When a player has a release clause in their contract, it means that they can leave a club
for an agreed fee.
Sometimes, there are events that trigger clauses.
Relegation, perhaps, or a specific period of time within the contract’s duration.
Sometimes, a release clause is only valid for a certain period of time, or after several
years of a contract has already elapsed.
So, there are many variations, but in their fundamental sense they’re feared – if
activated, they leave clubs powerless to resist as one of their players is snatched away.
That’s one perspective, yes.
Another, though, is that they can be a good thing for selling clubs.
Firstly, why do players have release clauses?
Well, in Spain it’s compulsory; all LaLiga players have them and many of those are so
ridiculous as to be virtually token.
For instance, the release clause in Karim Benzema’s Real Madrid contract is a reported
€1bn and nobody’s likely to pay that any time soon.
But it’s there because it has to be.
Elsewhere, it’s really a mechanism by which a player can retain control over their future.
If when an interested club is willing to meet the agreed price, then the player is able
to negotiate with them and agree a transfer.
It’s a means of ensuring clarity and of guarding against broken promises or unrealistic
asking prices.
Erling Haaland is a very good example of this.
When he left RB Salzburg in the winter of 2020, it was already clear that he was likely
headed for the very top of the game.
And yet he signed for Borussia Dortmund, who – while still a major club – were clearly
a level below other interested parties, among them Manchester United.
Dortmund were the right club for him at that point of his career, but only as a stepping-stone.
The solution was to agree a contract that included a €60m release clause that would
become active after two years, from 2022 onwards.
It meant that he was able to further his experience and develop in a major European league, but
without either the pressure of an immediate jump from Austrian football to a Champions
League contender, or the risk of becoming a prisoner of his own talent.
Haaland moved to Manchester City ahead of the 2022-23 season after the Premier League
club activated his release clause.
Had his contract not contained one, Dortmund would have been in their rights to demand
a fee three or four times higher.
And, from the perspective of Haaland and his representatives, his options would have been
limited to the very few clubs who could afford that kind of fee, if any at all.
It's a good example of how release clauses help to create and protect a career’s progress.
For clubs, particularly those who are selling, it’s a different proposition.
We’ll get on to the positives, but the negatives are self-evident.
If a player has a release clause, it limits their agency.
They are unable to reject offers beyond a certain value.
The price is the price.
Above it, there is no negotiation and no potential for other suitors to create an auction.
The seller also has less control of a sale may take place.
Famously, Borussia Dortmund found out that Mario Gotze was leaving the club when, in
the middle of their run to the Champions League final in 2013, Gotze’s agent rang Hans-Joachim
Watzke to inform him that Bayern Munich would be activating Gotze’s release clause that
summer.
But there’s another side to this coin.
Release clauses give advance notice that a player will have to be replaced.
On allowing a release clause in a contract, any sensible club would immediately begin
their preparation for a departure.
That needn’t mean that they scout identical players, but it still provides the opportunity
for successful succession planning and rewards clubs with strong recruitment.
In 2021, RB Leipzig lost Dayot Upemacano and Ibrahima Konate to Bayern Munich and Liverpool
respectively, after both players had their release clauses activated.
Upemacano’s move was confirmed in February and Konate’s move would be announced in
May, but – tellingly – Leipzig had already announced the signing of Josko Gvardiol from
Dinamo Zagreb back in November of 2020, and the addition of Mohamed Simakan from Strasbourg
in the Spring of 2021.
Leipzig knew what they would be losing and when, helping them to have two instant starters
signed for the next year, long before pre-season even began.
Another advantage with release clauses is budgetary.
The bigger the sale the better, of course, but if an important player has a predefined
value, then the replacement process can be started earlier and can potentially be expedited
in a way that limits the disruption and discord.
In the summer of 2021, Manchester City offered £100m to Aston Villa to activate Jack Grealish’s
release clause.
The deal would be completed on the 5th August, almost a month after Emi Buendia had joined
from Norwich City and 24-hours after the club had announced the arrival of Bayer Leverkusen’s
Leon Bailey and Southampton’s Danny Ings.
Villa were attempting to replace Grealish by committee and on the night that his move
was confirmed, the club’s CEO Christian Purslow was even able to release a video explaining
that strategy, while pointing at three excellent players who had already been acquired for
£83m.
That helped with the optics, certainly, and calmed a fanbase which would otherwise have
been deeply unhappy.
More importantly, with a clear idea for what Grealish was going to be sold for, Villa most
likely knew what they could spend.
That’s unusual.
In situations where players have no release clauses and aren’t for sale, clubs are unrealistic.
They hold out hope of convincing a player to stay, then see him depart late in the window
following a lot of acrimony and disruption, and after weeks having already elapsed.
They then condense the process of replacing the player into whatever time they have left,
often with less than efficient results.
A pertinent example of that occurred in the summer of 2008, when Tottenham spent their
off-season trying to convince Dimitar Berbatov to remain at the club against his will.
When he was eventually sold, on the very last day of the transfer window, they may have
received £30m from Manchester United, but they left their squad with just two senior
forwards.
With no time left, the best they were able to do was take Fraizer Campbell on-loan as
part of the Berbatov deal.
Campbell had never scored a Premier League goal and had just a handful of top-flight
appearances to his name.
They’d resisted, but in a way that ultimately made a bad situation worse.
In contrast, release clauses make things very black and white.
They prevent that kind of struggle.
They also ensure that less time is consumed by melodrama.
Not every footballer develops to the point of being worth their release clause – obviously
not – but for those who do, their transfers involve very little club-to-club negotiation.
Instead of a game of figurative poker that drags on through an entire window, a buying
club is either willing to meet a release cause or they’re not.
The result is a cleaner, quicker process.
And that’s very much in the selling team’s interest.
While they would still be losing a key component, the sale process doesn’t involve threats
to strike, leaks to the media, or any other behaviour associated with wantaway players.
And, because there’s no real negotiation to speak of, there’s no value to either
club in creating a protracted saga which can distract and dishearten those players who
are staying at the club and annoy supporters who want to see progress.
Instead, it’s often a clean break.
So, while granting players release clauses in their contracts is a concession and clearly
limits revenue, it’s an invitation for clubs to be realistic, proactive and well-prepared.
In fact, handled correctly, it’s a means of ensuring that new eras begin before old
ones come to an end.