I have written repeatedly in the past about transfer fees, first commenting last summer on how ridiculous it was that so many people were comparing the transfer fees of James Milner to Manchester City and Mesut Ozil to Real Madrid when there were a number of extenuating circumstances. In January we got the same response of shock, horror and outrage at the fee for the transfer of Darren Bent from Sunderland to Aston Villa. Yet again people were all too keen to point out other transfer fees as some sort of proof that he was overpriced.
As I said at the time, every transfer is unique – so many factors come into play that decide what that fee is, that the actual skill of the player becomes the tip of the iceberg. And what is a market value for a player? Well the fact is there isn’t one. There’s no manual available, no graphs to check to see what a player is worth, no complex formula – it is a figure that cannot be determined – what is the worth of a human being to a football club? Almost impossible to say. And there are other costs as well of course – wages, signing on fees, payments to agents and so on. The transfer fee is just the beginning, and it often includes add-ons that will only be paid if the player is successful anyway, plus sell-on clauses, image rights, and so much more.
The factors include:
Do the selling club need to sell?
Do the selling club want to sell?
Does the player want to leave?
How good is the player?
In what position does the player play?
What nationality is the player?
How long does he have left on his contract?
Are there a number of clubs after him?
Age
And that’s just some of the reasons. There are more– injury history, attitude, lifestyle – the player might have a release clause – as I said, every deal is unique.
But having also written recently about the “British premium” as Jordan Henderson and Phil Jones made big-money moves to Liverpool and Manchester United respectively, where I argued it is perhaps more of a premium on players with Premiership experience, not just British players, a new edict is looming on the horizon that perhaps explains further the purchases made by United and Liverpool, and which will heavily shape future transfer policies for clubs.
The move towards such premiums started with the planned introduction of the “6+5” rule, then with the 25 man squad rule. The FIFA Congress, at its meeting in 2008, decided to fully support the objectives of “6+5”, the rule stating that at the beginning of each match, each club must field at least six players eligible to play for the national team of the country of the club. There was no restriction however on the number of non-eligible players under contract with the club, nor on substitutes to avoid non-sportive constraints on the coaches, so potentially a match could end with only 3 home grown players on the pitch
The rule was on numerous occasions described as illegal by the European Union and was rejected by the European Parliament on 9 May 2008, and last year, was finally abandoned by FIFA, who said it would look at “other eligibility” options.
An offshoot of that was the introduction last season where there must be eight home-grown players in a premier league’s squad of 25. Home-grown players do not have to be English of course, simply those who have been affiliated to the FA or Welsh FA for a period of three seasons or 36 months prior to their 21st birthday.
It was widely presumed that this rule has further pushed the clubs’ drive for home-based talent (at huge cost). But not necessarily.
You’ll have probably read a lot about FIFA recently, most notably revolving around their recent congress, and the issue of corruption, Sepp Blatter, and his unopposed re-election as FIFA president for another four years. However, as Matt Scott of the Guardian recently wrote, that is not all that happened at the meeting.
FIFA is working on introducing a whole new system whereby nine players on every 18-man matchday squad sheet must be home-grown. The measure was voted through at the recent congress, and FIFA’s player-status committee, headed by the former Football Association chairman, Geoff Thompson, is holding discussions across Europe as it works up the new rules.
Thompson told the congress: “We must use the qualities associated with the 6+5 in trying to manage a workable solution.”
One other offshoot may not be a reliance on home-grown talent though, as was intended. The cheaper route is to buy young foreign talent that will be “home-grown” under the rules by the time they reach their 21st birthday. Of course the advantage of buying the likes of Henderson and Jones is that the club is buying an asset it can use right away, rather than hope that four years down the line they might be good enough to break into the first team. But teams are looking abroad for youth rather than paying extra for that premium. Arsenal have done it for ages, though they are hardly unique, and so far this summer, Manchester City have only bought two youngsters, while Chelsea are rumoured to be close to signing Romelu Lukaku.
Either way, FIFA is intent on introducing further caps on foreign players, and it seems the 9-man rule could come in as early as next year. The premium on buying British may be something of a myth as there are other factors involved, but if FIFA has its way we may see the prices for British players rise even further, and may also explain the reasoning behind Alex Ferguson and Kenny Dalglish‘s transfer policies this summer. The real reason behind some high transfer fees may well be a rule that doesn’t yet exist.
[ad_pod id=’unruly-2′ align=’right’]
