Fifa to tighten grip on transfers... | Vital Football

Fifa to tighten grip on transfers...

Spursex

Alert Team
At FiFA's annual law review meeting over the last two days, it was announced that these things will happen - not sure they will without some huge pushback from the top leagues/players and agents..

Is it no more than a grab for power and more money for FIFA....?

They are considering putting algorithms in place (much like the CES based in Switzerland does) to determine a player's value by a set of unknown parameters - it's clearly an attempt to stop the 'mega' transfers and help out the old 'big' clubs who've now almost bankrupt themselves add that to the newly structure 'clearing house' for transfers who will handle all 'training' rewards, which will be underpinned by a new 'digital player passport' - which in turn will mean FIFA will Levy a new 1 percent on the value of all transfers to go into FIFA's coffers, which FIFA will 'invest' in youth development.

Of course, the objection has been raised that most of the money will be raised in Western Europe and will be invested in the smaller associations (a nice you scratch my back and I'll scratch your's for vote perhaps? - no one as yet seems to know how it will work).

And last but not least, FIFAS's proposed agent reforms will be in place by the 2022 window - which in fairness may finally stop clubs from paying extortionate agents fees or reasonable one's if you believe that agents are worth their weight in gold! LOL!

 
First of all, sales is about what one party is willing to sell at and what the other party is willing to buy at. You can't put one single value on a footballer.

Additionally, taking 1% from the transaction will probably put 2-3% on the TV subscription to justify it.

This time around, FIFA can try and give England and Spain the same voting rights as Ethiopia and Albania, but it won't wash. Not on something as big as this.

Happy for agents to be put back in their box though.
 
First of all, sales is about what one party is willing to sell at and what the other party is willing to buy at. You can't put one single value on a footballer.

Additionally, taking 1% from the transaction will probably put 2-3% on the TV subscription to justify it.

This time around, FIFA can try and give England and Spain the same voting rights as Ethiopia and Albania, but it won't wash. Not on something as big as this.

Happy for agents to be put back in their box though.

Agents serve a purpose, it's the clubs/leagues and the Football associations weakness and inability to collaborate for the common good that's made agents the 'enemy'..

I think as the CES is Swiss, it's another land grab in collaboration with FIFA - so now it won't be able a buyer able to pay that will break a selling clubs resolve, it will be an algorithm - I can only imagine when a big club comes calling and the sellers don't agree with the valuations the grief and under the table dealings this will cause...

Talking of media rights, I am completely convinced now that the PL next deal is going to be a lot lower than the last and for the clubs that rely on media payments and selling, it's a potential financial disaster for these clubs.

I guess we will see. Still can't believe that the PL will stand for it, so as 80 says, that breakaway league starts to look much more real now.
 
Agents serve a purpose, it's the clubs/leagues and the Football associations weakness and inability to collaborate for the common good that's made agents the 'enemy'..

I think as the CES is Swiss, it's another land grab in collaboration with FIFA - so now it won't be able a buyer able to pay that will break a selling clubs resolve, it will be an algorithm - I can only imagine when a big club comes calling and the sellers don't agree with the valuations the grief and under the table dealings this will cause...

Talking of media rights, I am completely convinced now that the PL next deal is going to be a lot lower than the last and for the clubs that rely on media payments and selling, it's a potential financial disaster for these clubs.

I guess we will see. Still can't believe that the PL will stand for it, so as 80 says, that breakaway league starts to look much more real now.

True, agents serve a purpose but £263m in the 19/20 season to agents from Prem transfers tells its own story and drives the "greedy" reputation tag. The actual consumer of football paying for their TV subscriptions, tickets, merchandise etc would never want their hard-earned money moving into this pot at these levels.

This is where governing bodies would get a lot of support from all parties if better control points were put in place.
 
True, agents serve a purpose but £263m in the 19/20 season to agents from Prem transfers tells its own story and drives the "greedy" reputation tag. The actual consumer of football paying for their TV subscriptions, tickets, merchandise etc would never want their hard-earned money moving into this pot at these levels.

This is where governing bodies would get a lot of support from all parties if better control points were put in place.


Agents are much maligned but they make things happen. Caps are a good idea but on a percentage basis only. What percentage of the total fees paid was that 263 million?
 
True, agents serve a purpose but £263m in the 19/20 season to agents from Prem transfers tells its own story and drives the "greedy" reputation tag. The actual consumer of football paying for their TV subscriptions, tickets, merchandise etc would never want their hard-earned money moving into this pot at these levels.

This is where governing bodies would get a lot of support from all parties if better control points were put in place.

I can only agree, they've failed to regulate or put in maximum ceilings becasue it sorts them and the reality is the vast bulk of that money will go to a very small number - the so-called super agents have the clubs by the bollocks, but that's only come about because they've let them.
 
It's a question I've never been able to find an answer to. Why is it that football clubs and not the players have to pay the agents' fees in transfers? If the players had to pay their fees surely there'd be less scope for unscrupulous agents pressuring players into a move they would not otherwise not seek. And as the players would be paying the fees, presumably the fees, as a percentage of the transfer, would be a lot lower?
 
It's a question I've never been able to find an answer to. Why is it that football clubs and not the players have to pay the agents' fees in transfers? If the players had to pay their fees surely there'd be less scope for unscrupulous agents pressuring players into a move they would not otherwise not seek. And as the players would be paying the fees, presumably the fees, as a percentage of the transfer, would be a lot lower?


Completely agree with this but I think it is semantics. Whether the payment flows directly from the club to the agent or from the club to the player to the agent has only one impact. The players will get pissed off at agent fees. And since they have all the power perhaps that would ba a natural market-driven attenuation of fees. With that in mind, my opening statement is now wrong.

That's what you get when you think out loud.
 
It's a question I've never been able to find an answer to. Why is it that football clubs and not the players have to pay the agents' fees in transfers? If the players had to pay their fees surely there'd be less scope for unscrupulous agents pressuring players into a move they would not otherwise not seek. And as the players would be paying the fees, presumably the fees, as a percentage of the transfer, would be a lot lower?

often but not always, the so-called player's agent transfer fee is nothing of the sort, it's a way to make a payment off-shore to the agents company that is cycled back to the player via the off-shore company for marketing commitments and meeting expensive housing costs whilst in foreign tax domiciles. Or it can be away of 'netto' i.e. making sure that the contract is net of taxes...
 
Agents are much maligned but they make things happen. Caps are a good idea but on a percentage basis only. What percentage of the total fees paid was that 263 million?

I think the spending was about £1.4b so that makes it about 18/19% of overall.

When you compare that to FIFA wanting 1% for grassroots, it really puts it into perspective.
 
often but not always, the so-called player's agent transfer fee is nothing of the sort, it's a way to make a payment off-shore to the agents company that is cycled back to the player via the off-shore company for marketing commitments and meeting expensive housing costs whilst in foreign tax domiciles. Or it can be away of 'netto' i.e. making sure that the contract is net of taxes...
I think the spending was about £1.4b so that makes it about 18/19% of overall.

When you compare that to FIFA wanting 1% for grassroots, it really puts it into perspective.


Thanks.
 
if we use that summer as an example FIFA would be getting £14M from PL alone for... providing an algorithm?

Wouldn't it also be a conflict of interests for an organisation to be deciding what is a fair fee to be commissioning on that fee?

Say there was a window where not much business was being done, what would stop them from hiking valuations so they make what they did the previous window in commission?
 
I'm not unhappy with the 1% grassroots rule as long as it is administered and applied locally. As an example, if Dele Alli's algorithm was set at £50m then the English FA would get £500k into the grassroots pot if he was sold home or abroad. It could then go into English school systems. If Dele sold for £40m or £60m then only £500k would be due.

So the new rule doesn't define what players sell at but just defines the grassroots contribution. Importantly, it never touches FIFA's bank account and they just provide oversight for the policy and administer the player valuation database and algorithm.

If the player agents fees are tempered by 2022, there will be more than enough to find the 1% grassroots pot anyway.
 
I'm not unhappy with the 1% grassroots rule as long as it is administered and applied locally. As an example, if Dele Alli's algorithm was set at £50m then the English FA would get £500k into the grassroots pot if he was sold home or abroad. It could then go into English school systems. If Dele sold for £40m or £60m then only £500k would be due.

So the new rule doesn't define what players sell at but just defines the grassroots contribution. Importantly, it never touches FIFA's bank account and they just provide oversight for the policy and administer the player valuation database and algorithm.

If the player agents fees are tempered by 2022, there will be more than enough to find the 1% grassroots pot anyway.
Seems to make sense there muttley, but you know what happens if it makes sense.