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.