S America doesn't have lucrative TV and sponsorship deals like we have so clubs rely on TPO in some cases as a means to staying in existence. The system is so far entrenched there that it simply couldn't be banned outright like it was here - granted that it hadn't taken hold here - but it would need years to phase out and many clubs would just disappear. It has been described as a form of slavery but in reality it doesn't seem that much different to what happens between players and their agents, the players go where the agents broker the best deal. To allow it would make transfers massively complicated and while Everton was mentioned as a club who could benefit from having financial help to land top players thus helping them with the push to top four, I can't see the fans wanting success at 'any price' - I may be wrong!
The situation in that regard hasn't changed pre or post Bosman. The club that hold the players registration can accept an offer & will make it plain to the player that they should move as their future lies elsewhere. The only thing that Bosman changed in terms of owning title, was that the title ceased at the end of the fixed term contract, whereas previously you could end up with a situation were a player was out of contract, not being paid, but still unable to trade freely due to his registration being held by his former club. 3rd party ownership still has this possibility, as the 'owners' of the players registration could fail to place him at a club that gave them the return they wanted & in theory he could end up in the same limbo as player could pre Bosman. I didn't equate it to modern day slavery at all, but it's a practice that's open to massive abuse. An unscrupulous agent could sign a young player up on a very long contract & have clauses as part of it, that would be very disadvantageous to the player should he reach the pinnacle of the game. The whole principle is unsatisfactory imo & should be stamped on by FIFA.
It's been equated to slavery by various people, I think that's what St was getting at. Richard Scudamore called it “indentured slavery”.
I think that's somewhat OTT & it detracts from the real debate as it's sensationalising the issue. However, as a principle I can't see how it can be defended as being in anyone's best interests barring the company / agent who takes the players registration. If allowed to run unchecked it'll remove large swathes of cash directly from the game & into players 'owners' pockets & for that reason alone FIFA should want to see it ended. As at least under the current transfer system the cash circulates around the game, going from club to club & eventually spreading down the football pyramid.
I've read up on it since this article and one argument in favour puts forward the view that 3rd party funds are a more stable subsidy than bank loans, allowing clubs to improve while reining in the debt levels. Also some say the money isn't leaving the game - because the profits are so huge, investors are re-investing over and over.
I'm guessing that particular article was prompted by someone with a vested interest? Not flowing out of the game? Of course it is, whether Joe Bloggs chooses to re-invest some of his profit back into football or buy a Bugatti Veron is his choice, ergo the money has left the game. Clubs have to pay the TPO same as they would have to pay AN other club, so I don't see how debt levels are impacted at all? I also don't see what 'subsidy' exists as part of this arrangement from the clubs perspective? Sounds like total poppycock that article.
It's not actually one article I'm referring to but information gleaned from reading loads of stuff about the issue. I don't necessarily agree with it but those who are in favour, do. Take the scenario of a club wanting to buy a player they can't afford - they have to use a bank loan to fund it. Whereas if the player they were after was a TPO player, they pay what they can afford and the TP subsidises the asking price. The club don't owe the TP anything - he/they make their money back plus more when said player is sold on. If the player never lives up to expectations and his value becomes less, the club and TP lose out on their investment because the player turned out to be not as valuable as thought but had the club used a bank loan to purchase him, that loan would still have to be repaid plus interest = debt!
Come off it! If the f'in club owner decides to take a profit, the money is leaving the game. If a player decides to buy a mansion and a car, the money leaves the game. Sweet Christ, are you blind? As for debt levels, think for a minute, back to Tevez and Mascherano arriving at West Ham. Everyone wondered how they pulled it off and how they could afford it. The answer was that they paid almost nothing for the players, and were acting as a shop window. They cost wages and a loan fee only. No bank loan or debt to the club, and the club get the benefits of their services (ask Neil Warnock)...
St are you in favour of TPO? [Mkhitaryan has a complicated ownership apparently which could have been a stumbling block on any potential transfer to us - if we were ever in for him! ]
Not sure how many club Chairman take an annual dividend.....lol. Players wages are a totally separate issue to transfer fees so your comparison is idiotic. I was referring solely to capital cost of players. Club A buys St Luis of Anfield for £40m, Liverpool then have £40m to re-invest in their playing squad. They pay Club C £15m for a total donkey, Club C then re-invest £5m of that in a Championship striker from Club D. Club D then take a midfielder from a League 1 outfit for £750k & so on & so ad infinitum. i.e. the cash largely stays within the football pyramid. West Ham were indeed merely the shop window for Tevez & Mascherano, in the same way a club would maybe loan a player out. They saw a benefit but then the players were sold for vast sums, so the benefit was only akin to a loan deal & didn't impact on the debt levels of football per se, as these players fetched massive fees off the back of their exposure in Europe.
Ronaldo is an example as to TPO investment bringing money into the game that maybe otherwise wouldn't have been generated. As a 16 year old at Sporting Lisbon a hedge fund bought a 35% stake in the economic rights attaching to the player’s registration for £450,000. If £450,000 accurately represented 35% of the player’s value then 100% of his value at that time was worth £1,285,714. Two years later, Cristiano Ronaldo was sold to Manchester United Football Club for £12,200,000. Sporting got their share, the hedge fund took £4,270,000 - great for them shame for the club, but is it? The hedge fund money helped CR stay at Sporting 2 years longer to develop and so be worth more. Had he been bought by a large club at 16 years old his value then - possibly £1/2m - would have seen far less money brought into the game. The hedge fund by looking after him financially at Sporting actually made sure more money was generated for the game and we all know how much was added to that when he left utd. Third-party investment has tangible benefits for poorer clubs within poorer leagues. The investment allows these teams to keep their young talent for longer, participate in the transfer market and potentially recoup larger transfer fees than they might otherwise be able to.
The fact remains that 35% of his first major fee went out of the game. You're merely speculating that Sporting couldn't have kept him for the 2 years from 16 to 18 without the aid of a 3rd party owner. The thought that a TPO would give a monkeys about providing a benefit to 'poorer' clubs is a nonsense imo, as their interest will be solely how to maximize their ROI, nothing more, nothing less.
TPO's aren't registered charities - that doesn't need saying - they are in the business of money making and turning a fast buck - but the facts are indisputable their existence benefits poorer teams in poorer countries. In fact they would struggle to exist if it weren't for poor teams in poor countries. Go and read up more on it. And - how do you know 35% of the fee went out of the game - you wouldn't be speculating would you? My guess it went straight into the next wonderkid and the next .....
That sentence sums it up, they are leeches that provide the game with **** all. They're collectively trying to spin the 'benefits' that they bring, when the reality they bring nothing, they merely take.
They're not 'spinning' anything. They are what they are. Money making businesses. If they didn't exist, neither would half the teams in S America. Easy for us when we support PL teams but for poor people in poor countries who support poor teams, they are the life-line whether we agree with it or not. The fact remains they do benefit the poorer clubs who got into bed with them to keep their clubs in existence, providing players who they couldn't ordinarily afford and selling them on to Europe for millions. Just look at Neymar as the latest example. Don't tell me his development, investment and now sale to Barce has brought nothing to football. And yes the fat cats continue lapping up the cream but that's life....
Neymar would have been a professional footballer in Brazil & then eventually made his way to Europe irrespective of whether some spiv owned a chunk of his 'equity'. All that they've 'delivered' is taking a huge slice of the fee. Explain to me exactly how half of the sides in S America supposedly wouldn't exist if it wasn't for these 3rd party agencies owning massive chunks of their playing assets? I'm all ears.
In the same way clubs go into administration here, clubs in S America couldn't stay afloat without TPO involvement, why do you think the SA clubs are so vehemently against banning it? Can you clarify what you meant in an earlier comment you made - 'Clubs have to pay the TPO same as they would have to pay AN other club,'?
Where's your explanation as to how half of S American football clubs wouldn't exist if it wasnt for TPO mate? as that wasn't one As for your question the TPO recieves the fee for the player that would normally go to a club for the permanent or long term loan of the players registration
It wasn't meant to be an explanation. I've been reading a lot about the subject to try and understand it and the general view from most of what I've read is that TPO's are keeping poor SA clubs afloat. Corinthians is one example of a club that was close to insolvency and 'saved' by MSI. Just to use Brazil as an example - 90% of elite Brazilian players are part owned by TPO's and the country tops the list of countries 'exporting' players to Europe - it's big business keeping poor Brazilian clubs solvent when banks won't lend them money. TPO's have become their main, sometimes only source of credit. Your comment about clubs paying TPO's was coupled with you saying you can't see how it impacts on debt - it doesn't make sense. Also, TPO's only get a pre-arranged percentage of the transfer fee, the club still get the largest part.
