Is There No Cure for this Seppsis?

"Send this man off!"

Krill-eating Fifa president Sepp Blatter offered his token bloviation on the l'affair Cristiano Ronaldo yesterday and wouldn't you know it, he's sided with the old Generalissimo's favored side.

In an unsolicited, unnecessary, and wholly unnerving statement, Blatter compared football's transfer system to "modern slavery."

It's tempting to smack Sepp around for the base stupidity of such a remark, but there's more at stake here. Ronaldo's departure from United, should it go through, would set a potentially devestating precedent for the club game. No one put a gun to the lad's head when he signed his deal at Old Trafford and as such, no outside pressure should fall on United when the player starts begging for his "dream" departure.

Blatter's motives in pushing for this particular move are shady at best. His logic is downright porcine... get that next swig at the trough, all else be damned.

More on this traveshamockery after the jump.

According to the BBC, Ronaldo is currently in the midst of a deal that runs until 2012. It is a long deal, fashioned no doubt in the hopes of keeping twinkletoes from reaching the European equivalent of what Americans call "free agency" before his 27th birthday. The so-called "Bosman trasfer" rule allows players at the end of a contract to sign where they please.

Of the Bosman effect, Seppsis says:

"I think in football there's too much modern slavery in transferring players or buying players here and there, and putting them somewhere.

"We are trying now to intervene in such cases. The reaction to the Bosman law is to make long-lasting contracts in order to keep the players and then if he wants to leave, then there is only one solution, he has to pay his contract."

So to translate, Blatter is unhappy with the fact that teams are inclined to sign their players to longer contracts as a means of keeping them off the open market. He is beside himself that individuals choosing to break their deals are made to pay their way out of town. And finally, he believes that the stated "comfort" of a given athlete at a given club should influence whether or not he is made to honor his deal.

Now, I understand that football's attitudes toward player movement differs in a cultural sense from what we are accustomed to in the States. Players are generally allowed to pick and choose their fates. Rarely is a transfer made without all parties consenting to the terms. Compare that with Major League Baseball, where most guys could be shipped off to Kansas City and not have single word to say about it. Surely that is more akin to "slavery" than what goes on in football?

The trickle-down effect this fiasco could have on the lower level clubs, like the minnows at Norwich City, is equally disturbing. How will the these sides cope with their homegrown and budding young stars-- many of whom have been in their system since the age of 9(?)-- leaving for their own Tottenham Hotspur "dream moves?" If the be-all, end-all of all transfer rows is the boyhood jerk-fodder of the player, it is truly doomsday for the other 95 percent of clubs in England, The Continent, and the world.

Allow Bigus to lay it out, as only he can:

The shear stupidity of [the Baltter] comment astounds me. This fat sequacious douche bag should not be allowed near FIFA. The knock on effect of what he is suggesting would ruin the game and hand power to greedy overpaid footballers. The lower leagues would constantly be faced with players demanding moves and higher salaries.

Fin.