So everyone knows what a buy-out clause is, but just in case I'll write up a quick description. A buy-out clause is one that is often times (but not always) inserted into a player or managers contract that states that if a given amount of money is met by another club, the parent club is forced to allow the player to leave and then negotiation between player and buying club can begin. Hope that was clear enough.

What made me bring this topic up is that I read Gotze will not be allowed to have a buy-out clause inserted into his contract for Bayern, and that most if not all Bayern players are not allowed to have buy-out clauses.

So is it good for football to have buy-out clauses or is it bad? Should all players be allowed to have buy-out clauses? Would you join a team that didn't allow for a buy-out clause to be inserted?

Clubs also put in a big buy out clause too for certain star players. So it pretty much makes them unavailable to buy.

So I think they should remain. It allows teams to buy players more easily and it also allows the parent club to make a player pretty much unavailable. Although teams do still bid lower than the buy out clause and could get their bid accepted. However a buy out clause shows they don't really want to sell the star player I guess.

I think every player should have an automatic reasonable buyout clause based on games played and minutes played... it's unfair to keep a player buried. The other types are just a part of negotiations. Some teams don't have buyout clause like Bayern out of policy. It does scare some players away and rightfully so.

I think it's a good thing. Footy clubs are a business.

I don't think they're normally a bad thing.


As a selling club you can make sure you get a great deal of money.

As a buying club, you can bypass any overly stubborn selling clubs

As a player, you can be taken away from a club without the club being dicks about it and blocking your transfer.


Everybody can benefit from most of them. However, if the buy out clause is too cheap, then the club who is forced to sellcan end up being screwed over.

Just as an example, Kondogbia could have gone to Arsenal 2 years ago as well as others... but he chose Sevilla because he wanted to play immediately and they offered him a low release clause. Same with Remy... only reason he went to QPR.

It is a tool like anything else.

Yohan Modric wrote:Clubs also put in a big buy out clause too for certain star players. So it pretty much makes them unavailable to buy.

So I think they should remain. It allows teams to buy players more easily and it also allows the parent club to make a player pretty much unavailable. Although teams do still bid lower than the buy out clause and could get their bid accepted. However a buy out clause shows they don't really want to sell the star player I guess.

but if no buy-out clause was inserted at all then the parent club could reject any and all offers they wanted.

if a club truly wanted a player unavailable for as long as the contract is viable then they wouldnt want a buy-out clause.

I think they're fine the way they are. It's up to negotiations and bargaining power between club and player when they sign a contract and that's how it should be.

If some player has too high a clause, he probably should have negotiated it better. If a player has too low a clause, the club should have negotiated it better.

If Götze or other Bayern players don't have a buy-out clause it's because Bayern has so much bargaining power. You're hardly going to tell them that you're not joining if you don't get a buy-out clause.