Never a doubt

Kia Joorabchian's firms, MSI and Just Sports Inc., began High Court proceedings against West Ham over the ownership of Carlos Tévez and his proposed transfer to Manchester United. I don't see any other way that this could have played out, frankly. West Ham were forced by the Premier League, after the independent panel's ruling in April, to tear up its contract with MSI and Just Sports for Tévez so he could play the final three matches of the season. They did so, breaching the contract, and the way that the other parties are able to recover their loss -- because they wouldn't have sent Tévez to West Ham without a transfer fee if they didn't feel that they would recoup that value in a later sale -- is through a court proceeding. The Premier League, at some point, is going to have to accept that West Ham did what they were asked, but that didn't terminate the economic interest in Tévez under law. It just left the matter open to a court challenge.

There's been some talk that the arrangements between companies like Joorabchian's could be ruled illegal, but it seems unlikely to me. One, these agreements are common in South America, so that lends some credibility to the idea that these may be found legal under English law. Two, if clubs can own players, why can't private companies? It's one thing for Premier League rules to make the distinction, but I don't understand why the law would, so long as the owner's requirements of his charge do not amount to a form of slavery. If the player still controls his destiny, I don't see how a court could rule that a player who may make as much as £5 million or £6 million a year could be considered to be indentured. I'll issue my standard disclosure: I am not a lawyer, so what do I know about the law?

The thinking is that the High Court won't rule before the transfer window ends on Aug. 31. Another Premier League season, another Tévez transfer goes down to the wire, I guess.