FIFpro looking to end transfer fees and cap agent payments and squad sizes

[Saint-Armstrong]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/transfer-news/players-union-fifpro-launching-landmark-6468779

[Saint Charlie]

Well that would shatter our business model!

[Lighthouse]

That just sounds terrible.

 

Smaller clubs likes Saints wouldn't be able to compete at all. Anyone half decent would just be able to walk out of the club after a couple of year. Nobody would sign contracts of any kind of length because they wouldn't want to be stuck here for 4 years.

 

All this will do is push up players wages. Money that would be spent on transfer fees would instead go into even bigger contracts for players. We would end up having to offer someone like Wanyama £100k a week just to sign for more than 2 years.

[Lallana's Left Peg]

Well that would shatter our business model!

 

No - it would be perfect for us as our competitive edge would come from the young players we produce which couldn't leave so easily.

 

EDIT: Unless I've missed something.

[Donatello]

No - it would be perfect for us as our competitive edge would come from the young players we produce which couldn't leave so easily.

 

EDIT: Unless I've missed something.

 

I don't think clubs would feel incentivised to produce young players if there was a 100% possibility of no financial return. Effectively, players would end up leaving around 20-21 years of age for nothing (if the mooted 3-4 year maximum contracts are in place) - using the past few years as an example, we'd have kept Luke/Callum for a couple more years before losing them for free.....we could've done that and *still* made a return (tribunal) under the current system (in theory)).

Edited 18 September, 2015 by Donatello

[SaintZamboni]

The only way to make this work is to introduce salary capping so that everyone has an equal opportunity and the bigger clubs cannot horde talent.

It will therefore, never work.

[van Hanegem]

Thanks for sharing, this would be a good thing fot football! But I doubt they will succeed...

[Lighthouse]

No - it would be perfect for us as our competitive edge would come from the young players we produce which couldn't leave so easily.

 

EDIT: Unless I've missed something.

 

The young players would all just end up leaving on a free after a couple of years. We MIGHT have got an extra year out of Shaw and Lallana but then they would have just left on a Bosman.

 

This system would take away any point in having an academy. Why bring through youth players, knowing anyone half decent will leave on a free after a couple of years. Investing in a youth system would just be financially nonviable, when you can just sign players for free anyway.

 

The only people who will benefit from this are players, who will earn even more, and the big clubs who can just hoover up decent players for free from smaller clubs.

[Saint Charlie]

No - it would be perfect for us as our competitive edge would come from the young players we produce which couldn't leave so easily.

 

EDIT: Unless I've missed something.

 

We wouldn't lose the good Academy players without the incentive of huge fees that are then reinvested to bring in quality players.

 

Well run selling clubs would lose out and the big name or big wage spending clubs would be strengthened and be able to cherry pick.

[Donatello]

Thanks for sharing, this would be a good thing fot football! But I doubt they will succeed...

 

Can you explain why you think that is, please? I just can't see it is all. At present, I can only see the benefit to players and their bank accounts (which I'm not condemning or condoning). But as previously mentioned, I may not be giving it enough thought.

[Matthew Le God]

We wouldn't lose the good Academy players without the incentive of huge fees that are then reinvested to bring in quality players.

 

Well run selling clubs would lose out and the big name or big wage spending clubs would be strengthened and be able to cherry pick.

 

Saints would also be able to cherry pick without transfer fees the clubs below us in the pecking order.

[Donatello]

Saints would also be able to cherry pick without transfer fees the clubs below us in the pecking order.

 

True enough, as we do currently, but at least everyone is remunerated in some form (not just the players). Plenty of lower division clubs probably survive/operate for years to come on big (relatively speaking) transfer fees. In fact, I'd rather see more done to ensure lower division clubs receive more substantial fees upfront (at tribunals), etc.

[Lighthouse]

Saints would also be able to cherry pick without transfer fees the clubs below us in the pecking order.

 

On the ones the top clubs weren't willing to chuck money at.

 

Such a system would make it impossible for a Saints, Everton or Swansea to challenge for the Champs League. The days of building a tight-knit squad around Lambert, Morgan, Fonte and Lallana would be history.

[Doctoroncall]

No - it would be perfect for us as our competitive edge would come from the young players we produce which couldn't leave so easily.

 

EDIT: Unless I've missed something.

 

No you haven't, there will be one set of rules replacing another set.

 

For example there will be a limit on squad size, abolishing the loan system. It will be a bit chaotic to start with but it could be good for us, holding on to players a bit longer as long as they play, compensation for development and maybe cheaper tickets!

[buctootim]

Can you explain why you think that is, please? I just can't see it is all. At present, I can only see the benefit to players and their bank accounts (which I'm not condemning or condoning). But as previously mentioned, I may not be giving it enough thought.

 

My view too. It will be bad for football in general - 95% of the players and 95% of the clubs. Only the very top clubs and players will benefit.

 

If Man City or United dont have to pay transfer fees they will pay more in wages. However most clubs depend on transfer income in order to break even (very very few regularly turn a profit and take money as dividends).

 

Transfer fees currently cascade down through the leagues - they get spent many times over as clubs in turn buy from the those just beneath them in the food chain. Without transfer income those clubs will be able to pay less in wages and the large majority of players will lose out.

 

Seems an odd thing for a union to do - promote something which will stitch up the majority of their members.

[van Hanegem]

Can you explain why you think that is, please? I just can't see it is all. At present, I can only see the benefit to players and their bank accounts (which I'm not condemning or condoning). But as previously mentioned, I may not be giving it enough thought.

 

Off course it's going to benefit the players but it will end the ridiculous amounts of money spent on players like Martel, Di Maria and so on. I don't see ManU paying 80 million euro's as a salary to Martel... Considering the youth academy: in Holland we already lose our best talents to clubs abroad without getting a decent fee as it is not allowed to give a player a contract before he is 18 years old. Usually these talents are wasted as they get no playtime at all or they are sent away on loan to clubs where it is impossible for them to make an impression because of the way these clubs play. I don't know the rules in England concerning the contracts for youth players and I don't know how this effects the Saints at the moment but for Dutch clubs it wouldn't mean a big change. As someone said above: it will only work when clubs are allowed a limited squad (25 or maybe 28 players with a contract). But I also have doubts if this is going to happen.

[Saint_clark]

So basically, smaller clubs lose transfer revenue and players wages go up? How is that viable?

[doddisalegend]

So basically, smaller clubs lose transfer revenue and players wages go up? How is that viable?

 

FIFpro are a players union right? So what ever they suggest will be for the benefit of players over all else

[mrfahaji]

I've always felt that while seeing Manchester City spend £300m in one transfer window is a bit sickening, the actual transfer fees are not a problem, because there is a trickle-down effect to sides in the lower reaches. The real disparity and problem in terms of having good competition is due to the phenomenal wages. There is no trickle down or domino effect there. If you pay Player X £300k a week, the only one (in football terms) to benefit from that is Player X.

 

Capping squad size is a good idea - part of the issue at the moment is that top clubs can afford and attract as many players as they want, regardless of whether they NEED them. A team salary cap would be excellent but just can't see it happening due to all the legal implications.

[FloridaMarlin]

Ah, the old 'trickle down economics' theory.

 

Sits alongside its brother 'Huge transfer fees don't really matter as the money stays in the game."

 

Try telling clubs from the Championship downwards that transfer fees are not a problem.

 

Most business (there are exceptions, J-Rod, for example) these days is done between Premier League clubs, or PL and foreign clubs. There is not much business between Premier League clubs and those lower down the domestic pecking order.

 

The Conservatives try and make us believe that allowing the rich to get richer will benefit everybody.

 

Can I just say at this point, that I'm not feeling that?

[Donatello]

The BBC going with a slightly less sensationalist angle....http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/34281054

 

I must confess, I wasn't aware of the following...

 

"Five years later, another precedent was established when Hearts and Scotland defender Andy Webster became the first player to take advantage of a new clause in Fifa's regulations.

 

That said any player under 28 and three years into a contract could break that deal providing they gave written notice within 15 days of the league season finishing. For players over 28, they could do it after two years.

 

However the payment of a "market value" element to the compensation held back an avalanche of Websters - Brazilian playmaker Matuzalem's move from Shakhtar Donetsk to Zaragoza, and Italian goalkeeper Morgan de Sanctis's transfer from Udinese to Sevilla saw both players costing a lot more than their new clubs were expecting."

[buctootim]

Ah, the old 'trickle down economics' theory.

 

Sits alongside its brother 'Huge transfer fees don't really matter as the money stays in the game."

 

Try telling clubs from the Championship downwards that transfer fees are not a problem.

 

Most business (there are exceptions, J-Rod, for example) these days is done between Premier League clubs, or PL and foreign clubs. There is not much business between Premier League clubs and those lower down the domestic pecking order.

 

The Conservatives try and make us believe that allowing the rich to get richer will benefit everybody.

 

Can I just say at this point, that I'm not feeling that?

 

Except in football there is trickle down. When Man U or Liverpool buy a Saints player we give some of the cash to Celtic or Burnley. They give it to Kilmarnock or whoever. When the rich invest their additional money in daughter Jemima's trust fund or a new holiday home its not quite the same.

[VectisSaint]

Ah, the old 'trickle down economics' theory.

 

Sits alongside its brother 'Huge transfer fees don't really matter as the money stays in the game."

 

Try telling clubs from the Championship downwards that transfer fees are not a problem.

 

Most business (there are exceptions, J-Rod, for example) these days is done between Premier League clubs, or PL and foreign clubs. There is not much business between Premier League clubs and those lower down the domestic pecking order.

 

The Conservatives try and make us believe that allowing the rich to get richer will benefit everybody.

 

Can I just say at this point, that I'm not feeling that?

Try telling Bristol Rovers, Macclesfield, Rochdale and Stockport (Rickie), Bournemouth (Lallana), Swindon (Walcott) that not much trickles down to the lower leagues. Bristol Rovers may well have gone out of business if not for the Lambert money when they got relegated from the Football League.

[mrfahaji]

Ah, the old 'trickle down economics' theory.

 

Sits alongside its brother 'Huge transfer fees don't really matter as the money stays in the game."

 

Try telling clubs from the Championship downwards that transfer fees are not a problem.

 

Most business (there are exceptions, J-Rod, for example) these days is done between Premier League clubs, or PL and foreign clubs. There is not much business between Premier League clubs and those lower down the domestic pecking order.

 

The Conservatives try and make us believe that allowing the rich to get richer will benefit everybody.

 

Can I just say at this point, that I'm not feeling that?

 

I definitely do not agree with a trickle-down argument for wider economics and would prefer not to have my comments on football used to align me with a Conservative government. My point was that when you consider how much money there is in the game, I would much rather see it banded about in the form of transfer fees than player wages, as there is an element of 'trickle-down'. As Vectis and Buctootim point out, it does exist in football, but perhaps I should have referred to it as 'wealth distribution' rather than 'trickle down', as even if it doesn't go to Bristol Rovers and Blackpool but instead to Watford and Nantes, it still gives another team a chance to improve and possibly spread the money further down or across.

 

If your opinions on sports was representative of your political leanings then the USA would be truly compromised, they basically employ a socialist system in their sports!

[FloridaMarlin]

Except in football there is trickle down. When Man U or Liverpool buy a Saints player we give some of the cash to Celtic or Burnley. They give it to Kilmarnock or whoever. When the rich invest their additional money in daughter Jemima's trust fund or a new holiday home its not quite the same.

 

Only if they are smart enough to install a sell-on fee. Selling clubs don't pass on a share of their income from a sale out of the goodness of their hearts.

 

I seem to recall us missing out in the past, partly out of our desperation for ready cash.

[Lighthouse]

Only if they are smart enough to install a sell-on fee. Selling clubs don't pass on a share of their income from a sale out of the goodness of their hearts.

 

I seem to recall us missing out in the past, partly out of our desperation for ready cash.

 

We got £12m for Walcott, £10m for Bale (if you include the original add ons), £16m for AOC and £7m for Jones whilst playing in the Championship. That's money filtering down from the Premier League is it not?

[GGalpin]

We got £12m for Walcott, £10m for Bale (if you include the original add ons), £16m for AOC and £7m for Jones whilst playing in the Championship. That's money filtering down from the Premier League is it not?

 

More like £7m and £5m, sadly.

[Saint86]

No - it would be perfect for us as our competitive edge would come from the young players we produce which couldn't leave so easily.

 

EDIT: Unless I've missed something.

 

yeah, they go on strike and refuse t play for us

[hutch]

Greedy b@stards

[doddisalegend]

Greedy b@stards

 

No footballers are horribly underpaid for the amount of money they generate and besides they only have short careers so they need to make as much money as possible because it would be inhumane to expect them to work after they turn 35......................................or so I'm told

[CB Fry]

Only if they are smart enough to install a sell-on fee. Selling clubs don't pass on a share of their income from a sale out of the goodness of their hearts.

 

I seem to recall us missing out in the past, partly out of our desperation for ready cash.

He wasn't talking about sell on fees. He was talking about us getting a fee from Liverpool for player A which we then give some of to Burnley for a player B from them (ie Jay Rod) and then Burnley give some of that to Club C for player C and so on.

 

In fairness it doesn't work quite that neatly as fewer players are being bought from English lower leagues. But that was the point.

[RedArmy]

This would surely make it impossible for newly promoted sides to improve their squads and establish themselves in the premier league. Not many players will sign for them with the possibility of having to play in the championship the following season. They might sign on a 1 year deal, but if they impress and a bigger club comes in for them...they're off.

[Supersubpuckett]

its just like working for a business where you sign a contract and are bound by it, with the player making his own decision who he plays for and when. Restrictions on squad sizes would be key to it working, as would a stipulation that if a player wants to move within their contract then they would need to go on 'garden leave' for a certain period. Equally a club should be able to sack a player if he was in breach, without needing to pay him off.

 

Business models of all clubs would need to change drastically, the best players would earn even more but with less professional contracts available across the industry. Can't see it happening.

 

Capping agent fees could be done immediately however, with no negative impact.

[doddisalegend]

its just like working for a business where you sign a contract and are bound by it, with the player making his own decision who he plays for and when. Restrictions on squad sizes would be key to it working, as would a stipulation that if a player wants to move within their contract then they would need to go on 'garden leave' for a certain period. Equally a club should be able to sack a player if he was in breach, without needing to pay him off.

 

Business models of all clubs would need to change drastically, the best players would earn even more but with less professional contracts available across the industry. Can't see it happening.

 

Capping agent fees could be done immediately however, with no negative impact.

 

For that to work surely transfer fees need to be axed. Unlike a footballer I can change jobs at a months notice but on the flip side my employer didn't pay someone 15 million pounds to secure my services. If players can just walk out of contracts transfer fees are pointless which sounds great unless you are a small club who rely on player sales to balance the books. It's the sort of changes that might be beneficial in the long run but would probably do a lot of damage in the short term before that happened.

[sadoldgit]

Something needs to be done about the crazy loan system. Chelsea have over 30 players out on loan to other clubs. How can that be right?

[buctootim]

Something needs to be done about the crazy loan system. Chelsea have over 30 players out on loan to other clubs. How can that be right?

Would be interesting to know if that costs money or makes it. Intuition says loses it but most of the players they have out on loan were academy or cheap buys but they loan them out at 'Chelsea player' rates.

Edited 19 September, 2015 by buctootim

[doddisalegend]

Would be interesting to know if that costs money or makes it. Intuition says loses it but most of the players they have out on loan were academy or cheap buys but they loan them out at 'Chelsea player' rates.

 

Good article here

 

http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2014/sep/09/chelsea-loan-players-change-rules-wild-west-football

 

There are fiscal concerns at play, too. The potential financial upside is not insignificant. The clubs that take their players on loan usually (if not always) pay the wages of their signings, removing them from the books for that year’s accounts. Given the concentration on “home-grown” players in football’s rulebooks, it helps to have as many on hand as possible.

 

There are also many in football who believe Chelsea have effectively developed a new business stream with their loan operation. Romelu Lukaku, the powerful Belgian forward who was hailed as the new Didier Drogba when he signed for Chelsea in 2011 for a fee believed to total £13m, rising to £19m with add-ons, was sold for £28m in the summer following loan spells at West Bromwich Albion and Everton.