Why the Transfer Market WILL change - whether anyone likes it or not
How to reform this industry is a pressing question, but there's a tipping point that has been reached in a number of ways which will almost certainly upend how business is conducted in 5-10 years
Given the level of interest around my piece that followed the end of the 2024 transfer window, it seems that - publicly at least - the transfer train continues onwards. Thousands of internet non-entities still pass comment on something they know as much about as nuclear physics, Sky Sports still rolls out the club correspondents and the countdown clock, and the ‘who will sign who’ aspect continues to be more important to some than the action itself.
But there are probably more fans, delegates, and executives out there than you think that see the folly of where football has landed but just aren’t willing to admit it.
My inbox is filled with everyone from all elements of the sport, but the underlying sentiment is clear - the transfer market is, for want of a better word, fucked.
There’s a trend on Twitter in the last few days of kids who haven’t lived a day in their lives talking about ‘Prime Barclays’, in reference to an era of the Premier League that some consider lost. While much of it viral nonsense, there’s a foundation in it that can be taken back to 2008, when things all seemed a little simpler.
But what exactly happened in 2008 to give us this transfer market and, indeed, the football we endure today?
1. Manchester City already killed it (kinda)
On Transfer Deadline Day 2008, Manchester City signed Robinho from Real Madrid for £32.5m. It was treble the amount spent by City in their history until that point and was comfortably the most expensive signing of the 2008/09 season. And it’s barely even mentioned now, largely because the deal didn’t work out, but because it was simply a marker laid down by the club’s new owners, the state of Abu Dhabi.
And that was the first domino. The sport was hardly free from corruption and scandal before that - the FIFA debacle involving Chuck Blazer and many more prior to this definitively proves that, while Calciopoli had come and gone with Juventus relegated as a result - but this was the moment where football invited in that which does not wish to be regulated.
City fans would point to what the Glazers have done to Manchester United since taking over, extracting nearly £1 Bn in interest payments, but as horrifying as it is, it’s old-fashioned capitalism in quite a lot of ways, compared to this.
When you are allowed to be floated on the stock exchange, or are involved in cross-border activities in which an international tax may arise, there are laws, there are treaties, there are methods in which to manage such behaviour. Yet the Premier League sanctioned Abu Dhabi’s takeover in such a naive fashion that it appears pretty ridiculous today.
The Premier League, as it was, governed a football competition. They weren’t cut out for what they had allowed into their midst and, it’s safe to argue, they have always been behind since - as this ongoing 115 charges case has shown, and may well definitively show in January.
2. Agents, Third Parties, and all the rest
It has been amusing watching agents and, indeed, the Super Agents which came next, constantly combat FIFA’s ability to regulate them in the most detestable, human rights-breaching industry there is.
There are good agents out there, those that represent their clients, understand their value, and look to maximise that value in a market which could take advantage of them. But countless others game a system that was nonsensically and bafflingly deregulated by FIFA in 2015, one the governing body has tried desperately to walk back since, but made the number of bad actors immeasurably worse.
And while those nefarious characters impact football with great misfortune on an individual level, the staggering misunderstanding of what the greediest agents could and would extract from the game still wasn’t properly looked at by FIFA.
And now, inevitably, the agents have more power, smarter legal representation, and more disposable income to easily defeat modernised regulations FIFA sought to put in place.
Football loses - again. It can’t keep losing.
3. Legislators can’t Legislate (at least not on their own)
Because leagues and governing bodies are so collectively bad at this, all bets are now off.
In the real financial world, where business are treated as businesses, there are myriad financial instruments devised to game stock markets, and to evade tax, and they require hundreds of thousands of employees and reams of experts producing tight legislation - that can’t be open to interpretation - in order to to protect institutions from each other, but often from themselves.
And with the amount of money circulating in football now, finding a smart legal team that can take down the rules to suit your needs is way, way easier than it should be, because we’re writing the rules of the game long after the whistle has blown for kick-off.
In general terms, you don’t need to spend too much to make sure you remain ahead of the current doctrines (unless you are Manchester City, in which case you find the most expensive lawyer in the world to defend your 115 charges).
Leicester have circumvented PSR rules on the most silly technicality imaginable, Chelsea have sold themselves a hotel, clubs have bastardised the youth product rules to massage everyone’s bottom lines, Manchester United plan to use covid losses of all things to defeat PSR, and players are being shipped all over the place in the most transactional way possible.
And every time the Premier League, or anyone else, looks to tie up that loophole, the teams and their advisors just most onto the next one. At this point there is zero reason to have faith in the rules, or the people writing them, to the point where City should gain confidence that their case may win because of someone in the Premier League’s mistake.
4. Americans (and an Americanized approach)
Manchester City is one thing, but the one thing they can say is that they have, from a football club perspective, been a virtually immeasurable success. But there’s an influx of another kind of owner in the past few years in particular; they’re American, they have private equity behind them, and their popular sports have very different ways of doing things.
Nine in the Premier League and at least another seven directly in the Championship, what this influx brings is, eventually a desire to seek return on investment, but also a real sense that ‘that’s not how we do it in the US of A’.
The first might not be a bad thing for some clubs to begin to operate properly and diligently, but only when things are going well and never when they are going badly.
But for Americans assessing this transfer market and how it currently works, and the various ways in which is can be gamed and twisted, it means that soon they might have enough power to wish to build a collective that wants to do something about it.
If Todd Boehly’s contempt for the set-up of the current system wasn’t clear enough, there’s no denying that NFL and NBA, with drafts and contract structures and no fees exchanging hands, is simply cleaner. Players, for one would love it, and thanks to a certain ex-pro, they might get what they want, because…
5. It could all fall to pieces on October 4
The system isn’t fit for purpose, but maybe we’re in a holding pattern because the ramifications of a current legal case could reshape everything anyway.
I’m no lawyer. But at a basic level, ex Chelsea and Arsenal midfielder Lassana Diarra, alongside player representatives FIFPro, is suing FIFA over a contract dispute when he left Lokomotiv Moscow in 2015. The Russian side attempted to reduce Diarra’s salary and Diarra responded by refusing to train. Lokomotiv sued him, and FIFA regulations put Diarra in breach of contract, requesting he pay back a portion of his transfer fee to the club - indeed Lokomotiv had been looking for the full amount (the deal from fellow Russian side Anzhi was worth €20m) to be returned to them.
Diarra argued that he had nothing to do with agreeing that fee in the first place - that was between Lokomotiv, and Anzhi. Furthermore, he was unable to obtain his International Transfer Certificate to allow him to continue his career in Belgium, and so as a result of these circumstances he was unable to work.
Diarra’s lawyers have dubbed the case ‘Bosman 2.0’ and while that might be hyperbole, there are restrictions around freedom of movement and employment which have always seemed the antithesis of the EU model. If the courts agree even to a certain extent, it could fundamentally reshape how clubs, players and agents are forced to approach contracts, and may well blow up the current structure.
And, yes, even if the Premier League is outside the EU, they would be subject to the rules if they chose to buy an EU citizen from an EU team.
A judge from The Court of Justice for the European Union found in Diarra’s favour in May of this year, in a non-binding opinion, leading us to the current situation.
There will be a final ruling on the case on October 4, and whatever the outcome there will likely be appeals and further discussions to follow, but whilst we might not know it yet, the transfer market might be upended whether anyone is ready for it, or not.