“Last season I played 12 months at two clubs, and I was not paid for nine months,” said an anonymous player from Romania, where 74% of players reported delays. “The first club said they did not have any money. In January I got an offer to go to another club. The club I was playing for said I could only go if I gave up on my three months of unpaid wages. I agreed. I wanted to play.

“The second club dissolved after six months and I did not receive any money. My parents paid for my boots, my food and more. They also had to take care of themselves and my twin brother and sister.”

Van Seggelen, who proposes the 90-day period is reduced in the first instance to one month, wants stronger sanctions against countries whose clubs do not pay their players promptly. “You need to have a licensing system in which it is forbidden. There are examples in western Europe and it is very simple to copy it. Controls are needed and if a federation is not willing to do it in the proper way then you must have the guts to say their national team can no longer play qualifying games, or apply financial sanctions.”

Fifpro uncovered numerous instances of players being victims of financial overspeculation by clubs. Over 6% of players had been forced to train alone by a club – a phenomenon twice as likely to be experienced by foreigners and effectively a form of solitary confinement – and 22% were aware of the practice. In the vast majority of these cases the clubs were seeking to remove a player from their wage bill or coerce them into signing a less favourable contract by freezing them out of contact with their team-mates and the chance to train conventionally.

Freedom of movement is an accompanying issue and 29% of respondents reported they had been forced to join a club against their will despite holding an ongoing contract, usually due to pressure by agents or other third parties. Of that figure 47% had also experienced non-payment. In Serbia 82% of players stated that they had been subjected to such a move.

Fifpro hopes such data will bolster the legal case against the transfer market that it filed to the European Commission last September. Van Seggelen is due to deliver the report to the European Commission on Tuesday and will highlight what he believes is the restrictive influence of transfer fees on football’s labour market: the survey found 29% of those who transferred for a fee were influenced to sign for a club that was not of their choosing.

Among a number of other issues highlighted by the survey, to which 13,876 individuals responded, was that 10% of players had been threatened by fans, club management or fellow professionals during their career.

This included a notably high figure from Scotland, where 34% reported threats of violence on a match day from supporters – second only to DR Congo – while players were three times more likely than the global average to have been threatened by another player. Sectarian tensions are considered likely to be behind these statistics.

The PFA, while supportive of the report and holding considerable influence within Fifpro, opted out owing to the strength of the mechanisms it believes it already operates for England-based players. It has longstanding collective bargaining agreements in place to improve and negotiate their conditions and rights; its deputy chief executive, Bobby Barnes, is president of the global body’s Europe division but felt the focus of the survey was less relevant to its members.

“We felt taking part would dilute the statistics,” Barnes told the Guardian. “Our case is as good as there is and we’d far rather highlight situations where things are going wrong.

“Our position is that overdue payables are the major issue that faces footballers globally and we completely support any moves aimed at making sure clubs pay players and respect their contracts.”{jcomments on}