Footballers in Europe do not appear to be a particularly disadvantaged group.

Nevertheless, the European Commission seems to have decided that the practice of buying and selling players is inconsistent with human rights and, in particular, the principle of free movement of labour between member states.Many of us would be only too happy to commit ourselves to a five-year stretch in Barcelona or Milan in return for £50,000 a week.

However, the same may not be true where -- as is the case for most lower division players -- the location is less exotic and the pay lower.It has been suggested that the transfer system should be scrapped altogether, and footballers treated the same as other employees.

This in turn has led to suggestions that high profile players, such as David Beckham, should be entitled to terminate their contracts by giving as little as one month's notice.While most employees in the UK are engaged on employment contracts which can be terminated on up to three months' notice, this is not the case for senior executives and many key staff.

It is not uncommon for senior executives to be engaged on long fixed-term contracts or on contracts requiring long periods of notice, and for employers to further protect their position by means of restrictive covenants and express garden leave provisions.

Post-employment restraints and garden leave would be of little relevance in the English Premiership or Italy's Serie A, but if we are to treat footballers like other employees then there seems no reason why they should not be given long-term contracts to bind them to their clubs for years.The contract would not prevent the employee from leaving -- as the current system which requires the transfer of the player's registration effectively does.

Rather, it would ensure that his old club receives compensation if the player leaves in breach of its terms.

So, theoretically, if the player leaves before the contract expires the club could sue him -- and potentially his new club -- for damages.

In practice, the clubs would no doubt come to some arrangement as to compensation.

(It appears that this approach has been in unofficial use for a considerable time in relation to managers who move between clubs.)This is similar to the system of compensation which FIFA has proposed in relation to players under the age of 24, and in principle there appears to be no reason why clubs should not be entitled to seek compensation when a player of any age leaves in breach of contract.However, while such damages could be substantial, this would mean that the compensation payable would be focused on the cost to the 'selling' club rather than the value to the 'buying' club.

The days of player auctions would appear to be at an end under a system based on co mpensation, and small clubs stand to lose the most as big clubs poach their best players.If the transfer system does go, clubs may need to consider how they can keep key players loyal.

Most clubs' bonus schemes seem to focus on short-term achievement: bonuses are payed for games played, wins achieved and goals scored.

The closest most clubs come to operating anything like a long-term incentive plan is the outdated testimonial.

This will have to change in an environment in which footballers have much greater freedom of movement.In the interests of retaining key members of their playing staff clubs may turn to other employment arrangements commonly associated with senior executives.It may seem incongruous in the boot room, but as more and more clubs are listed on the Stock Exchange, share options may provide an ideal means of ensuring long-term player loyalty.