Talks aimed at reforming football’s transfer system have broken down after European clubs and leagues refused to accept proposals to protect unpaid players, the players union FIFPro said yesterday.

The negotiations, which opened last March, have come to a standstill and FIFPro has called an extraordinary meeting of its Europe division in Athens today to discuss the issue.

FIFPro said the European Clubs’ Association (ECA) and the European Professional Football Leagues (EPFL) had failed to accept four key proposals to ensure contractual stability.

These included a proposal to allow a player to terminate his contract at 10 days’ notice if he is unpaid for more than 30 days, and another entitling the player to financial compensation if his contract is terminated without just cause.

In such cases, players should be allowed to join another club without the restriction of any transfer window, FIFPro said.

“These reforms would make the contract of a professional player a two-way street,” FIFPro secretary general Theo van Seggelen said.

“The situation can be contrasted to the rights of a club where a player breaches a contract, which would see him often responsible to pay his own transfer value and subject to a mandatory ban.

“Transfer values have, of course, spiralled out of control and can see players liable for the payment of millions of dollars, something no other employee would have to bear.

“The transfer system is failing football and its players,” he added.

Van Seggelen described the issue as the biggest problem in professional football.

“Every year, around 4,000 players file cases with FIFA either because their club has not paid them or the club has unjustly terminated the contract,” he said.

“Due to the volume of cases, players have to wait several years for a hearing which, in over 90 percent of matters, is decided in favour of the player.

“Given the short-term and precarious nature of a player’s career, these delays cannot be tolerated.

“Clubs have now taken to exploiting the delays through tactics such as heavy handedness and vexatious litigation to ensure that compensation payments are avoided or minimised.”