FIFA, UEFA Ban Third-Party Ownership

Status
Not open for further replies.

Infield Infidel

teaching korea american
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
11,463
Meeting Place, Canada
 
FIFA president Sepp Blatter said a working group will now draft rules to be phased in. 
"We took a firm decision that TPO should be banned but it cannot be banned immediately - there will be a transitional period," he said. "Furthermore, there is little doubt that third-party investors do influence the transfer policies of clubs even though FIFA rules expressly forbid this. These are actually the findings of FIFA's own -- detailed -- research into this subject. So, it's now time to act, and if FIFA does not address the problem, then UEFA will."
The decision on Friday is a political victory for UEFA and president Michel Platini, who have repeatedly urged FIFA to act.
 
The global group of players' unions also opposes what it sees as investors interfering in players' careers.
"A TPO ban cannot come soon enough,'' FIFPro secretary-general Theo van Seggelen said in a statement. "Every day that TPO exists is a lost day.''
http://www.espnfc.com/story/2056071/fifa-to-ban-third-parties-owning-transfer-rights
 

TomRicardo

rusty cohlebone
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 6, 2006
21,289
Row 14
Yes, FIFA tough on the hard issues like people making money on their cartel.
 
Slavery and heat stroke?  Not FIFA's problem.
 

Vinho Tinto

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 9, 2003
7,127
Auburn, MA
TomRicardo said:
Yes, FIFA tough on the hard issues like people making money on their cartel.
 
Slavery and heat stroke?  Not FIFA's problem.
 
FIFA is all about keeping the status-quo. 3rd party ownership doesn't benefit clubs with the highest revenues because they can finance players themselves. So it needs to be stopped. Stopping people dying means potentially slowing down the gravy train -so it's perfectly fine.  
 

Morgan's Magic Snowplow

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 2, 2006
22,657
Philadelphia
Vinho Tinto said:
 
FIFA is all about keeping the status-quo. 3rd party ownership doesn't benefit clubs with the highest revenues because they can finance players themselves.
 
FIFA dragged its heels on doing this for a quite some time, so I'm not sure they're just answering to the biggest clubs here.  And the benefits of TPO to big clubs in their roles as buyers have clearly been very uneven.  Are Real Madrid or Chelsea really against TPO, when they are thick as thieves with Mendes and probably have a significant advantage in signing his players?  And I'm not convinced TPO really helps smaller clubs either, especially as long as agent/owners like Mendes are doing things like refusing to have their young players sign contract extensions unless a club sells a piece of the player to his cronies.
 

bosox4283

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Mar 2, 2004
4,723
Philadelphia
TPO may really only benefit teams like Atletico, teams that want to keep with Europe's biggest clubs but don't have the resources to do so. TPO enables teams like Atletico to bring in top talent for a stint, whereas in the absence of TPO, it may be impossible for Atletico and its ilk to have a shot at landing the best talent even if the talent stays for a short period of time.
 

Stanley Steamer

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 11, 2012
1,444
Rossland, BC
bosox4283 said:
TPO may really only benefit teams like Atletico, teams that want to keep with Europe's biggest clubs but don't have the resources to do so. TPO enables teams like Atletico to bring in top talent for a stint, whereas in the absence of TPO, it may be impossible for Atletico and its ilk to have a shot at landing the best talent even if the talent stays for a short period of time.
Interesting. Does it work for Atletico because they have enough of a budget to buy developing talent for the short-term, or because they've nurtured better relationships with the TPOs? In other words, why not Stoke?
 

Morgan's Magic Snowplow

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 2, 2006
22,657
Philadelphia
Stanley Steamer said:
Interesting. Does it work for Atletico because they have enough of a budget to buy developing talent for the short-term, or because they've nurtured better relationships with the TPOs? In other words, why not Stoke?
 
TPO is banned in English football, so that's why not Stoke.
 
Still, I'm curious about how much TPO might have really benefited Atletico.  I know of the famous cases like Falcao and Costa, but how many of their other players are partly owned by third parties?  It seems like TPO might have allowed them to add a few expensive attacking players, but also meant that the club was unable to reap the rewards when those players' profiles increased hugely while wearing an Atletico shirt.  And the spine of the team seems mainly to consist of homegrown players (Koke, Gabi - at least originally) or ones purchased smartly on the cheap (Godin, Miranda), players for which third parties wouldn't be that relevant. 
 

DLew On Roids

guilty of being sex
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 30, 2001
13,906
The Pine Street Inn
bosox4283 said:
TPO may really only benefit teams like Atletico, teams that want to keep with Europe's biggest clubs but don't have the resources to do so. TPO enables teams like Atletico to bring in top talent for a stint, whereas in the absence of TPO, it may be impossible for Atletico and its ilk to have a shot at landing the best talent even if the talent stays for a short period of time.
 
But does it benefit Atletico?  They're competing with other clubs that can use TPO.  If the resources of outside investors mean that Atletico, Porto, and Roma can all bid an extra €5M for a player, that doesn't help Atletico or any other club that can access TPO.  It helps the selling club and the earlier TPO investors in the player.  Meanwhile, the buying club often has a sell-on requirement that affects their ability to control their squad, since the last thing a TPO investor wants is for the player's contract to run down.  But a club in a league where TPO is allowed can't afford not to use it, since their competition can get better players if they don't.  Then the player, if he's represented by someone like Jorge Mendes, may also get strong-armed into choices that aren't best for his career, because the agent is also a TPO investor who's looking to recoup his money. 
 
Financially, I see this as a win for players and the clubs that have been subject to TPO.  The clubs that will be winners on the pitch are those where TPO was already banned, because now they can compete with clubs in TPO countries on a level playing field.  England's work permit system will probably limit those benefits since many players in the TPO system are South American, however.
 

coremiller

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
5,945
I have mixed feelings about TPO, but at the very least there needs to be stricter enforcement of the conflict of interest rules.  It's absurd that Mendes can represent the TPO entity and the player at the same time, since their interests often directly opposed.  Often the buying club has a fixed amount to spend on fee + wages combined, and it's zero-sum between the player and club/TPO how that amount is divided.  It's even worse when the agent then takes a cut of the fee.  Given how much money is at stake, I have no idea how this hasn't sparked lawsuits for breach of fiduciary duties (but that could just be the litigator in me talking).
 

DLew On Roids

guilty of being sex
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 30, 2001
13,906
The Pine Street Inn
I'm listening to this week's World Football Phone-In podcast this morning and Tim Vickery makes another point about TPO: It functions as the equivalent of a payday loan for the South American clubs where the TPO chain begins.  A Brazilian club gets strapped for cash and sells a slice of a young player to a TPO investment group, which builds requirements to sell the player into the deal.  Not only does it create a vicious cycle for the clubs, which use payments against future earnings to finance current debt, but it reduces the clubs' incentive to invest in the players' development, because they've already received a good portion of the revenue they'll realize on the eventual sale.
 

Stanley Steamer

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 11, 2012
1,444
Rossland, BC
DLew On Roids said:
I'm listening to this week's World Football Phone-In podcast this morning and Tim Vickery makes another point about TPO: It functions as the equivalent of a payday loan for the South American clubs where the TPO chain begins.  A Brazilian club gets strapped for cash and sells a slice of a young player to a TPO investment group, which builds requirements to sell the player into the deal.  Not only does it create a vicious cycle for the clubs, which use payments against future earnings to finance current debt, but it reduces the clubs' incentive to invest in the players' development, because they've already received a good portion of the revenue they'll realize on the eventual sale.
So you're saying TPO works something like this......
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jVeCwbvXBwg
 

PedroSpecialK

Comes at you like a tornado of hair and the NHL sa
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2004
27,196
Cambridge, MA
That first sentence is Vice in a nutshell.
 


FC Porto are enjoyable if and only if you can put some icky aspects of the club to one side. It's concerning that each season, the roster is a moderately to drastically altered collection of mercenaries—a mélange of players on loan and others who are clearly just breezing through Lison on their way to a more lucrative gig.
 
- Starts off like a high school book report
- Lison does not exist
- FC Porto doesn't play in Lisbon
 
Having said that, the content of the piece is largely correct and it's an interesting read. :fonz:
 

soxfan121

JAG
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
23,043
I can't believe I missed the typo. I shall now hang my head in shame. :-(
 
Status
Not open for further replies.