Transfer Transparency

[The Fish 10965]

 

On the Premier League website, there are 24 permanent transfer deals listed to have taken place during this window so far. Not one is disclosed with any fee. Not one.

 

It is the first time it has happened, although the trend has been sharply in that direction over the past few years. Last January the fee for only one deal, Juan Mata from Chelsea to Manchester United for £37.1 million, was officially revealed (out of 48 cash transfers). In the summer it was just six deals (out of approximately 126 transfers) and three of those involved United.

 

This month it is not one deal. Not the biggest – Wilfried Bony from Swansea City to Manchester City. That is officially confirmed as a “club record” for Swansea but remains undisclosed, though it is understood to have cost £25  million plus £3 million in add-ons.

 

Not the £9 million – another club record – that Leicester City paid the Croatian club FC Rijeka for Andrej Kramaric, and not even the £2 million that Arsenal have apparently committed to the purchase of Legia Warsaw midfielder Krystian Bielik.

 

Except it was not £2 million, according to Arsène Wenger. When asked whether such a fee for a 17-year-old represented a risk, he said it was less, but he did not say by how much. Why not? If he is correcting a fee then he – and other managers and clubs – should logically disclose it.

Instead we have the undisclosed fee. Why is that term even allowed to exist given the reason behind it is to try to withhold information deliberately?

 

Either the buying club do not want everyone to know how much they have paid or the selling club do not want it known how much they received. Either explanation is unacceptable.

 

As the January window draws to a close, there should be an overhaul of the whole transfer system. There should be full disclosure.

 

The leagues – formalised through Uefa and Fifa – should demand that every fee paid for a player, every fee paid to another club, to an agent or deal-broker (the murkiest part of a transfer) is detailed and fully available for scrutiny. They should also list the wages of the players and what bonuses and add-ons are available and any release clauses and the lengths of their contracts and whether any options exist to extend the deal.

 

It is not that the present system is not working, it is just that it is unsatisfactory, arbitrary and unclear and open to abuse and inaccuracy.

 

It leads to confusion and to fans being misled – it is an insult to them – and it can also lead to inflation in the market with players and their agents demanding higher salaries and signing-on fees because they believe ‘that is the going rate’ simply because it has been published elsewhere without being verified.

 

The selling club quote high; the buyer quote low. Club chairmen, such as Crystal Palace’s Steve Parish, have even complained that they have no idea what a player is earning before his agent comes in to negotiate his contract and sometimes have to rely on what they have read in the media.

 

Clubs are not compelled to give honest answers. They do not have to give any answers at all. They hide behind the claim of commercial confidentiality and wanting to do their business in secret – which is understandable to an extent although the leagues should not allow it – but if accurate information is put to them they should be duty-bound to confirm it.

 

At present they do not have to and there is no reason to force them. They are private businesses not public bodies, after all. They can even obfuscate (to put it politely) or lie (to be more blunt). And clubs do lie.

 

But they are not just any old business – football clubs are more than that and the leagues in which they operate should demand that more information is released for the sake of transparency, to guard against corruption and especially because the financial side of their operations can lack transparency.

 

Deals are far too complicated as things stand and far too open to abuse, with international deals in particular sometimes involving third parties.

 

There are agents, intermediaries, payments to interested parties and clauses to be meet. There are pay-offs and signing-on fees and contra-deals and lots of negotiations done in the shadows. It is too blurred. Clubs accounts are available for scrutiny but, again, they lack sufficient detail.

 

There are more transfers than ever and more money being spent. We know that because Fifa, which logs the details of every transfer, tells us so. But, publicly, it does not divulge the information in full. This week it stated that there were 13,090 transfers in 2014 – up from 12,718 the year before – but never has it been so difficult to find out official information.

 

English clubs spent the most on transfers – £780 million, apparently almost twice as high as the next nation, Spain. It is more than a quarter of the worldwide total.

 

It is the same when the Premier League and Football League publish agents’ fees. It appears transparent but it is not. Between Oct 1, 2013, and Sept 30 last year, the 20 Premier League clubs spent £115.2 million on agents – but what does that mean? To whom was the money paid and how was it divided up? Telling us that Tottenham Hotspur paid £10,983,11 to agents and Newcastle United spent £3,876,250 means little. They are just very big amounts of money.

 

In 2004 Manchester United, under pressure from their then major shareholders, Irishmen John Magnier and J P McManus, published the breakdown of Louis Saha’s £12.825 million move from Fulham. It showed that as well as £11.5  million paid to Fulham, there was a £575,000 levy to the Premier League and 6.5 per cent of the fee – £750,000 – went to unnamed agents (They were Branko Stoic, who received £250,000, and Pini Zahavi, who was paid £500,000. Only Stoic was on the paperwork for the deal).

 

It was an illuminating effort to show greater transparency in the financial dealings at Old Trafford. United also revealed, for example, that Ruud van Nistelrooy’s agent, Rodger Linse, received a £2.5 million fee for a contract negotiation and Cristiano Ronaldo’s agent, Jorge Mendes, was paid £1.3  million in the player’s £12 million move in 2003.

 

But what appeared to be a best-practice approach lasted only two years. By the time United signed Edwin van der Sar and Park Ji-Sung in 2005, the policy of disclosure had been abandoned because the Glazer family had bought the club and it had returned from a plc to private ownership.

 

It is a shame the policy did not remain and was not adopted by every club – and taken further. Instead the clubs are able to deny, for example, the existence of a release clause in a player’s contract and then to sell the player when the fee is met without officially announcing what it was. It is their business to do so but it is a shame that they are not compelled to be more open. There is nothing to hide.

What are your thoughts on clubs revealing exactly how much they're paying for players and towards Agents?

[Andrew 4857]

As private companies they are, surely, under no obligation to reveal how much they spend on assets or the details of employee contracts for public scrutiny.

If there was someone outside my work demanding to know the details of my contract and those of my colleagues or how much was spent/gained from selling or buying a subsidiary or whatever they'd be promptly told where to go.

[Rayvin 5296]

It's annoying not to know but the only real reason I can think of to reveal it would be to satisfy fan/media curiosity. Might take the pressure of the players a bit if the fee isn't published.

 

Of course it could also mask all kinds of shady deals but I have the feeling they'd happen anyway.

[Kitman 2207]

I think transparency would be a good thing for clubs. I dont necessarily agree fans need to know players wages but a central register of all payments/wages might not be a bad idea. I definitely think something should be done to reign in crooked agents and excessive fees for fuck all, although Ive nothing to offer by way of suggestion

[The Fish 10965]

As private companies they are, surely, under no obligation to reveal how much they spend on assets or the details of employee contracts for public scrutiny.

 

If there was someone outside my work demanding to know the details of my contract and those of my colleagues or how much was spent/gained from selling or buying a subsidiary or whatever they'd be promptly told where to go.

 

My first reading the article was "I wonder if Jason Burt would want all and sundry knowing exactly how much he gets paid by the Telegraph, how much he makes freelancing and what have you?"

 

However, I think there is merit to shining a spotlight on the murkier corners of football. Agents and "interested parties" being the murkiest and most cornery of them all. You see a young player with 3 different sets of "Advisers" all taking a slice of the pie from a kid who doesn't know any better. I don't think many of these advisers have the player's career in mind, it's all about getting the biggest amount of money as quickly as possible. Asamoah Gyan was one of the brightest talents when he signed for sunderland at 24, with the opportunity to play on one of the biggest stages and perhaps raising his game to the point he oculd play in the Champions League at a bigger club, instead he moved to the UAE.

 

It's annoying not to know but the only real reason I can think of to reveal it would be to satisfy fan/media curiosity. Might take the pressure of the players a bit if the fee isn't published.

 

Of course it could also mask all kinds of shady deals but I have the feeling they'd happen anyway.

There's a lot of that, the voracious appetite for information won't ever be sated. However, as I've said above, I think the biggest influence greater scrutiny could have is to address the nefarious back-room deals by parties who're nothing more than liggers and charlatans.

[The Fish 10965]

I think transparency would be a good thing for clubs. I dont necessarily agree fans need to know players wages but a central register of all payments/wages might not be a bad idea. I definitely think something should be done to reign in crooked agents and excessive fees for fuck all, although Ive nothing to offer by way of suggestion

 

Nor I.

 

Off the top of my head, what if all agents must be chartered in the same way as accountants, surveyors, etc. ?

[Andrew 4857]

 

Nor I.

 

Off the top of my head, what if all agents must be chartered in the same way as accountants, surveyors, etc. ?

 

You'd end up with people like Jorge Mendes still making fortunes and people being unable to use parents/family which a lot of players do, particularly young ones.

 

Its too niche a market for chartering or something surely, as a youngster getting signed at 16/17/18 you don't have the capital to hire a high up agent and end up with some crap bloke, there are still shite/bent accountants and surveyors afterall.

[Rayvin 5296]

That's an interesting one but it's likely to be problematic for lower league players, many of whom seem to rely on family members.

 

EDIt - Andrew got there first

Edited January 30, 2015 by Rayvin

[ewerk 31202]

The Premier League already requires agents' payments to be declared and annually releases a list of each clubs total payments to agents.

 

I can't see any benefit to implementing what the author is asking for.

[The Fish 10965]

 

You'd end up with people like Jorge Mendes still making fortunes and people being unable to use parents/family which a lot of players do, particularly young ones.

 

Its too niche a market for chartering or something surely, as a youngster getting signed at 16/17/18 you don't have the capital to hire a high up agent and end up with some crap bloke, there are still shite/bent accountants and surveyors afterall.

They're getting crap blokes now and crap blokes who have no qualification for the role beyond self-confidence.

 

Maybe if UEFA provided an agent (not an Agent, but a chump to do the admin) to hash out the first Pro deal, someone who's there to make sure the kid isn't getting screwed by Ts & Cs, but isn't getting a fat commission cheque on it's signing? Then after that first contract the player is free (and financially able) to get a professional agent?

 

Like I said I dunno I'm just "spitballing", with some "blue sky thinking" which is definitely outside of the box.

 

 

 

Also, yes, there are shite/bent so-called accountants, but how many more would exist without accreditation?

 

 

 

That's an interesting one but it's likely to be problematic for lower league players, many of whom seem to rely on family members.

 

EDIt - Andrew got there first

 

 

The Premier League already requires agents' payments to be declared and annually releases a list of each clubs total payments to agents.

 

I can't see any benefit to implementing what the author is asking for.

 

Because they're released as totals and not by deals. As the guy says, Newcastle paying £3m & Spurs paying £11m doesn't reveal anything and keeps the actions murky and obfuscated.

[Andrew 4857]

And what about the lower league guys? The ones who earn as much as a regular person.

Players aren't all going from youth to raheem sterling contract-wise, most never do.

[ewerk 31202]

 

 

Because they're released as totals and not by deals. As the guy says, Newcastle paying £3m & Spurs paying £11m doesn't reveal anything and keeps the actions murky and obfuscated.

 

They're published as totals but I would assume that the PL gets the breakdown.

[The Fish 10965]

And what about the lower league guys? The ones who earn as much as a regular person.

 

Players aren't all going from youth to raheem sterling contract-wise, most never do.

 

I don't get your point? The lower league players will have agents now, no? Why would forcing those agents to be accredited push them out of the price bracket for lower league players?

 

 

They're published as totals but I would assume that the PL gets the breakdown.

Then why not release the breakdown? Why let players transfers be described as an "undisclosed fee"? Those within the business no doubt have more insight into transfer fees and agent fees and the slices paid to the FA, the Premier League etc. so they're not gaining an advantage over their competitors, it's just the public (who are paying for the product) that are in the dark as to where their money is going.

[The Fish 10965]

(this is mostly devil's advocacy, btw)

[Rayvin 5296]

I think a number of lower league players actually represent themselves to be honest. Although my source for this is Football Manager...

[The Fish 10965]

I think a number of lower league players actually represent themselves to be honest. Although my source for this is Football Manager...

Then wouldn't they benefit from a UEFA/FA agent?

[Rayvin 5296]

But would a UEFA/FA agent work for them as well as their own agent/self would? If there's no fee being paid to the UEFA agent, it's not in his interests to drive the price up, just to get it over with.

 

I'm not saying it wouldn't help like, but it's not as though ordinary people need assistance in negotiating their pay. Although I wonder if we'd all be doing a lot better if we had agents.

[The Fish 10965]

But would a UEFA/FA agent work for them as well as their own agent/self would? If there's no fee being paid to the UEFA agent, it's not in his interests to drive the price up, just to get it over with.

 

I'm not saying it wouldn't help like, but it's not as though ordinary people need assistance in negotiating their pay. Although I wonder if we'd all be doing a lot better if we had agents.

 

Advice is available though.

 

I'm not saying I've any of the answers, just that the current system is massively flawed and benefits neither the players, nor the clubs and certainly not the fans.

[Howmanheyman 33841]

A 'Club' should be transparent to it's members, (supporters). That these clubs are not answerable to it's members and consider themselves purely business entities then that explains why the game in this country is fucked when you look past the Sky branding of the national game.

[ewerk 31202]

 

 

Then why not release the breakdown? Why let players transfers be described as an "undisclosed fee"? Those within the business no doubt have more insight into transfer fees and agent fees and the slices paid to the FA, the Premier League etc. so they're not gaining an advantage over their competitors, it's just the public (who are paying for the product) that are in the dark as to where their money is going.

 

Because we don't need to know everything. Sometimes we have to trust the powers that be that they're keeping an eye on it. Just as we don't get to see a full detailed breakdown of clubs' accounts.

[The Fish 10965]

 

Because we don't need to know everything. Sometimes we have to trust the powers that be that they're keeping an eye on it. Just as we don't get to see a full detailed breakdown of clubs' accounts.

 

Trust FIFA? UEFA? FA? Seriously?

[Howmanheyman 33841]

 

Because we don't need to know everything. Sometimes we have to trust the powers that be that they're keeping an eye on it. Just as we don't get to see a full detailed breakdown of clubs' accounts.

 

Let's just think about current and past owners of football clubs, let's think about past and present football agents and managers. Let's think about FIFA, UEFA and our FA. Let's think about the 39th game and Scudamore. Now let's think about the word 'Trust'.

[Rayvin 5296]

I think ewerk is basically referring to the democratic political model here - we have to trust that the government knows what it's doing without it necessarily telling us all of it, 'for our own protection'.

 

Same as if clubs revealed everything - they risk putting themselves at competitive disadvantage.

[BLACKANDWHITEGEORDIE 0]

It is not only footballers who have agents. Most top sportsmen have agents. Movie stars have agents. TV stars have agents. Music icons have agents. In fact stars who have signed up to tax evasion schemes usually blame their agents when they go pear shaped.

[ewerk 31202]

 

Trust FIFA? UEFA? FA? Seriously?

 

It'd be an FA/PL issue and they're far more trustworthy than the likes of FIFA and UEFA.