Introduction

In a groundbreaking legal development, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) recently declared that UEFA and FIFA had breached European Union law by attempting to prevent the creation of the European Super League (ESL). This verdict has reignited debates about the proposed ESL, which initially made headlines in 2021 when 12 prominent football clubs announced their intention to form a breakaway league. The bid was supported by A22 Sports, a group that lobbied the new Super League proposal and was built by the likes of Barcelona, Real Madrid and other supporting clubs. In this blog, we will delve into the implications of the ECJ ruling, the revived ESL proposals, and the reactions from key stakeholders in the football world.

ECJ Ruling Challenges UEFA and FIFA’s Authority

The ruling from the European Court of Justice (ECJ) delivered a substantial blow to the established football authorities, UEFA and FIFA, and fundamentally questioned their authority in the governance of the sport. The court’s verdict was a resounding condemnation of what it perceived as an abuse of power by these governing bodies, as it found them guilty of leveraging their dominant position within the footballing world. Their tactics included the ominous threat of imposing sanctions and exclusion from prestigious competitions on both clubs and players involved in the European Super League (ESL).

Moreover, the ECJ went even further in its assessment, declaring certain regulations put forth by UEFA and FIFA, such as the requirement for prior approval for “interclub football projects,” to be in violation of the law. This decision underscored the court’s commitment to preserving fair competition and equal opportunities within the footballing landscape. In addition to this, the court deemed the exclusive control exercised by these organisations over the negotiation of commercial rights for various competitions as a significant restraint on trade, further highlighting their overreach in the world of football.

The repercussions of this groundbreaking legal verdict were far-reaching, triggering a wave of renewed interest and discussion surrounding the European Super League. The ruling acted as a catalyst, leading to the emergence of revamped proposals from its ardent supporters and reigniting debates on the future structure and governance of the sport at both the domestic and international levels. The landscape of football was undeniably altered by the ECJ’s decision, setting the stage for potentially transformative changes in the years to come.

Revamped ESL Proposals and the A22 Group

Following the European Court of Justice’s landmark ruling, the A22 group, a staunch supporter of the European Super League (ESL) project, wasted no time in unveiling an extensive and ambitious set of new proposals aimed at reshaping the future of European football. These forward-looking proposals encompass not only men’s but also women’s European tournaments, signalling a commitment to inclusivity and gender equality within the sport.

Under these innovative proposals, the ESL would adopt a comprehensive league structure that incorporates 64 men’s clubs distributed across three divisions and 32 women’s clubs spanning two divisions. This expansive approach aims to broaden the reach of top-level football, providing opportunities for both established clubs and emerging talent on an unprecedented scale.

One of the notable changes in this revamped ESL structure is the introduction of promotion and relegation mechanisms, a direct response to one of the primary criticisms of the initial ESL proposal. This alteration seeks to address concerns about competition integrity and fairness by ensuring that clubs earn their place in the league through performance rather than being granted permanent membership solely based on their founding status.

Bernd Reichart, the CEO of the A22 group, celebrated the ECJ ruling as a pivotal victory for the ESL and a seismic shift in the footballing landscape. He boldly proclaimed that UEFA’s monopoly is over, suggesting that the traditional football establishment’s grip on the sport was loosening. Reichart’s declaration of football encapsulated the group’s vision of a more open and accessible football ecosystem.

Central to the A22 group’s proposals is the commitment to providing participating clubs with guaranteed revenues, ensuring financial stability in an ever-evolving football market. Solidarity payments are also a key component, aiming to redistribute wealth within the sport and support clubs at all levels. Moreover, the group envisions the creation of a cutting-edge digital streaming platform, which would not only enhance the fan experience but also contribute to the sustainability of the ESL.

The A22 group’s post-ECJ ruling proposals signal a determined and comprehensive effort to redefine the future of European football. By addressing past criticisms, embracing inclusivity, and advocating for financial stability, they aim to usher in a new era in which football truly becomes free and accessible to a wider array of clubs and fans, while simultaneously challenging the traditional football establishment.

UEFA and FIFA React

In response to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruling and the resurgence of proposals for the European Super League (ESL), UEFA conveyed its unwavering confidence in the resilience of the regulatory framework it has diligently enforced since the initial introduction of the ESL concept. The governing body affirmed its commitment to adhere to all applicable European laws and regulations while placing its trust in the established football infrastructure to effectively guard against any potential emergence of breakaway leagues.

Aleksander Čeferin, the President of UEFA, used his platform to underscore the organisation’s resolute stance on the matter, pointing out that the proposed ESL, even in its revised form, remained what he deemed “even more closed than the 2021 plan.” He characterised this approach as “selfish and elitist,” vehemently asserting that football was not a commodity to be bought and sold. In no uncertain terms, Čeferin reasserted the enduring significance of the UEFA Champions League as a pinnacle of football competition, firmly anchored within the established football order.

Meanwhile, FIFA President Gianni Infantino adopted a more understated tone, downplaying the immediate impact of the ECJ ruling by stating that it “does not change anything, really.” Both FIFA and UEFA chose to emphasise their steadfast commitment to the existing football ecosystem, signalling their dedication to preserving the integrity and continuity of the sport as it has been traditionally structured.

In summary, the responses from UEFA and FIFA in the aftermath of the ECJ ruling and the resurgence of ESL proposals highlight their resolve to maintain the status quo of football governance and competition. Their assertions reflect a steadfast belief in the efficacy of their established regulations and the enduring value of established competitions, even in the face of challenges from breakaway league initiatives.

Premier League Clubs and Other Reactions

In the wake of the European Super League (ESL) debacle that rocked the footballing world, several prominent Premier League clubs, such as Manchester United, Manchester City, Tottenham, Chelsea, Arsenal, and Liverpool, have made resounding statements reaffirming their unwavering commitment to UEFA competitions and their dedication to cooperating with the established football governing bodies. This united front among the Premier League giants stands in stark contrast to their initial involvement in the ESL, a move that sparked outrage and intense criticism from fans, players, and the broader football community.

The public shift in the positions of these English clubs serves as a testament to the immense pressure and backlash they faced in the aftermath of their ESL announcement. It underscores the pivotal role that fan protests, player opposition, and global condemnation played in compelling these clubs to reconsider their stance and realign themselves with the traditional footballing structure. This reversal highlights the significance of fan power and the enduring bond between clubs and their supporters.

Beyond the Premier League, Bayern Munich and Borussia Dortmund, two prominent German clubs that were initially perceived as potential participants in the ESL, have taken decisive steps to distance themselves from the newly proposed league. This move is indicative of the evolving dynamics within European football, as even clubs with substantial financial resources and global fan bases have recognized the potential long-term consequences of breaking away from established competitions.

Similarly, Inter Milan, one of the original 12 founding clubs of the ESL, has also withdrawn its support for the project. This decision illustrates the fluid nature of football allegiances and the complex factors that influence clubs’ decisions. It suggests that, even within the ranks of the ESL’s founding clubs, there was a diversity of opinions and priorities, which ultimately led to diverging paths in response to the evolving situation.

The post-ESL landscape in European football is marked by a shifting and dynamic landscape, with Premier League clubs reversing their positions to align with UEFA, German giants distancing themselves from breakaway ventures, and founding ESL clubs reevaluating their support. This ongoing saga reflects the intricate interplay of fan sentiment, financial considerations, and the enduring traditions of the sport, shaping the future of football governance and competition.

The Future of European Football

The recent ruling by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has not only opened the door but blown wide open the gateway to extensive discussions and deliberations concerning the future of European football governance. The ramifications of this landmark decision, while not yet fully crystalized, have sent shockwaves through the footballing world, challenging the established authority of both UEFA and FIFA and ushering in a new era of intense debate and reevaluation.

At this juncture, the precise and immediate consequences of the ECJ’s ruling remain somewhat veiled in uncertainty. However, what is abundantly clear is that it has fundamentally shaken the foundations of football’s governing bodies, forcing them to confront the issues of monopolistic practices, dominance, and an alleged abuse of power. The ruling serves as a stark reminder that no entity, no matter how entrenched in the footballing landscape, is above the scrutiny of the law.

Notably, the backers of the European Super League (ESL), once seen as a potential disruptor of the status quo, remain undeterred by the legal setback. They have embarked on a determined path to realise their vision, albeit with substantial modifications aimed at addressing the considerable criticisms that accompanied their initial proposal. This indicates that, far from being thwarted, the ESL remains a force to be reckoned with, and its proponents are actively working on reshaping their venture to align more closely with the demands and expectations of the footballing world.

In the midst of this turmoil, the future of European football governance hangs in the balance. The decisions made in the coming months and years will be the result of a complex interplay of interests involving not only the key stakeholders such as fans, clubs, governing bodies, and players but also the intervention of legal authorities. These diverse groups will each play a pivotal role in shaping the landscape of European football, from the rules governing competitions to the distribution of revenues and the very structure of the sport.

Undoubtedly, this is a watershed moment in the history of football governance. The ripple effects of the ECJ ruling are bound to resonate throughout the footballing world for years to come, with the potential to transform the sport at both the domestic and international levels. As the various parties engage in dialogue and negotiation, the future contours of European football governance will gradually emerge, reflecting the evolving dynamics of the game and the aspirations of those who hold it dear.

Why did the Court of Arbitration for Sports Find in Favour of the FIFA Football Agent Regulations?

Introduction

Despite the majority of national courts across Europe and Brazil, arbitrational tribunals such as in the UK, and many national football federations including France and Spain, passing judgements against the FIFA Football Agent Regulations (FFAR); as we discussed last week, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), a preeminent authority in matters related to sports disputes, is the only institution that ruled in favour of FIFA, affirming the legality and justifiability of FFAR. 

The CAS ruling has been the only ruling in favour of FIFA so far. Hence, the question remains as to why the decision of the most dominant sports court contradicts the decisions made by national courts. In this blog we will analyse the CAS decision in more detail and try to understand what might have caused the surprising ruling and why the legal bodies of all the other courts and football federations came to such a contrasting conclusion. 

A Summary of the CAS Ruling

In a comprehensive but surprising ruling, the Court of Arbitration for Sport upheld the FIFA Football Agent Regulations after examining their compliance with international competition laws and other relevant regulations. CAS affirmed the FFAR’s alignment with the broader international framework, emphasising their proportionality in their role promoting fair competition within the football agent industry. The court found that while certain aspects of FFAR might deviate from established norms, these deviations were proportionate and reasonable in light of the regulations’ primary objective: enhancing transparency in the football agent sector. 

The CAS judgement seems to affirm that the FFAR represent a justifiable means to this end, recognizing that the regulations might entail some incoherence with international laws but are essential for achieving the desired outcome of a more transparent and equitable football agent industry, in accordance with international competition laws and other relevant regulations.

If this were right, why did all of the other national courts come to a different finding?

The Flawed Presentation of the Agents’ Case

A pivotal factor contributing to CAS’s favourable ruling for FIFA in the FFAR case can be attributed to the presentation of the agents’ case itself. This aspect warrants a closer examination as it played a substantial role in shaping the outcomes.

Surprisingly, the legal team representing the football agents in the CAS proceedings failed to mount a compelling case. Their presentation was marred by a lack of substantial evidence to bolster their arguments and substantiate their claims. This deficiency in strong, supporting evidence placed the agents’ case at a significant disadvantage right from the outset of the proceedings. With little to counter FIFA’s stance, CAS faced a challenging task in ruling against FIFA, given the absence of a robust case from the agents’ side.

This dearth of compelling evidence not only weakened the agents’ position but also hindered CAS’s ability to objectively evaluate the merits of the FFAR regulations. Without a well-constructed and substantiated argument from the agents’ lawyers, CAS was left with limited grounds to question FIFA’s claims or to consider alternative viewpoints. This factor undoubtedly played a substantial role in shaping the CAS decisions in favour of FIFA, highlighting the importance of a well-prepared and well-argued case in legal proceedings of such significance.

It seems strange that for such a significant case, being heard in the most reputable sports court, that a case could be presented so poorly. However, the reason was quite simple.

Conflict of Interest

A significant issue marred the Court of Arbitration for Sport’s proceedings: a potential conflict of interest. The Professional Football Agents Association (PROFAA) and FIFA jointly agreed to bring the case to CAS. Consequently, questions arose such as; Why didn’t PROFAA bring the case to the national courts in Switzerland instead? Why did they do as FIFA advised them to?

The Absence of Proof

In any legal dispute, the significance of presenting substantial and compelling evidence cannot be overstated. It forms the foundations upon which decisions are made, and the CAS case concerning the FIFA Football Agent Regulations relied heavily on such evidence. However, what stood out conspicuously in these cases was the remarkable absence of convincing proof that could effectively challenge FIFA’s position.

To paraphrase Paragraph 306 of the CAS award; “PROFAA has not contested any of the abovementioned elements and figures, and certainly not proven that FIFA has committed a manifest error of assessment […] PROFAA has not adequately supported this claim with evidence.”

Furthermore, Paragraph 372 states: “the Panel concludes that the Claimant has failed to provide the required evidence to prove that Article 15(2) FFAR (together with associated provisions Articles 15(3)-(4) FFAR and Article 16(3)(d) FFAR), Article 12(2) FFAR and Articles 12(8)-(9) FFAR are incompatible with Articles 101 and 102 TFEU.” 

In other words, these direct quotes from the judgement show that the lawyers representing the agents failed to produce concrete evidence or persuasive arguments capable of countering FIFA’s claims regarding the FFAR. This undermined the agents’ ability to present a robust case against the regulations. The lack of compelling evidence left CAS with limited grounds on which to question FIFA’s stance or to consider alternative viewpoints. Consequently, CAS ruled in favour of FIFA, as the agents’ legal team had not managed to establish a convincing case against the regulations. This critical importance of presenting a well-prepared and well-documented argument in any legal battle has been adhered to in other jurisdictions which found in favour of the agents’ case. This explains the contradictory nature of the CAS decision compared to national authorities.

Contrasting National Courts

As we have mentioned, in stark contrast to CAS, national courts across Europe such as in Dortmund and the Arbitration Tribunal in England have reached different conclusions regarding FFAR, often deferring the decision to the European Court of Justice and football federations have blocked their implementation.

The key difference is that these courts have been presented with properly presented cases, and lawyers have represented agents fairly. For example, the Rule K given by the English Arbitrational Tribunal acknowledges that CAS was not given the sam evidence but also states in Paragraph 187 that there was an “error of law” made by the CAS tribunal.

The presence of more robust and clearly given evidence has allowed these bodies to critically examine the regulations and question their legality more accurately. The divergent outcomes in these national courts demonstrates the significance of a well-presented case and the importance of an unbiased legal team.

Conclusion

The support of the Court of Arbitration for Sport for the FIFA Football Agent Regulations has raised important questions about the fairness and transparency of the proceedings. The flawed presentation of the agents’ case, the conflict of interest in lawyer appointments, and the absence of compelling evidence all contribute to the puzzling pattern of CAS rulings in favour of FIFA.

Introduction

As we have explored in several previous blogs, the FIFA Football Agent Regulations saga has been a key point of discussion in the world of football. On the 30th December 2023 the Bureau of the Council of FIFA approved the decision to to provisionally globally suspend specific aspects of the FIFA Football Agent Regulations (FFAR) until the European Court of Justice (ECJ) delivers a final verdict. The news was broken via a circular distributed worldwide to stakeholders. In this blog we take a neutral look at the situation and explore the key points to be aware of as agents operating in the industry.

FIFA’s Ongoing Legal Battles

As we’ve previously discussed in our earlier blog posts, FIFA’s experience with the FIFA Football Agent Regulations (FFAR) has been anything but smooth. The journey has been marked by a series of protracted legal disputes initiated by football agents and their affiliated associations throughout Europe. These legal challenges were primarily designed to scrutinise the legality of FFAR and to strategically delay their full implementation.

It’s important to note that FIFA has not been without triumph in these legal battles, something that was quickly pointed out within the Circular. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), a preeminent authority in matters related to sports disputes, has consistently ruled in favour of FIFA, affirming the legality and justifiability of FFAR. Although it is surprising when we look at the individual European courts, the majority of which have ruled against FIFA or deferred to the ECJ, that the ruling of the most reputable Sports court contradicts the majority. We will analyse the CAS decision in more detail in a later blog in order to try to understand why this might be…

The legal victory with CAS has nevertheless encouraged FIFA in their pursuit of implementing the FFAR as a legitimate and essential regulatory framework for the football industry. 

CAS is the only legal victory for FIFA so far. Elsewhere, in a pivotal development in May 2023, the District Court of Dortmund in Germany issued a preliminary injunction targeting specific provisions within the FIFA Football Agent Regulations (FFAR). The injunction mandated the suspension of a cluster of regulations integral to FFAR’s functioning. 

The District Court of Dortmund’s decision to suspend these specific FFAR provisions undoubtedly introduced a significant degree of uncertainty and complexity into the football agent industry and player transfer market. 

As it turned out, the decision in Germany was the first of many in a long line of European courts that ruled against FIFA. Particularly in some of the major football nations such as Italy, Spain, France and England, the National Football Federations opposed FIFA and decided they would not fully implemented the regulations. There is also further legal support such as the Arbitration Tribunal in the UK which also made it clear that their view is that the FFAR does not align with competition laws. Evidently, it is not just Germany that has forced FIFA into rethinking the implementation of the FFAR but resistance has spread across Europe and also in Brazil. There is also an element of common understanding and acceptance that if agents in other countries were to oppose the regulations in court, there would most likely be many more national court’s ruling against the regulations.

FIFA’s Response: A Global Suspension

In the face of legal blocks and overwhelming opposition against the regulations across many major football countries, FIFA has opted to provisionally suspend the affected FFAR rules on a global scale. The rationale behind this suspension is to maintain consistent legal standards in international transfers, regardless of their association with the European Union. This was a particularly clarification step with the fast-approaching January transfer window causing significant confusion for agents and other stakeholders.

Let’s delve deeper into the specific FFAR provisions that were placed under the injunction in Dortmund and hence, have been provisionally suspended globally by FIFA until the final decision of the ECJ:

1. Service Fee Cap (Article 15, Paragraphs 1-4): The court’s injunction and FIFA’s circular has halted the enforcement of the 3% and 5% limits on service fees charged by football agents during player transfers. Transactions in January will not be subject to these caps.
2. Rules Concerning Service Fee Payments (Article 14, Paragraphs 6, 8, and 11): The suspension extends to regulations governing how service fees are calculated, negotiated, and paid between agents and the parties involved in football transfers. 
3. The “Client Pays” Rule (Article 14, Paragraphs 2 and 10): Another contentious area addressed by the injunction is the “client pays” rule, which outlines who is responsible for covering the agent’s fees. This suspension has implications for the financial agreements between players, clubs, and agents in the January window.
4. Rules Regarding the Timing of Service Fee Payments (Article 14, Paragraphs 7 and 12): FFAR’s provisions concerning the timing of service fee payments have also been temporarily set aside. This regulation specifies when agents are entitled to receive their fees during a player transfer
5. Prohibition of Dual Representation (Article 12, Paragraphs 8-10): The injunction also affects rules aimed at preventing agents from representing both the buying and the selling club in a single player transfer transaction. 
6. Reporting Obligations (Article 16, Paragraphs 2 h), j), k), and 4): FFAR’s reporting obligations, which mandate that agents provide various reports and information to relevant authorities, have also been temporarily suspended. 
7. Rules Regarding Disclosure and Publication (Article 19): Finally, the injunction extends to FFAR’s regulations related to disclosure and publication requirements of what information must be made public during and after player transfers.

Within FIFA’s Circular, the governing body has advised member associations to temporarily suspend all equivalent provisions from their national football agent regulations. The only exception is when these provisions directly contradict local laws and national law will always be held superior to FIFA Laws. This will likely remain the case until the ECJ has concluded their findings on the FFAR.

One thing that is important to note is that in the majority of countries, as we have discussed in our previous blogs, still require agents to sit the reintroduced FIFA Agent Exam in order to obtain their licence. The only exception to this is in Germany where agents that operate nationally do not need to have passed the exam. However, if they are working on international transfers and transactions, they will still have to pass the exam. 

FIFA’s Stance on FFAR

Despite a flurry of rulings against the new Football Agent Regulations, FIFA are clear that their stance on the FFAR remains firm and unyielding, even in the face of the persistent legal battles and the controversies that have surrounded these regulations. It will be interesting to see how long this continues and whether they will be successful to any extent with implementing the regulations in 2024. Their main arguments are as follows:

1. Essential and Proportionate Regulations: FIFA emphatically asserts that the FFAR is not just a set of regulations but an essential framework for the football industry. According to FIFA, these regulations are meticulously designed to strike a delicate balance, ensuring that they are both essential and proportionate. FIFA sees the FFAR as necessary to bring transparency to the global football transfer market. 
2. Full Compliance with the Law: FIFA underscores that the FFAR is designed to be fully compliant with the law. They insist that these regulations have undergone rigorous legal scrutiny and have consistently withstood challenges in various courts and arbitration panels. FIFA’s legal experts maintain that the FFAR aligns with international legal standards, and its implementation is in accordance with the laws governing the football industry.
3. Addressing Systemic Issues: FIFA’s position is that the FFAR represents a significant step forward in addressing long-standing systemic issues within the international transfer system. The regulations aim to curb excessive fees, eliminate conflicts of interest, enhance transparency, and provide a more equitable environment for players, clubs, and agents alike. FIFA believes that these measures are not only beneficial but also essential for the long-term health and integrity of the football transfer market.
4. Support from Stakeholders and Authorities: It’s worth noting that FIFA asserts that the FFAR has garnered widespread support, not only from within the organisation itself but also from various football stakeholders worldwide, beyond just the criticism of football agents themselves. This includes clubs, players, and, importantly, European political authorities. FIFA emphasises that FFAR has been recognized as a critical and necessary step by authorities beyond the world of football, underlining its significance in addressing the complex dynamics of player transfers.

Conclusion

The FIFA Football Agent Regulations (FFAR) saga continues to unfold with FIFA’s recent decision to provisionally suspend specific aspects of these regulations pending a final verdict from the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The suspension of key FFAR provisions, such as service fee caps, rules concerning service fee payments, and the “client pays” rule, has introduced a level of clarity into the football agent industry and player transfer market ahead of the January window. 

Despite significant ongoing challenges, FIFA remains steadfast in its support of the FFAR, citing its essential and proportionate nature, full compliance with the law, and its potential to address systemic issues in international player transfers. 

As we await further developments and legal proceedings, the future of FFAR implementation remains uncertain, and its impact on the industry will continue to be a subject of keen interest and debate. 

Introduction

Often one of the most talked about topics in the world of football in any given year is the transfers of players between clubs and the hype and gossip that surrounds it. Behind the scenes, there’s a network of football agents responsible for making these transfers happen. 

In light of the new FIFA Football Agent Regulations that have also been a major discussion point this year, FIFA has released a comprehensive report on football agents’ activities with the objective of bringing more transparency to this complex system of negotiations and finances. In this blog, we’ll delve into the key findings from the FIFA Annual Report on Football Agents for 2023. All statistics provided are taken directly from the report itself.

The Licensing System

The FIFA report begins by shedding light on the licensing system for football agents. A total of 19,973 applications were submitted, with 16,969 coming from exam applicants, and 3,004 from legacy applicants.

Of those who took the licensing exam, which was held on two separate dates in April and September 2023, only 32.6% of the 9,207 attempts achieved pass scores. This highlights the more intense requirements and competitiveness of becoming a licensed football agent under the new FFAR. This is demonstrated in the graph below:

Source: FIFA ANNUAL REPORT

Starting from the implementation of the FFAR on October 1, 2023 (although prevented in some countries), FIFA mandated that all football-related transactions must involve licensed agents, enhancing transparency and professionalism in the industry. A list of all licensed agents is now available on the FIFA Agent Platform, providing stakeholders with easy access to this crucial information.

The report offers insights into the global landscape of football agents. In 2023, a total of 5,319 licences were issued. Notably, 95.2% of these newly licensed agents were male, and the average age of all agents was 42 years.

The nationality of agents varied, with agents from the UK being the most represented group, followed by those from Spain, Italy, France, and Brazil. This diversity underscores the international nature of the football agent profession.

Record-Breaking Club Agent Fees

The FIFA Annual Report for 2023 delivers a striking revelation that underscores the immense financial dynamics underpinning the world of football transfers – the record-breaking club agent service fees. In the calendar year 2023, a staggering $888.1 million was disbursed in club agent service fees, an unprecedented amount that surpassed all previous records. This colossal figure represents a substantial 42.5% surge compared to the preceding year, exemplifying the exponential growth in financial transactions within the football transfer ecosystem. The graph below is used in the report to visualise the growth in clubs’ expenditures on agents over recent years, including the drop during the COVID-19 pandemic:

Source: FIFA ANNUAL REPORT

To place these figures into context, it’s essential to recognise that this total exclusively accounts for service fees associated with club agents involved in international transfers. Notably, it does not encompass fees related to domestic transfers or any service fees paid to player agents. This discrepancy between reported figures and actual agent revenue hints at the substantially larger economic footprint of football agents in the global football landscape.

Further insights from the report reveal the distribution of these fees among club agents. In over 90% of all transactions, club agents received service fees of less than $1million, with the most common fee range ranging between $10,000 and $100,000. Intriguingly, a relatively small number of transactions, 224 in total, witnessed service fees surpassing the million-dollar mark. Astonishingly, these transactions accounted for over two-thirds (68.8%) of the total amount disbursed by clubs to agents, with isolated instances of service fees even soaring past the monumental $10million threshold. Such lucrative service fees were also noticeably more prevalent in transfers that encompassed transfer fees, further highlighting the correlation between financial investment and agent remuneration and commission.

An additional layer of complexity emerges when analysing the median service fees concerning transfer fees. In absolute terms, the median service fees displayed an upward trajectory in transfers associated with higher transfer fees, a pattern observed for both engaging-club and releasing-club agents. However, when expressed as a percentage of the transfer fee, a somewhat divergent trend emerged. As the transfer fee escalated, the median service fees demonstrated a decline when viewed proportionally. This intriguing dynamic underscores the intricate and multifaceted nature of agent remuneration in the context of football transfers, where various factors, including the transfer fee itself, influence the compensation structure.

Clearly the FIFA Annual Report for 2023 reveals that the football transfer ecosystem is witnessing a surge in club agent service fees, despite the new FFAR implementation. This financial pattern mirrors the ever-evolving natureand landscape of football transfers, wherein intricate negotiations and substantial investments are integral components, reshaping the dynamics of the beautiful game.

European Dominance

In the dynamic realm of football agent transactions, Europe emerged as the epicentre of activity in 2023. UEFA member association-affiliated clubs stood at the forefront, wielding an astounding 86.6% share of the global expenditure on club agent service fees for international transfers. This striking dominance in the expenditure charts could be chiefly attributed to the robust financial prowess of English clubs, which collectively outshone their global counterparts by shelling out an impressive sum exceeding $280million.

English clubs, in particular, took the reins when it came to engaging-club agents, setting the benchmark for involvement in this facet of the industry. They were not only the top spenders but also the frontrunners in securing the services of engaging-club agents for their international transfers. Their commitment to acquiring talent and facilitating smooth transitions between clubs was evident through their substantial financial investments.

The football agent landscape also showcased diversity beyond European borders. Saudi Arabian clubs, while not at the helm, secured a noteworthy second position in terms of their spending on engaging-club agents, boasting an expenditure of $86 million. This emphasised their determination to enhance their squads through the guidance and expertise of football agents. In contrast, the Korean Republic made a significant impact on the international transfer arena by leading in another critical aspect. They boasted the highest proportion of outgoing transfers that involved releasing-club agents, registering a remarkable 30% share in this category. This emphasises their proactive role in negotiations and collaborations with releasing-club agents to facilitate player transfers, showcasing their commitment to achieving their football objectives on a global scale.

Ultimately, the report’s data illustrates the multifaceted nature of the football agent industry, where European dominance, led by English clubs, intersects with the active participation of clubs from various regions worldwide. This global tapestry of football agent activities highlights the diverse strategies employed by clubs in their quest for success in the beautiful game..

Player Agents on the Rise

The year 2023 witnessed a remarkable surge in the presence of player agents within the global football transfer ecosystem. With a total of 3,353 transfers featuring agents acting on behalf of the players, this statistic translates to a notable 15.4% share of all international transfers for the year. This figure represents a 8.4% increase compared to the preceding year, highlighting the growing importance of player agents and the increasing influence we have in shaping the intricate landscape of football transfers. This rise is more clearly depicted in the graph below:

Source: FIFA ANNUAL REPORT

Interestingly, a unique pattern emerged in the relationship between player agents and transfer dynamics. Much like the correlation between transfer fees and the involvement of club agents in transfers, player agents were markedly more likely to be involved in transfers associated with elevated player salaries. This trend was particularly noticeable in the case of younger players whose transfer deals often involved the negotiation and representation of these agents. As a player’s age increased, the prevalence of player agents decreased, but this trend was less stark compared to the impact of the player’s total fixed remuneration.

The fascinating relationship between player agents, transfer dynamics, and player remuneration highlights the intricate nature of football transfers as always to be expected in the world of football but perhaps has been accentuated this year following the new FFAR. 

The report also emphasises the indispensable role that player agents play, not only in securing advantageous deals for their clients but also in adapting their involvement to align with the unique characteristics and financial aspects of each transfer. As the football industry continues to evolve, the significance of player agents is poised to grow even further, facilitating smoother and more lucrative player movements across the global football landscape.

Conclusion

The FIFA Annual Report on Football Agents for 2023 provides a comprehensive overview of the football agent industry, emphasising transparency and professionalism. Covering record-breaking club agent fees, an outlook on the new licensing system, and insights into the global landscape, this report offers a valuable glimpse into the intricate world of football agents.

 As football continues to evolve, the role of football agents remains crucial in facilitating player transfers and shaping the future of the sport. It will be fascinating to see how 2024 pans out for the football agent profession as there is sure to be further changes due to the FFAR and widespread legal battles against certain elements of the regulations. Next year could look very different and it will be interesting to see the impact the regulations could have on some of the figures covered in this year’s report.

January Football Transfer Window Preview

Introduction:

The winter transfer window is an intriguing period in the world of football. It occurs at different times across various national football associations and typically lasts for just one month. In contrast to the more extended summer transfer window, the winter window often sees fewer deals and lower spending. This article delves into the dynamics of the winter transfer window, the factors influencing it, and how agents can navigate this unique period to benefit their clients.

Timing and Duration:

For most national football associations, the winter transfer window takes place in the middle of the season, primarily during the month of January. However, there are exceptions to this rule, with some countries having different schedules. Due to its brief duration, the winter window usually witnesses slower business compared to the summer pre-season window. 

One of the key markets that differ from this pattern is Major League Soccer in the United States as the winter window is their longer window in between seasons. This is also the case in South American leagues. As it is a pre-season window, the emphasis amongst the franchises is on bolstering rosters to bring in top talents ahead of the next MLS campaign. Hence, the market is a lot more active, particularly in certain regions as the MLS commonly recruits from South American markets as well as talents out of Europe. With Lionel Messi’s presence, alongside other big names, continuing to accelerate the growth of the league, rumours such as Luis Suarez joining his older Barcelona teammate and other exciting prospects coming to the league are more frequent and well-founded.

Club Reluctance to Spend:

One of the key factors contributing to the quieter winter transfer market is the reluctance of clubs to make significant financial investments mid-season unless they are facing a pressing need. While there are exceptions, such as the high-profile transfer of Ferran Torres from Manchester City to Barcelona for around €55 million in the January window of the 2021-22 season, such deals are relatively rare. Agents should not dismiss the possibility of winter transfers, as the football market remains unpredictable, and clubs might pursue urgent deals when necessary. 

It will be fascinating to see if this pattern continues in the upcoming window as it has been seen previously. There is some suggestion that with the drastic extraordinary activity of the Saudi Pro-League recruitment, we could see a far higher volume of high value transfer rumours and even deals that materialise in the upcoming window. This is also partly due to several of football’s top stars that have been surrounded by large speculation over the last few windows nearing the end of their contracts. Hence, for the likes of Kylian Mbappe and the Real Madrid speculation, Saudi’s pursuit of Mo Salah, and Victor Osimhen’s infamous fall out with Napoli in the last few months, there is a possibility we may see these headline transfers progress and even complete in the January window.

One trend which is also worth noting is that some clubs will be far more active in the January window than others, and this is due to a number of factors. These factors are predominantly influenced by the club’s performance in the season so far. For example, clubs that are still in domestic or international competitions will look to invest in players that can increase their chances of continued success in the tournaments. Particularly for major clubs still in the UEFA Champions League, they will have already received good income from their progression past the group stage and will want to reinvest in bolstering their squad with non-cup-tied players that enhance their campaign to go all the way. 

The Prevalence of Loan Deals:

The general rule, however, is that instead of heavy spending clubs often seek short-term solutions, leading to a higher prevalence of loan deals in the winter window. Clubs may target specific player profiles or positions to bolster their squads until the end of the season. Across many of the top leagues, injuries, perhaps caused by large volumes of games and travelling, have been a significant problem for many teams who have lost key players to long-term injuries. Loan deals allow clubs to fill these vacancies temporarily in the hope that they will return to full fitness for next season. This strategy allows them to address immediate needs and assess their options more thoroughly in preparation for the summer transfer window. 

The Role of Agents:

Agents can play a crucial role in facilitating loan deals and permanent deals in the January window that benefit both their clients and the clubs. As an agent, it’s essential to assess and predict the winter transfer window’s potential outcomes well in advance. Hopefully this blog will begin to give you an idea of which areas you as an agent should be considering and analysing in the lead up to the window and it’s important to understand that generally discussions and offers occur well before January, and the best agents have a deep understanding of the current football market to give them the best advantage when the window opens. By closely monitoring market trends, agents can identify clubs’ needs that align with their clients’ profiles or positions. Approaching clubs with meaningful opportunities rather than irrelevant offers is crucial for maintaining a positive reputation and building strong relationships.

For example, if a club is facing defensive issues with multiple injuries and a struggling defender, offering them a forward player may not be productive. Instead, proposing a solution to bolster their defensive options until the end of the season can be more appealing. This could result in a loan deal with an option or obligation to buy, benefiting both the player and the club.

Additionally, clubs may be interested in loaning out younger players to gain match fitness and experience. Agents representing such players must assess whether a loan move is a beneficial career step for their clients.

During the January window it is also worth being very alert and attentive to quickly pick up on possible opportunities. Often, many agents will look at the demands of clubs they are close to and aim to broker deals during the shorter window once they have received requests from their contacts. It is imperative that agents have also built good relationships with others in the business and it is worth striking up conversations prior to the window to see if there are opportunities and players looking to move that are worth discussing. 

Conclusion:

The upcoming 2024 winter transfer window, as always, presents a unique set of challenges and opportunities for agents and clubs alike. While it may not witness the same level of activity as the summer window, nor the unprecedented activity of the Saudi Pro-League, it offers the chance to address pressing needs and make strategic moves. Agents who stay ahead of market trends and approach clubs with purposeful opportunities can thrive during this period, benefiting both their clients and the footballing world as a whole. As the 2024 winter transfer window approaches, agents and clubs will once again engage in high-stakes discussions to shape the short and long-term future of football.