Clubs get into employment contracts with players. It is not the same as owning them as in case of third party deals.
Clubs look to sell to the highest bidder but not against the wishes of the player. Players have the final say in where they want to ply their trade next. A club cannot force them to except a deal against the their will. Are you really thick to not grasp the difference between third party ownership and employment contracts? Animals are owned, humans should not.
Manchester United should not be forced to sell Rooney, as Rooney signed an employment contract with Manchester United. We do not own Rooney, however he is contractually obliged to play with us for another two seasons. If Chelsea want him and he wants to play for them, they should pay an amount (or part deal) which is acceptable to United. Otherwise he should shut up and honor his contract.
You're the one sprouting random ignorance in these matters, as your comment regarding the transfers of Hulk and James showed, so keep the thick comments to yourself. Where the hell do you come up with the idea that funds allocate players against their wishes? There's no way this can be true or would ever be allowed by the governing bodies, or even by common law. That's pretty smart of you, making up random stuff to sustain random arguments.
You're also the one who decided that clubs have an employment contract with players yet funds "own" them, a weird way of differentiating things that are roughly similar in principle. They don't own the players any more than clubs do, and "own" is an expression used by fans /media/etc to simplify what is a complex contract. Are you also against clubs
loaning people, like if it's some sort of merchandise? Funds share a part of a player's economic rights, this concept exists whether it's solely the club owning it, or sharing it with an investment fund.
I reckon funds can present a myriad of problems, there's no doubt about that. I'm talking about real problems though, not the shit you're making up. And most of these problems are towards clubs who become too dependent on them, not players. Players are as limited by funds as they are by clubs, and it's all a volunteer choice on their part. It must be unpleasant to Bernard to not be able to directly chose the club of his preference, but it's the same limitation as if he was "owned" by a club alone. He can always keep plying his trade for the time predicted in his contract, which he voluntarily signed, and that pays him a pretty decent wage. This contract will then expire and he will be free from both club and fund and patiently chose whichever club in the world is willing to sign him. Oh, but wait, it seems he doesn't want to fulfill his end of the deal, he wants to come to Europe. Poor guy.
Funnily enough, with the absence of mandatory release clauses, players have even less of a margin to decide their future in England (where funds are banned) than in the likes of Portugal - where they aren't. Look at Gareth Bale and tell me which options he has available to him right now which don't necessitate his employer's agreement?
