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

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

DTLW

 

Wondering what that would do to the game. Maybe it would level the playing field a bit !

 

One way to look at it (from what I've seen in that article) is that it would run very much as it would now if everyone ran their contracts to the end. Players' salaries would go up at the top clubs. The bigger clubs don't make a profit on player transfers the way we do, so they would just sink that money into pay.

Our business model (stay financially stable by running transfers at a profit) would be destroyed.

It'd also negate many of the benefits of having an academy. There would be no reward whatsoever for the money spent developing talent; players would just leave. You'd be much better off just taking players at the end of their contracts from smaller clubs than investing in talent, as there would be no penalty in raping versus developing. In fact, it might be better, as you wouldn't be wasting money developing players who, if any good, would just walk at the end of their contract.

Free agency works in the USA because of the college sports system. That generates huge amounts of cash and it's worthwhile a college developing talent because of the income it generates for the college. The amounts college teams make from amateur players are eye-watering. We have nothing like that in football, so that development path won't exist.

So, a more uneven playing field, less financial stability from player development teams like us and no incentive to run academies. Apart from that, all good.

Possibly pessimistic but that's my first take on it.

Vin

 

Wouldn't suit us or smaller clubs. Transfer fees are income and for a small club can be a lifeline if you strike the mother lode. The ancient rule of football...any change will always favour the big clubs even when your intention is the opposite.

 

It's a good take on it. Comparing it to the USA model is pointless, the college structure and franchise arrangements are the bedrock on which their system stands.

While I'd love a shake up of footy in general this would only benefit the current high earners and agents.

 

I would have thought that shorter contracts would necessitate the agents being involved even more frequently, so fail to see how this would stop money being leeched out of the game, to them.
Looks like another move to distance the big clubs from the smaller, stopping smaller clubs from living off of transfer fees. I do like the idea of smaller squad sizes and stopping loan deals, though.
That might stop the Chelsea's and Citehs of the world hoovering up players, just to prevent them from signing for clubs that might actually play them in their first teams.
Also, how can they cite "restraint of trade" if the player willingly signs a contract stating allegiance to the club for a specified period of time?
Surely they give up the right to move at will, in return for the payment package and extras they receive, upon signing the contract, that they and their agent have agreed?

 

Unless there is a salary cap.. The big will get bigger. It is the only leveller.

 

What are you talking about?!? Yes, colleges make a lot of money from amateur players (sort of, the reality is they lose money on sports) but that doesn't have a whole lot to do with free agency or player development. Most of the best players in NHL or major league baseball do not go to college. The best NBA players only play one year.

The playing field is level primarily because free agency is LIMITED. The worst teams in the sport get the best upcoming players each year, and the players have little to no say in the matter.

Imagine if Bournemouth finished last this year, but instead of getting relegated they were given the rights to Harry Kane for three years. And then if they finished last again, they could get Luke Shaw.

 

I'm a full advocate on squad caps. Chelsea and Italian clubs show the negatives of this being uncapped.

It removes potential income for clubs lower down the chain and suffocates player development(especially domestic talent)

Agree with Vin about the lack of incentives in clubs to invest in academies.
The pressure on smaller clubs to spend all their revenues on wages will increase in a bid to compete with clubs with larger commercial revenues.

Saints would never have spent £40m on a training ground or wouldn't have even survived as a club without money we've received from Walcott to Chambers.

Imagine not getting anything for those players?

As for players wages. That is the biggest expense which leaves the game. Unless players spend all their money in the club tuck shop.

 

I've not read the article, so I can't comment on its details.

I will say that a good rule to introduce whether in there or not, would be to cap the squad size properly. If a club could only have 20 players signed, period, then more youngsters would be developed and get first team opportunities. This will never happen though.

 

I can certainly see the unions point point of view. However as others have said the present proposal does not seem to protect smaller clubs from the dominant clubs. (Man C, Man U, Arsenal, Chelsea or even the Tottenhams of this world) Maybe a cap on transfer fees and wages for each league level perhaps. Certainly make players contracts with clubs more binding and certainly get rid of the need for players agents as far as transfers are concerned. As for academy players surely a development Fee up to the age of say 21 perhaps then on to the next level of transfer fees. The unions have to protect the smaller clubs (they are a majority of members one would have thought) other wise it will just help the bigger clubs and in no way would it level the playing fields.......Pardon the pun!
However how would you compensate the clubs for the transfer fee's they have paid out already over any possible cap?
Stikes me as just another minefield being laid out, will be watching with interest!!

 

My comments on the USA are not intended as an academically sound, peer-reviewed treatise on the minutiae of how free agency works in top-level sport in the USA but as a simple example of how one part of it (college) that acts as a feeder to their top leagues isn't the same as it is here.

As for the reality being that they "lose money on sports": from http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2013-09-26/the-amazing-growth-in-college-football-revenues

please log in to view this image

Vin

 

**** idea, so it'll probably go through.

But who gives a toss about smaller clubs losing a significant part of their income and losing the incentive to develop players who can just bugger off to Man U for f-all eh? Who cares about clubs having to spend even more money on wages just to compete on an even field, which'll probably lead to non-league football imploding?

In fairness, I'm in favour of a squad cap.

 

Squad wage/spend cap, or size cap?

 

Both.

Though I'm not sure a if a squad spend cap based on your income is a good idea unless TV revenue is distributed more evenly.

 

I do wish there was a better distribution of TV money.

 

Things got out of kilter when they stopped splitting the gate money.

 

If I recall correctly, if you buy, say, a Yankees cap in New York state, the money goes to the Yankees. Elsewhere it goes to the clubs in the relevant state. So merchandise revenues are shared. We'd be much richer if all the Man U shirts sold in Southampton profited Saints.

I may have dreamt that "fact" of course.

Vin

 

Those are just the revenues, they do not show expenses which are higher than revenues and growing at a similar rate. The vast majority of colleges lose money on athletics.

IMO, even the revenues are somewhat inflated, as at most universities every student is charged with an "athletics fee--" essentially they are forced to pay for tickets to games whether they wish to attend them or not. Yes, it is real revenue but it's not coming from people interested in attending football games. They're just trying to go to college, and have to subsidize the football team as part of their tuition and fees.