For decades, football economics appeared simple. Clubs bought players, developed them, and either kept them or sold them for profit. Ownership meant control, and transfer fees were the clearest measure of success. But, that logic no longer describes how the top of the game operates.
Today, elite clubs increasingly separate ownership from control, using contracts to capture value without carrying risk.
Today, elite clubs increasingly separate ownership from control, using contracts to capture value without carrying risk.
Why the Nico Paz deal explains the new logic of football power
The structure surrounding Nico Paz is a clear example of this shift. At first glance, the move seems straightforward: Como signed a 21-year-old midfielder for around €6 million euros from Real Madrid and tied him to a contract running until 2028. Within a short period, his performances pushed his market valuation toward the €60 million-range, attracting interest from major clubs, including Tottenham and former club Real Madrid.
By traditional standards, this looks like a perfect small-club success story: identify talent early, develop it, and profit massively. In reality, the outcome was largely predetermined.
Real Madrid ensured that they never truly lost control of the player. The transfer included a sequence of buy-back clauses that allow Madrid to reacquire Nico Paz for a fixed price over several summers.
Even as his market value multiplied, Madrid retained the right to bring him back for roughly €10 million. A rise of €50 million in value does not change that number. The price was locked in before the player even reached his peak. The buy-back structure is explicit:
- June 2025: €9 million (now expired)
- June 2026: €10 million
- June 2027: €11 million
From Como’s perspective, this arrangement was not a miscalculation. It was an acceptance of their position within the football hierarchy. The club’s financial upside was capped by design, but that was never the primary objective. What Como acquired was guaranteed access to a high-level player during a crucial stage of development. The return came in sporting performance, league competitiveness, and visibility rather than in the promise of a future windfall. For a club outside the elite, that trade-off can be entirely rational.
The more revealing side of the deal is Real Madrid’s. In addition to the buy-back clauses, they secured:
- The right to match any exceptional external offer before buy-back windows
- A 50% sell-on clause on any future transfer
If a club bids €70 million, Madrid faces two outcomes:
- They activate the buy-back and reclaim the player at a fraction of market value
- They allow the transfer and collect approximately €35 million
Either way, Madrid captures the majority of the upside.
What makes this structure so powerful is that Madrid bears almost none of the usual risks. The player does not sit on their balance sheet, wages are paid elsewhere, and there is no amortisation pressure or development uncertainty to manage. The sporting and market risks are externalised, while the upside remains firmly under their control. Ownership becomes optional, influence does not.
Ownership becomes optional, influence does not.
This is why deals like this should not be confused with loans, favours, or speculative gambles. They are deliberate systems of distributed responsibility. Sporting risk is carried by the developing club. Financial upside is reserved for the elite club. Market volatility is neutralised through contract design rather than prediction. Everyone involved understands the structure, because each party is optimising within their own constraints.
Control replaces ownership
The broader significance of this approach is hard to overstate. Modern football is no longer primarily about who holds a player’s registration. It is about who controls timing, options, and outcomes. Elite clubs increasingly prioritise flexibility and asymmetric upside over direct ownership, allowing them to dominate value chains without inflating costs or exposure.
Nico Paz is not a special case. He represents a model that is becoming standard at the top of the game. Clubs that still judge success purely by headline transfer fees are measuring the wrong thing. In today’s football economy, control has replaced ownership as the true source of power.