Fabio Capello’s coaching credentials are as good as anyone’s: seven Serie A championships in italy — four with AC milan, two with Juventus, and one with Roma. Plus the 1994 European Champions league title with Milan, and two Spanish league titles with Real Madrid.

His latest reward for all that silverware is to be out of work. Having led Real madrid to the Spanish title on the final day of the 2007 season, he was fired 11 days later. incredibly, exactly the same thing happened 10 years ago, when Capello found himself out of work after winning the 1997 Spanish title with Real.

No doubt Capello, an italian, will soon be working again, but the ease with which top clubs hire and fire coaches these days is worth a moment’s thought. Capello had been with Real for only one season, but didn’t he have a three-year contract? indeed, he did — but so what?

The definitive comment on the worth of soccer contracts was made years ago by Argentina’s Alfio basile when he was fired in 1995 after just three months in charge of Spain’s Atletico madrid. “You ask about my contract?” he replied to journalists and, waving a piece of paper in the air, continued “My contract? Is— on my contract!”

Basile was railing at owner Jesus Gil, who was notorious for his promiscuous hire-and-fire tactics at Atletico. More usually the owners do the protesting against coaches, or players who want to switch to another club.

The latest such protest came last week from Michel Seydoux, president of the French club Lille. He was bitterly critical of a player, Andre-Pierre Gignac, who had signed for lille — and then, only four days later, had joined a rival club, Toulouse — apparently for “a better salary.”

“We have an agreement and a signed document,” claimed Seydoux, while Toulouse issued a statement saying that they had a valid contract with Gignac. The case has been referred to the French soccer league authorities. The usual resolution for these cases is financial compensation for the aggrieved party. Seydoux admitted, “i’m not going to fight against players who do not want to come to Lille.” There’s the truth of the matter, for it is obvious that whatever the verdict, contract or no contract, Gignac will not be playing for lille — simply because he doesn’t want to. The lawyers will work it out.

As they have just done in a more corporate case at the top level of soccer. FiFA’s battle to use Visa, rather than MasterCard as a sponsor, has been through the courts, where MasterCard got the verdict. But FiFA’s appeal made it clear that it wanted to work with Visa. So it will get its way — by paying a heavy price, $90 million, to MasterCard to void its contract.

At the player level, there is the case of owen Hargreaves, the Canadian-born midfielder recently traded to manchester United by Bayern Munich. ManU had been in pursuit of the 26-year-old Hargreaves for over a year, but bayern wanted to hang on to the player and had him under contract until 2010. Hargreaves, reluctantly, played the 2006–07 season with bayern, which had its poorest season in a decade, finishing in fourth position in the Bundesliga. Last week came the inevitable denouement: A deal was struck between the two clubs, with ManU paying Bayern $34 million for Hargreaves’s contract. If it matters, Hargreaves’s new contract covers four years.

Usually, it is the lure of more money — often much more money — that tempts a player to change clubs, as with Romanian defender Cristian Chivu, reportedly on the point of quitting AS Roma for Real Madrid. or maybe he will play somewhere else because, according to his agent, Chivu will join whichever club “puts most money on the table.”

The desire to move to a bigger club is always going to be attractive. This would seem to be the case with Gabriel milito, Real Zaragoza’s 26-year-old Argentine defender. After four years with the club, he says, “The adventure with Zaragoza has been wonderful but the time has come to turn the page and begin a new one.” He’ll be sorry to go, he says, and the club says it will be sorry to lose him — but big clubs like Juventus, barcelona, and liverpool are circling. For the club, there is a heavy financial incentive to trade milito. He is under contract, and Zaragoza can therefore demand a transfer fee for him — rumored to be $27 million. If Zaragoza delays until next year, when milito’s contract expires, he will become a free agent and the club will get nothing for him.

In using the word “adventure,” milito focuses on the exciting international prospects available for today’s players. look how things have worked out for eduardo da Silva, who left brazil as a 15-year old in 1998 to play in Croatia. He became a Croatian citizen in 2002, and now plays for the Croatian national team. on monday, his adventure took a new turn, when he signed for the english club Arsenal, under its French coach Arsene Wenger.

That itch to move, the feeling that “it’s time to move on” has struck another youngster, Spain’s 23-year-old striker Fernando Torres. He has spent his entire soccer career with Atletico Madrid, which he joined at age 11 and where he has almost iconic significance. But the Spanish press is reporting that he is at the point of signing with the English Club Liverpool — which has a Spanish coach, Rafael Benitez. The transfer fee is reportedly as much as $45 million — a record amount for Liverpool, and the highest figure ever paid for a Spanish player.

In all the instances cited above, the players are under contract. but that minor obstacle is easily renegotiated. However watertight the contract may appear, all the parties concerned know that it cannot be maintained if one of the signers becomes an unwilling partner.

When West Ham United owner Eggert Magnusson was asked recently whether the club could count on retaining the Argentine player Carlos Tevez next season, he replied, “it’s very simple. Tevez has a contract with us …” seeming to imply that of course Tevez would line up with West Ham.

But Magnusson has to know that it is not that simple. And in the Tevez case there is added doubt. many suspect that the player’s contract is not owned by West Ham at all, but by an agent. now that does present a contract problem — for it is forbidden by the english soccer authorities.

pgardner@nysun.com