Luis,

Excellent post. The problem as I see it is that there are good agents and bad agents, and unions have set up a system in which: (1) players are expected to figure out on their own who the bad ones are and then pick out a good one, and (2) the union then permits the agents to be grossly overcompensated based on some percentage of the player contract. It's a formula for disaster! If unions truly want to be looking after the players' best interest, they need to have more direct involvement in the process.

The British union (PFA) has been proactive in this regard and established an internal player management agency in which it employs 9 agents that provide players with player management services: http://www.givemefootball.com/pfasection/PMA.html.

 Rick Karcher -- 10/19/2007 7:12 AM  

Rick

Thank you very much. I obviously agree with you. Your's is a very american proposal, and one that makes absolute sense. But I'm not sure how Players' Agents Unions/Associations would react to this.

I was unware of the initiative by the PFA in Britain. It is true they have one Players' Agents Association in England as well and seemingly, things have gone well with what seems to be an excellent idea. I'm thinking how well it can translate into other countries though, where the unions are still relatively weak institutions (any League other than Italian, Spanish and English).

It would be great if the Portuguese Players' Union came up with something like this...

Thank you.

 Luis Cassiano Neves -- 10/19/2007 11:00 AM  

It's an interesting system indeed, but I wonder if it is not better suited for leagues that have a natural monopoly (NFL, NHL, MLB, NBA).

The problem to me is that the agent is supposed to look out for the players best interest. In europeean leagues (Soccer, Hockey and even team handball) talent often moves from counrty to country, league to league. Where is the players best interest here? One agent from one league claiming this, an agent from another league claiming that, etc... in that situation the player would need an advisor to figure out where to go... sound like an agent to anyone else?

I dont know, maybe I'm missing something here. Are the agents from the PFA allowed to negotiate with other leagues? It just sounds like the agents would be biased toward a certain league, which wouldn't be in the players best interest.

Any clarifiacatiowould would be much appreciated.

 Jimmy H -- 10/22/2007 7:49 PM  

Jimmy

Excellent points raised. To the best of my understanding, the PFA agents would be able to negotiate with other leagues as well. They seem to be best equipped to deal on behalf the players because of the institutional status, which places greater pressure on them to adhere to the rules put in place by leagues.

But good point on the bias. It all comes down to the human quality of the people engaged in the business. But Agents from unions do seem like a step forward.

 Luis Cassiano Neves -- 10/23/2007 5:04 AM  

Luis, Rick and Jimmy: Great topic!

Jimmy has a very good point. We have seen that, when the player moves to another country, the compromise of the new country player´s union is not that strong with the foreing player as with a national player.

Regarding the payment of the agent´s fees, the FA regulations (contrary to the FIFA regulations) incorporated in the guidance notes (September 2007) a “DUAL REPRESENTATION & CONFLICTS OF INTEREST” chapter (access at http://www.thefa.com/NR/rdonlyres/0F41539B-05CC-4B24-94D7-5D6F931BB3F3/120799/GuidanceNotes.pdf)

Finally and regarding the 3rd party ownership of player´s rights. We might say that this is our not-to-be-proud-of invention, here in Argentina. The first CAS awards about this issue are from Argentinean clubs. In Español de Barcelona c/ Velez Sarsfield and Club Atlético Lanus c/ RCD Mallorca, the CAS defines the notion of economic rights, opposed to federative rights and recognized the validity of a co-ownership of a player´s economic rights between to clubs. I still don´t know if the CAS recognized the ownership of a third person or company that´s not a club.

In my experience, those funds always have a club under their control that they use as a masquerade to register the player in order to avoid any federative obstacle. But that´s just another future conflict focus. ¿Is the co-ownership of a player between clubs valid, even if the player actually never played for one of the clubs?

In Argentina, after a bunch of judicial decision against the validity of the 3rd party ownerships of those rights, because they where contrary to the regulations of the Argentine Football Federation, the federation passes a new regulation in December 2005 admitting the 3rd party ownership. There’s a limitation, the club that owns the federative rights of the player must own also a 30% minimum of their economic rights. Also, the private owner can´t sell those rights to another person or club but to the holder of the federative rights (except if he gets the clubs consent).

 Ariel Reck -- 10/23/2007 5:44 PM  

Post a Comment