FIFA, UEFA Ban Third-Party Ownership
- Thread starter Infield Infidel
- Start date
- Status
Yes, FIFA tough on the hard issues like people making money on their cartel.
Slavery and heat stroke? Not FIFA's problem.
Slavery and heat stroke? Not FIFA's problem.
TomRicardo 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. So it needs to be stopped. Stopping people dying means potentially slowing down the gravy train -so it's perfectly fine.
Vinho Tinto said:
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.
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?bosox4283 said:
Stanley Steamer said:
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.
bosox4283 said:
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.
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).
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......DLew On Roids said:
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jVeCwbvXBwg
That first sentence is Vice in a nutshell.
- 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.
- 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.
- Status