Controversy arose as it became known that the women’s professional volleyball Pepper Savings Bank and GS Caltex included a clause in the trade process of former national team libero Oh Ji-young (35) that he could not play against the former team. there is.

Pepper Savings Bank said on the 23rd that Oh Ji-young was not put in the home game against GS Caltex at Pepper Stadium in Gwangju, “because the two clubs agreed on the clause during the trade process.”

It was on the 26th of last month that the two clubs carried out a trade.

At the time, Pepper Savings Bank, which had lost 16 consecutive losses after the opening, recruited Oh Ji-young, who played for GS Caltex, instead of handing over the first round nomination for the 2024-2025 season.

GS Caltex requested the addition of a non-participation clause stating that ‘Oh Ji-young will not be put into GS Caltex for the rest of this season’, saying that the balance was not balanced during the discussion, and Pepper Savings Bank responded.

Details that were not disclosed were announced on the 23rd, when the first confrontation was held after the trade.

According to the agreement between the two teams, Oh Ji-young could not play against GS Caltex on the 23rd regardless of her will. He can’t even play against GS Caltex on the remaining two occasions this season.

Both clubs say there is no problem.

An official from Pepper Savings Bank said, “It is not against the Korean Volleyball Federation (KOVO) regulations.” A GS Caltex official also explained, “We requested the conditions in the balance of the trade.”

As the related information became known, volleyball fans are voicing criticism.

On the free bulletin board of the Korean Volleyball Federation (KOVO) homepage and various communities, articles criticizing the KOVO office and the two clubs are being posted.

A fan pointed out on the KOVO bulletin board, “It is against fairness to limit a player’s participation with a trade clause.”

As fans claim, there is a problem with that provision.

First of all, the ‘provision not to participate in certain players’ is a problem in that it can make the league ecosystem turbid.

Oh Ji-young was deprived of the opportunity to play in three games according to the club’s private contract.

In addition, his basic rights as a player, such as obtaining free agent status and competing for the personal record title, were violated.

It is unknown whether Oh Ji-young was aware of the clause and accepted the trade, but if such trade clauses are prevalent, the purely competitive environment could collapse due to external factors.

In addition, if the clause prohibiting certain players from participating in certain games is recognized as a normal contract clause, it may be abused in various forms.

For example, it is theoretically possible to make an unreasonable order to put the player in the game only with a specific team that is fighting for ranking while trading.

This is why attention is focused on whether KOVO knew whether or not the GS Caltex match ban clause was inserted at the time of Oh Ji-young’s trade.

Considerable confusion is expected if KOVO permitted the trade while being aware of the insertion of the provision and judged that there was no problem with the regulation.

There are opinions that there have been similar cases in the past. A volleyball player said, “In the meantime, trades with similar provisions have occurred implicitly in the professional volleyball world.”

The biggest problem with the Oh Ji-young trade is that it has damaged the original value of professional sports.

Depriving a player of a chance to participate in a game based on the interests of the teams violates the spirit of sports that requires the team to do their best in the game.

In normal professional sports leagues, when trading, the provision that prohibits participation in certain games is not recognized. 안전놀이터

The same is true of the soccer world, which has a rental player system like professional volleyball.

The International Football Federation (FIFA) and the European Football Federation (UEFA) judge that the contractual provisions that exclude the rental player from the original club and the game are illegal and severely sanction them.

The Korea Professional Football Federation also deleted the rule that Sangmu players cannot play against the original club, saying that it follows the judgment of FIFA in 2020.

Some are concerned that if a rented player plays a game with the original club, he or she may slow down or manipulate the match.

However, FIFA and others think differently.

There is a reason to prevent intervening in the appointment of players through private contracts between clubs, even taking various risk factors.

This is because they believe that maintaining the purity of sports is more important.

Regarding the related content in 2014, UEFA said, “Maintaining sports purity is our fundamental principle,” and said, “No club other than the player’s own club should influence the participation.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *