Are FIFA capable of eradicating third-party influence in football? The first sanctions suggest not.

Back on 22nd December 2014, FIFA moved to stamp out the influence of third-party ownership of player’s economical rights as well as the general influence these companies have on football clubs. This was seen as a victory for those whose leagues are free of investment groups, such as the Premier League, as they felt it gave their European rivals an edge. Abroad, clubs could sign players out of their price range for just for a fraction of said player’s true value by sacrificing a large percentage of any future movements. This was the case when Carlos Tevez and Javier Mascherano were signed by West Ham despite the club not possessing the rights to the players themselves. Essentially West Ham were a shop window for richer clubs to see how good these players were and ones that could afford their transfer fees and wages. The Premier League fined the East London club £5.5m but controversially stopped short of docking points or enforcing relegation.

While that type of deal was a rarity to Premier League audiences it’s commonplace in the rest of Europe. Teams that don’t have the financial clout English teams do are often forced into signing youngsters, usually from South America, that aren’t actually owned by the club they play for. Investment companies are what keep a lot of Latin America clubs afloat and the benefit of that help is they get to cherry-pick the best players and own the rights to them. This keeps the club out of the red each season but means they forgo the bumper transfer fees if a player moves to Europe. A recent example of this was Neymar’s move to Barcelona from Santos for – at last count – €57.1m but only €17m of that went to the Brazilian club, the rest to other parties.

It’s seen as cheating in England and I can understand that. My parents always warned me about buying things, however much I wanted them, that I couldn’t afford. The next bright talent coming out of Argentina, the ‘new Messi’, might improve your side but if their asking price is beyond your means you shrug and move on to someone that is affordable. Yet elsewhere the choice isn’t quite as clear cut.

In Spain, for example, I’d argue that the large majority of players are not fully owned by their respective clubs. Now, that isn’t because they want to ‘cheat’ but simply because they can’t afford to buy players. “Invest in your academy then!” Valid, but where does that money come from without a huge cash injection? Essentially Spanish clubs, excluding only the top two, are middle men in football’s gravy train.

Of course there is an element of risk, too, and this method helps share that aid risk out. Say Villarreal are after a new defender but aren’t convinced by those already on their books. Villarreal’s income is relatively little compared to how high they finish in the league, a lot less than their equivalent in say the Bundesliga or Serie A for example, so the talent tier they are looking at is a bit over budget. In steps an investment company from South America with a selection of talented, young defenders desperate for a chance in Europe. To an elite team they’d cost upwards of £15m but to Villarreal a mere £5m - but only for say 30% of the player’s economic rights.

The player gets his chance to impress in Europe, Villarreal (in this hypothetical scenario) get a talented defender on their books at an affordable price and the investment company has their talent on show for the whole world to see. If the player is successful and eventually moves on to a richer side, the investor is duly compensated and the ownership passes fully to the new club. If not, both the company and his current club share the cost. Low risk for everyone involved.

Last week saw the first clubs sanctioned after being found guilty of third-party influence but, as expected, the fines handed out were measly and the coverage of it even more so. The four clubs to be fined were Santos (75,000 Swiss Francs), Sint-Truiden from Belgium (60,000 SF), Dutch side FC Twente (185,000 SF) and Sevilla (55,000 SF). The statements are just as vague, citing a breach of rules pertaining the influence of a third-party in regards to employment (could be a non-playing role) and also a failure to enter information correctly into FIFA’s system, or in some cases refusing to enter information altogether.

When FIFA announced it would be banning third-party investors the plan was for it to be phased in over time yet all signs point to the initial phase being pretty useless. Transfers which already contained third-party investors before the ban was announced in late 2014 are exempt but even still, it’s hard to imagine only four sides breaching the rules since then. There are still legal challenges pending from certain clubs and companies, so this fight might last a while yet.

You would hope that over time the fines and sanctions will increase and act as a deterrent as opposed to a minor slap on the wrist. Then again, this is a sport where showing sponsored underwear resulted in a larger fine than repeated racist chanting offences. Maybe the war on third-party ownership will be a victim in the current shake-up at football’s headquarters. Either way, in its current format, there’s no reason for anyone to change how they go about transfer business as the benefits far outweigh the punishment.

Mailbag

@Chrispurs30 asks, “What’s the deal with away fans? Why do only 5 people attend? I know it’s a big country but their way support is dreadful.”

There are a few factors to blame for that but the most obvious one is cost. Away tickets, including travel, are beyond the means of most Spanish fans on average wages. Add that to unsocial kick-off times which are usually announced very late giving fans little time to make arrangements. Unlike in England, clubs can limit away allocations to beyond ridiculous levels too. Last season Valencia were given just 600 tickets for their trip to the Santiago Bernabeu which holds over 85,000.

@LaLigaGav asks, “Most over/under-performing teams this season?”

I think we all know who the most underperforming side are and that’s Valencia. They finished last season strongly, then qualified for the group stages of the Champions League but now find themselves in the relegation zone and on their third coach of the season.

As for the most over-performing side I’d probably go with Villarreal due to their consistency. A seven-point gap to fifth-place is a remarkable feat considering they lost Luciano Vietto, Giovani dos Santos and Gerard Moreno in the summer. A great recruitment drive towards the end of the window saw them overhaul their forward line and it’s paid dividends.

Celta Vigo a close second but their wobble in the middle of the season sees them miss out. I also think Eibar deserve credit for surviving another year in La Liga although their post-Christmas collapse is worrying.

@mrickling asks, “What’s up with Raul Martin Presa and (Paco) Jemez’s contract renewal?”

It’s complicated as the relationship between the two seems frayed at best but Paco has indicated that if Rayo want him to stay on, he’ll sign a new deal. There’s speculation linking him with the Valencia job in the summer but I don’t think there’s any truth in that (yet). One thing Jemez did promise is that he wouldn’t leave it as late as he did last year when he told the players he was staying, in the dressing room, on the last home match of the season.

@jonnysfootyblog asks, “Do you think Diego Simeone will leave Atleti anytime soon?”

Honestly? No. I thought if any side could tempt him to abandon ‘Los Rojiblancos’ it was Chelsea but they’ve already announced that Antonio Conte will be their next permanent head coach. Simeone has a deep bond with the club and internally they are counting on him to lead the team out at the new stadium which should be ready for the 2017/18 season. I can’t see him leaving before then.