Lausanne goalkeeper Karlo Letica apparently refused to play against GC because of a clause in his contract. Why are there such clauses and what could be done about them? Player consultant Baykal Bellusci sorts it out for blue Sport.
No time? blue News summarizes for you
- Karlo Letica was the regular goalkeeper at Lausanne-Sport this season. Against Grasshoppers, however, the Croatian was apparently not in the squad due to a clause in his contract.
- Player consultant Baykal Bellusci analyzes the Letica case for blue Sport and explains why such clauses are often problematic.
- However, Bellusci also notes that Letica's behavior is not necessarily beneficial: "There are clubs that turn their backs on such players. It is certainly not positive for the player if he goes down this path."
Karlo Letica was the undisputed number 1 at Lausanne-Sport. The Croatian has played all 24 of his club's Super League games this season. On matchday 25 against GC, however, Letica was missing from the squad.
In an interview with blue Sport, Lausanne sporting director Stéphane Henchoz reveals what is behind his absence. "There is a clause in his contract. He doesn't want to play today because of this clause. That's why he's not there," said Henchoz. Letica's contract would have been automatically extended if he had played one more game for Lausanne.
blue Sport spoke to player consultant Baykal Bellusci about Letica's case. He explains: "It's tricky for a club to make such statements to the outside world, it also damages the player's reputation a little." According to Bellusci, it is a very difficult situation for the player, the club and the player's agency when these clauses exist.
But what can a club do if a player refuses to play because of such a clause? "The club is almost a bit at the mercy of the player," explains Bellusci. The fact that the clauses exist at all is due to the fact that two or three-year contracts are often discussed: "Often, an agreement is reached on two years, plus this clause." However, this is always tricky in the aftermath if something arises where the player or the club has an advantage.
Many clubs or agents now work with these clauses, according to Baykal. It is not the first time that there have been such problematic cases. Having a clause in there is generally more to protect the club.
Letica writes of shoulder injury
Goalkeeper Letica contradicts the statements of sporting director Henchoz and assures that he is out due to a shoulder injury. A tricky issue, as Bellusci says: "Legally, it is difficult for the club to take legal action if a player has a doctor write him off sick."
Bellusci has a solution, as football is always about honor and pride. "With such an important player, you have to make sure that he can perform at his best and that this clause is removed from his contract. That would be in everyone's interest. It doesn't do the team much good if you fight against it and know that the player will otherwise go through with it."
According to Bellusci, it would therefore be smarter to forgo the transfer fee of 200,000 to 300,000 francs in the summer in exchange for a player who will go all the way and help achieve the goals.
However, Bellusci is certain that it is less good for a player's reputation: "There are clubs that turn their backs on such players. It's certainly not good for the player if he goes down this path. However, if a club wants the player, it will accept this behavior as an employer: "If the added value at the new club is so blatant, you just do it. Anyone in the private sector would have the same thoughts," says Bellusci.
