Third Party Ownership and Jorge Mendes

[jamboinglasgow]

Third party ownership is getting talked about a lot at the moment. With FIFA and UEFA both trying to stop it (see link below.) Those who dont know what it means is that investment groups buy up a percentage of a players economic rights. So for example a club could sell 50% of the players registration to a company who pay ?2m for that. Then if the player was sold a year later to another club for ?10m, then the club gets ?5m and the investment company gets ?5m (if the buying club also buys the 50% belonging to the investment company.) This is the case with when Tevez and Mascherano came to West Ham.

 

Now those in favour of this argue it allows smaller clubs to compete, where they can sign a player for much less than their full price (so they could sign a ?20m valued player who is owned 50% by a investment fund for ?10m they would play to the player's club) and Atletico Madrid have used this a number of times before. Also if a club needs instant cash it can sell of some economic rights of their players.

 

But those against it say that its not transparent, investment groups dont have disclose shareholders so you could have people who are banned from football or you could create conflicts of interest, where players are sold to certain clubs just because the investors want their return now, investors could demand a player not play in games so as not to risk their investment and investment groups could have players on both sides of the game. There is also the issue that once an investment fund sells their stake in a player, that money goes out of football. And their is an ethical question, is this a bit like slavery, when a player is owned by a number of companies rather (and I know there are questions with clubs selling players.)

 

In England and France the practice is banned, it is rife in Portugal and Brazil (where 90% of players are owned partly by third parties, and even parents are given stakes of their son when the player signs with a club, which can lead to parents pushing for their son to move club not so he be best he can but so they can make money of their son.)

 

Add in Jorge Mendes, the superagent, whose brokered transfers for Di Maria, James Rodriguez, Diego Costa and Falcao this summer. According to the guardian between 2001 and 2010 he was responsible for 68% of the total financial transactions of player transfers between Porto, Sporting Lisbon and Benfica. He and Peter Kenyon also work with an investment fund that owns Third Party ownership but that is a conflict of interest as he is an agent to players who will be owned by this fund and as an agent he is meant to advise a player on moves which are in the best interest of the player, but if there is a move that is in best interest for the fund instead, he could be influencing a player to move purely on that.

 

To me it just doesn't sit right, and this muddys the water. What are other people's views on this?

 

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/sep/22/-sp-jorge-mendes-agent-third-party-ownership-players

 

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/sep/23/uefa-third-party-ownership-champions-league

 

Video on Jorge Mendes

[CJGJ]

Fifa has agreed to ban the third-party ownership (TPO) of players.

Already banned in Britain, TPO is common in Europe and South America, where investment companies take a stake in the economic rights of players.

Fifa president Sepp Blatter said there will be a "transitional period" before the ban comes into effect.

Manchester City's ?32m purchase of Eliaquim Mangala from Porto was one of four major deals that went through in England this past summer involving TPO.

English clubs who wish to buy players co-owned by an investor and a team are already required to buy out the contract rights from all parties retaining a financial interest.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/29373456

[N User]

Is this the same or different to what Dundee Utd did with Danny Griffin in the 90s?

[McCrae]

I don't think this is always a bad thing it all depends on the context. I know of examples in South America where Football residential schools are set up to develop talent from a young age with the hope of turning them into world class professional players. The players receive a good school education, great football training and a proper diet. This is provided free in return for owning the player rights.

Many of the kids that join these schools are from slum areas where parents can hardly feed them.

 

These schools turn out players that play for clubs in the top leagues throughout the world including some that are currently playing in the EPL.

 

Without the schools these players would probably have never had the chance to develop into the players they have become.

 

[Locky]

Isn't this what the big outcry with Carlos Tevez was. I think West Ham signed him on a third party basis and seeing as his goal at Old Trafford on the last day kept the Hammers up, Sheffield United still feel hard done by today about going down.

 

In fact, I don't think West Ham received a penny for him either. Sure the 3rd party was still involved in his transfer to Manchester United.

[Bindy Badgy]

Isn't this what the big outcry with Carlos Tevez was. I think West Ham signed him on a third party basis and seeing as his goal at Old Trafford on the last day kept the Hammers up, Sheffield United still feel hard done by today about going down.

 

In fact, I don't think West Ham received a penny for him either. Sure the 3rd party was still involved in his transfer to Manchester United.

 

They received 2 million, which isn't a lot for someone like Tevez

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Tevez#2007_transfer_saga

[CJGJ]

I don't think this is always a bad thing it all depends on the context. I know of examples in South America where Football residential schools are set up to develop talent from a young age with the hope of turning them into world class professional players. The players receive a good school education, great football training and a proper diet. This is provided free in return for owning the player rights.

Many of the kids that join these schools are from slum areas where parents can hardly feed them.

 

These schools turn out players that play for clubs in the top leagues throughout the world including some that are currently playing in the EPL.

 

Without the schools these players would probably have never had the chance to develop into the players they have become.

No children should be giving away their rights to a third party.....it's a disgrace to even think that.

 

Yes you can sign for a club with a proper contract but no you can not or should not have your rights owned by a third party. There are too many unscrupulous 'agents' or whatever in poorer countries simply out for themselves with no thought to the child.

[McCrae]

 

 

No children should be giving away their rights to a third party.....it's a disgrace to even think that.

 

 

As soon as you sign up for a club you give away your rights for the term of the contract. As long as transfer fees for players is regarded as acceptable it's really splitting hairs when you are argue the merits of a club or 3rd party benefiting from a transfer fee. Protecting players through regulation is a safe guard needed in both examples.

[Paterson's Tache]

Looks like it would give small clubs a chance to perhaps upset the apple cart - no wonder the powers that be are against it then.