long immigration process is not fair on domestic EU citizens.

 

[Richard]

Yes, that makes sense. "Kolpak" players are, then, treated as migrants rather than those on short-term working visas. I see the situation entirely now.

 

[Goughy]

Yes, that makes sense. "Kolpak" players are, then, treated as migrants rather than those on short-term working visas. I see the situation entirely now.

Yeah,

If they want to be given the right to employment in the EU then they have to be considered and treated as local.

They cannot be given the rights of locals whilst still keeping their full status elsewhere in another country.

Its an immigration/consul decision that isnt really cricket related.

 

[Richard]

Just stumbled accross this little gem, the first reference to the matter on CW, which I thought was mildly amusing:

Brief extract from the Independent

However, a Slovenian handball player named Lopak may yet alter the tone of the debate. Lopak, who plays in Germany, did not like being classified as an overseas player. He took his case to court, which judged that, since he had resident status in Germany, he was eligible as a home player.

The ruling almost certainly applies to players from South Africa, Zimbabwe and the West Indies. Once they estab-lish resident status, they are qualified like any native Brit. One agent is already hawking names around the counties. Lopak may make the current debate redundant.

http://sport.independent.co.uk/cricket/story.jsp?story=450063

That would make things interesting, wouldn't it?

But yeah, it has made things interesting... very much so. What a good job it's soon to be no more.

 

[FBU]

A new update

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2008/oct/17/countychampionship1stdivisioncricket-cricket

 

[Richard]

Jeesh you hope this EPL lark works as planned. Has all the ingredients for a recipe for disaster.

 

[zaremba]

A new update

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2008/oct/17/countychampionship1stdivisioncricket-cricket

The ECB believes that a player must make a county debut by 25 to have a better than negligible chance of playing for England.

Unless he's called Darren Pattinson, obviously...

 

[FBU]

Unless he's called Darren Pattinson, obviously...

 

[brockley]

Will be tougher to sign kolpaks now,1 test and/or 15 one dayers.Their will not be many kolpaks signed.
Expect duprrez to turn his back on leicestershire and try to play for south africa.

 

[morgieb]

Does anyone know what's happening to Kolpaks next season?

 

[BoyBrumby]

Does anyone know what's happening to Kolpaks next season?

Link.

If they already had agreement in place they can remain (for 2009 at least), but any new Kolpak (or straight overseas players) must fulfil the more stringent qualification thereafter:

all overseas players must fulfil one of the following criteria:

i One Test in the past two years

ii Fifteen one-day internationals or Twenty20 internationals in the past two years

iii Hold a central contract with their home board and be a current or recent member of its Test squad

iv Five Tests in the past five years and still be eligible for their country

v Hold a 2008 work permit.

 

[Richard]

So given that by definition a Kolpak-orientated contract requires a player to forsake his homeland and effectively become an EU national (though not one of any particular EU country) that means there'll be no Kolpaks, apparently.

Just a shame several of them have now acquired British nationality and so will most likely be remaining. Obviously nothing can be done with nationalised British players, it's just such a shame a British passport is so easily acquired I guess. Wish it still took 7 years rather than 3.