The consolidation of the football agency market into a smaller number of increasingly large and powerful entities and groups raises questions that go well beyond market economics. As the previous piece in this series explored, the conditions in which genuine autonomy, for players, managers/coaches, clubs, club officials, agents and smaller operators alike, can be eroded are already present and in some respects already operating. What follows is the part of the argument that makes those conditions more concrete.

Corporate Consolidation

The agencies and corporate entities seemingly driving this consolidation are not necessarily villains, and it would be a mistake to characterise them as such. Consolidation through merger, acquisition and absorption is a pattern seen across many industries, from media and entertainment to finance and professional services, and the commercial logic behind it is well understood. Strengthening market position, expanding client rosters, pooling resources and extending geographic reach are entirely legitimate business objectives, and the football agency world is no different from any other in pursuing them.

What is notable, and what warrants serious attention, is the scale at which this has now occurred in the world of football/soccer agency. For example, the mergers and/or acquisitions that saw American giant CAA bring together the UK behemoths Base and Stellar under the CAA ‘umbrella’, each of which were already individually amongst the most significant agency operations in European (if not world) football, represents arguably the biggest concentration of football agency influence seen in the sport to date. Others, including the likes of USG, Roc Nation and WMG, have pursued similar expansion through varying combinations of merger, acquisition and collaborations, each at their own scale and through their own commercial logic. The regulatory framework governing the football agency market has not so much failed to address this, but as with so many aspects associated with football agency, has struggled to keep pace with the speed and complexity of commercial developments it was not originally conceived to anticipate.

An Alarming Combination

Such concerns regarding MAGs become considerably more acute when agency consolidation of this kind intersects with a separate but related development in the football ‘industry’: the existence of direct shared business interests, and in some reported cases interrelated shareholdings, between prominent agency operations and football club ownership groups.

This goes well beyond the longstanding and familiar dynamic of a club official or sporting director maintaining a close working relationship with a particular agent. It is worth noting that if asked to name the most significant agency operations in European football, many informed observers would likely arrive at the same names: CAA Base, CAA Stellar, Gestifute and WMG (who have similarly undertaken their own mergers, acquisitions and collaborations within the agency space); and as already mentioned the first two now effectively operate under the same ‘umbrella’.

Gestifute and its principal Jorge Mendes (a name synonymous with football agency), has been the subject of widely reported shared business interests and reported intersecting shareholdings with Fosun International, the ownership group of English Premier League club Wolverhampton Wanderers (Wolves). That relationship was sufficiently well documented to prompt formal investigations by both the EFL and the FA; as a result of which both bodies cleared the arrangement, concluding that because the relevant shareholding was held not directly by Fosun but through a company owned by its chairman, it did not technically infringe the applicable rules. Whether that conclusion addressed the substance of the concern on agent-related matters or merely its legal form is, to put it carefully, a question the rules themselves were seemingly not equipped to answer, and that is precisely the point.

Where a MAG (Multi-Agency Group) of significant scale operates within or alongside such a structure, the compound effect across multiple clubs, multiple clients and multiple transactions (as well as the wider football community) represents a concentration of potential influence that existing regulations were simply not conceived to address. It is not a question of whether any individual chooses to exploit those conditions, but more so whether the architecture exists to address and/or manage it, whether they do or not.

A Parallel Worth Drawing

It is worth considering whether a potential parallel with multi-club ownership is applicable here. UEFA’s regulations restricting clubs under common ownership from competing in the same competition exist precisely because the threat to sporting integrity posed by such arrangements is real, recognised and sufficiently serious to require a regulatory response. The concern is not that every multi-club ownership group (MCOG) will act improperly, but that the structure creates conditions under which improper influence becomes possible, and that sporting integrity demands those conditions be addressed rather than tolerated.

When a MAG of significant scale intersects with a multi-club ownership structure, those two sets of conditions compound one another in ways that the existing regulatory framework, already stretched in addressing each concern individually, is seemingly wholly unprepared to manage. The broader integrity implications, including the potential for competition manipulation, gambling irregularities, manipulating the transfer market (and subsequent transactions) and other forms of misconduct that football’s own governing bodies have long identified as existential threats to the sport’s credibility, are not beyond consideration in this context either.

The measures required are not straightforward or simple, however they are neither obscure nor beyond reach. Stronger and more genuinely enforceable agent regulations and conflict of interest rules that reflect the market as it actually operates currently and in the future rather than as it operated a decade ago, and more cohesive, transparent tracking and reporting of transfer activity and the relationships between the parties involved, would all represent meaningful steps in the right direction.

Whether the will to implement them exists among those with the authority to do so is, as with so much in football governance at present, a rather more open question.

If you found this piece useful, interesting or thought-provoking, you can support the development of these independent works on football agency, governance and dispute resolution at buymeacoffee.com/jjbooker

The question of where power sits in modern day football arguably never had a simple answer, but for most of the sport’s professional history the answer at least had a recognisable shape. For a large part; clubs held the contracts, governing bodies set the rules, and agents (for all the suspicion and occasionally justified criticism directed at them) were largely individual operators or small specialist agencies navigating a complex market on behalf of their clients whether they be players or clubs.

The balance was far from perfect, and conflicts of interest were far from unknown, but the scale at which any single entity could influence the market had natural limits.

Those limits have been eroded somewhat as the football agency world has grown and evolved, and the question of whether anyone in a position of authority is paying sufficient attention (as the industry continues to evolve and become more lucrative) is one that deserves a more honest answer than it is currently receiving.

Rise of The MAGs

The term ‘Multi-Agency Group’, or MAG, is one that has not yet found its way into the regular mainstream football vocabulary, which is itself part of the problem from a governance perspective. A MAG is not simply a large agency, and not every merger or acquisition in the agency world signals one forming. The concept is somewhat subjective, but at its clearest it emerges when two or more significant agencies combine, or when a larger operation acquires a smaller one at a scale that meaningfully concentrates market influence.

The recruitment of individual formerly independent agents into a larger agency or group may also contribute to that process over time, though that is a slower and less definitive signal. What distinguishes a MAG from a large traditional agency could be defined based on its reach; across clients, clubs, competitions and countries, and it is that reach and influence which makes the regulatory gap around it so significant.

A separate but related development that may have somewhat compounded this shift is that many of those who populated the intermediary market after the effective dismantling of agent licensing in 2015 by FIFA were not new to the industry. A significant number had already been operating informally within it, as runners, consultants or recruiters (dare we say potentially ‘unlicensed agents’), many already working for or with licensed agents and agencies. Subsequently when the FFAR (FIFA Football Agent Regulations of 2023) were introduced some of those individuals who could not or did not obtain a licence under the new regime did not disappear. Many remained within the orbit of larger agency operations, extending their reach (or reestablishing past influence) without arguably adding to their regulatory accountability.

‘Preferred Agents’ and Potential ‘Conflicts of Interest’

The concept of a ‘preferred agent’ relationship between an agent and a club, a club owner or official, a manager or a sporting director is not new, and in isolation it is not necessarily improper and as such in many other industries a business will have preferred suppliers, and the logic is not necessarily always sinister. Where it does however become a concern is when the relationship is not disclosed, not scrutinised effectively, and not subject to any meaningful framework that ensures the interests of others (not least a player, as an individual whose career and livelihood is most directly affected) remain genuinely protected.

Rules addressing conflicts of interest between agents and clubs have existed in various forms under FIFA and national association regulations previously, but whether those rules that remain are fit for purpose, given the scale and complexity of the market as it now operates, is a question worth considering. Some provisions have been diluted, others have arguably not kept pace with the way the industry has developed, and the application of what does exist is, to put it charitably, inconsistent.

This is an existing and long-standing problem on various levels and is challenging to address. However, the addition of the MAG dimension makes it considerably more complex, if not troubling.

Influence and Leverage

It would be easy to assume that those with the most to offer will always retain the leverage to protect their own interests; such as a club at the top of the game, or a player who is the most coveted name in any given transfer window, may well have sufficient standing to ensure their position and interests are somewhat insulated and genuinely considered.

Yet the concern is not primarily about them, but is instead focused on those subject to any such knock-on effects from a primary transaction (transfer), such as the players and clubs further down the chain of consequence, where leverage may diminish with each step removed from the original deal. The further from the primary transaction, the less room there may be to negotiate, to object, or to walk away, and at the far end of that chain a player or club could potentially find themselves with little practical say in an outcome that nonetheless shapes their immediate and longer term future. And in the modern football world, an industry where money has rarely failed to have the final word, that is not an unreasonable concern.

For some the compromise of autonomy, and at times ethical practice, is a conscious calculation, because in much of modern day professional football the financial rewards are significant, opportunities at the highest level of the sport are limited in number and duration, and the pragmatic decision to work within a structure that suits the dominant players in the market rather than against it is understandable, even if it is not always comfortable. Yet this is not a dynamic unique to football; in any industry where the rewards are potentially very large and the window of opportunity relatively short, the pressure to align with whoever holds the most leverage (or indeed most to gain) is a familiar one, and the people involved are no different from those in any other high-stakes commercial environment.

As a consequence of such apparent imbalances in the football agency world, others, particularly smaller agencies and independent operators, find the choice has narrowed to absorption, exit, or working directly or indirectly within the orbit of a larger group simply to remain viable. The economics of scale in an already ultra competitive and ever consolidating market are unforgiving, and the reduction in genuinely independent agency operation (that in many ways often provided ‘balance’ to the industry) has already been visible for some years, accelerated first by the regulatory upheaval of 2015 (and the agent licensing abandonment of that time by FIFA).

The question of what that consolidation looks like in practice, who is driving it, and what happens when it intersects with club ownership structures, is where the concern moves from market observation to something considerably more troubling.

If you found this piece useful, interesting or thought-provoking, you can support the development of these independent works on football agency, governance and dispute resolution at buymeacoffee.com/jjbooker

Football has, arguably for much of its modern history, operated within a reasonably clear governance hierarchy: FIFA at the top, the confederations below, the national associations beneath them, then the leagues and then the clubs. It was never a perfect system, but it was a system, and the boundaries, whilst occasionally tested, were broadly understood and largely respected. Yet in more recent times, and with considerable acceleration in recent years, those boundaries have blurred to a degree that ought to concern anyone with a serious interest in the future of the sport, and not merely those employed within it.

Much of the current discussion around football governance has, understandably, focused on such things as financial fair play, multi-club ownership, ‘Diarra’ (and before that ‘Bosman’), the lingering spectre of a European Super League, and the potential expansion of both the Club World Cup and the World Cup itself. These are not trivial matters, and the scrutiny they attract is warranted; yet there is a development that has, in my view, crept up over the last decade or so with far less fanfare and far less scrutiny than it deserves, and that is the increasing consolidation of the football agency market into the hands of a smaller number of increasingly corporate, large and powerful multi-agency groups (MAGs).

I wrote in 2023 about the risk that a market once populated by a broad range of independent agents and smaller agencies was beginning to contract, with mergers, buyouts and the gravitational pull of corporate investment drawing more and more of the market towards fewer and fewer entities in the football agency space. What has changed since then is not so much the direction of travel as the pace of it, and the degree to which it may be beginning to intersect with other structural developments in the sport in ways that should give many pause for thought.

I can hear people remonstrating at that, and stating that the number of registered agents, or intermediaries, has increased in recent times… but that depends entirely on which data you use, how you query it and whose statistics you decide to rely upon. Yes, the uncertainty over FIFA agent licensing since 2015 has arguably seen the number of authorised agents grow at various points, yet anyone with genuine knowledge of the industry (or willingness to scrutinise the data and context of the situation) will acknowledge that the majority of those new entrants are largely on the fringes, may not be active, do not renew their licences, or end up working directly or indirectly for the larger agencies in many cases.

The concern is not simply one of market concentration, though that in itself is a legitimate issue, somewhat fuelled by FIFA’s dalliances with the RWWI (Regulations on Working with Intermediaries) and more recently the FFAR (FIFA Football Agent Regulations). Yet when a smaller number of entities collectively hold significant influence over a large proportion of the professional playing and coaching workforce (if not even clubs), the freedom of those players to seek genuinely independent representation, to move freely, and to have their interests placed unambiguously first, becomes a question worth asking. The cases of (Lassana) ‘Diarra’, the wider ‘Justice for Players’ litigation, and the Seraing ruling have collectively done much to reassert the rights of players within the football system. Whether the growing dominance of multi-agency groups ultimately serves or undermines those hard-contested principles, and the rights of players (and others) individually or as a collective through the likes of FIFPro, remains to be seen.

The more acute concern, however, is what happens when those agency groups have shared or overlapping business interests with football clubs, whether as part of a formal multi-club ownership structure or simply as a matter of a commercial relationship. Multi-club ownership is itself a subject that provokes strong opinions, and not always well-informed ones. My own view is that it need not be inherently problematic, provided it is genuinely, robustly and transparently regulated with clear boundaries, and there are arguments that a well-governed multi-club ownership group (MCOG) may actually exercise more internal discipline over its agency relationships than the current near-absence of any meaningful framework allows for. But that is precisely the point: the framework is not there; or where it exists it is inconsistent, unenforced, or in some cases has never existed at all

What we are left with is a governance vacuum into which commercial and corporate interests have moved, as such interests often do when the space is available; this is not a conspiracy, and it would be wrong to characterise the agencies, the investors behind them, or the clubs involved as villains. They are businesses, and businesses are entitled to pursue their interests within the law and within whatever regulatory framework applies to them. That responsibility sits with FIFA, the confederations, the national associations, the leagues, and the governments who have, for years and across successive regulatory regimes, either failed to establish adequate rules, failed to enforce the rules they had, or simply looked away, often sheltering behind the excuse of FIFA’s presented prohibition on ‘political interference’, whilst the market evolved in ways that suited some of its own participants rather well.

If the agent regulatory landscape of the last decade has taught us anything (particularly with agent related matters), it is that once ‘the genie is out of the bottle’ it is extraordinarily difficult to ‘get it back in’. The fractured state of the FFAR (FIFA Football Agent Regulations, 2023), the jurisdictional battles being fought across multiple courts, the patchwork of national regulations that vary enormously in their scope and rigour, all of this is largely the consequence of governance that was reactive, inconsistent and in places simply inadequate. Agency consolidation is heading in the same direction, and the window for addressing it with any real effect is not indefinitely open.

Nobody is suggesting this is the only challenge facing football right now, it is not even the most visible one. But visibility and importance are not the same thing, and the integrity of the transfer market, and in turn the integrity of sporting competition itself, is not something that can be recovered easily once it has been compromised.

The question is not whether anyone has the power to act ………… the question is whether anyone has the will to do so before the moment has passed.

If you found this piece useful, interesting or thought-provoking, you can support the development of these independent works on football agency, governance and dispute resolution at buymeacoffee.com/jjbooker

A Practical Guide for Parents, Young Players and Families on Football Agents

23rd March 2026

This guide has been written for players, their parents, guardians and families navigating what can be one of the most significant and confusing phases of a young footballer's journey ...... the world of football agents and representation.

It is free, unconditional and genuinely independent. It carries no commercial agenda and is not affiliated with FIFA, any national football association, any agent organisation or any other football body.

What it covers

The guide covers the following in plain, accessible language:

What a football agent is and what they actually do. How to think through whether and when representation is right. What a representation agreement should contain and what to look out for. How to recognise the warning signs. What to do when things go wrong. The current state of football agent regulations, including the significant provisions that are currently suspended worldwide and which other published guidance has failed to adequately reflect.

Why it was written

In March 2026 FIFA published its own guidance document for parents on football agents. It has merit in places, but at 85 pages it is too long and too technical for its intended audience, and it contains material omissions, including a failure to acknowledge the current suspended and fragmented state of its own agent regulations. Families reading it would not have the full picture.

This guide exists because that gap matters. Plain, honest and genuinely independent information in this area is harder to find than it should be.

Download

Download the guide - free, no registration required.

About the author

Jonathan Booker is a FIFA and FA licensed football agent (now non-practising), former General Secretary of 2 agent associations, accredited mediator, Sport Resolutions panel mediator, and consultant to football bodies on agent regulations (including FIFA and The FA). He operates through Sentinel Sport and Sport Mediations.

www.sentinelsport.co.uk - www.sportmediations.com

CoNTACT

If you have questions, feedback or would like to discuss anything covered in the guide, please get in touch.

[Contact link or email]

Powered By EmbedPress

An Agent Regulation Reality Check :

What We Think We Know vs. What We Actually Know

7th August 2025

Working in the football industry, including the football agent sector, most of us develop a certain confidence in navigating the regulatory landscape. Through experience, we come to understand the basic DOs and DONTs; what constitutes a breach of the regulations, what activities are prohibited, and where the clear lines are drawn. 

And for many of us who even know where those 'shades of grey' exist

, we know not to stray into certain areas regarding blatant breaches of the regulations. It's this practical familiarity of regulations that allows agents (licensed and unlicensed), clubs, football administrators and even regulators to operate with reasonable certainty about compliance.

Yet a recent case has highlighted just how easily these regulations can be misinterpreted not just by individuals, but across the entire spectrum of industry professionals, legal experts, and even the authorities themselves

A 'Straightforward' Case That Wasn't So Straightforward

A recent case (and subsequent appeal) made me question whether any of us (myself included) truly understand the seemingly most basic agent regulations as well as we think we do. The scenario seemed straightforward enough: a club had signed off on an agent related transaction and in doing so had spoken to an unlicensed agent (not to the club's knowledge, I hasten to add) who was representing the player, about a player signing. The relevant FA regulation appeared as clear as it had done for many years in various guises, as it prohibits clubs from engaging or appointing someone who is not a registered/licensed football agent to perform football agent services.

To me, this looked like a textbook breach. So much so that I decided to test my interpretation with a poll, asking a simple question: "If the club signs off & speaks to the UNLICENSED agent about the signing, has the club breached the regulations?"

When the Majority'S Interpretation Means Nothing

The response was overwhelming - more than 90% of respondents agreed that yes, this constituted a breach. These weren't just random people clicking buttons; the responses came from agents, legal professionals, and other industry participants who deal with these regulations regularly. The interpretation seemed obvious, even to some with legal backgrounds who you'd expect might spot potential ambiguities.

I shared this view entirely. More importantly, the FA clearly shared this view too; they brought charges against the club, and then appealed against the initial decision. Even more telling, the club initially admitted the charge, suggesting they too interpreted the regulation the same way as the FA, myself, and the overwhelming majority of poll respondents. This wasn't a case of industry professionals misunderstanding complex legal language; it appeared to be a clear-cut application of a straightforward prohibition.

Yet both the original Regulatory Commission and the subsequent Appeal Board ruled that no breach had occurred.

The 'Battle' oVER One Word

The entire case seemingly hinged on the interpretation of a single word: "engage", and more importantly, the absence of another ("with"). The FA argued that "engage" means to "engage with" or "have dealings with" therefore any interaction with an unlicensed agent performing football services would constitute a breach of the FA's Agent Regulations. This interpretation aligns with how it seems most of us would naturally understand the word and the apparent intent behind the regulation.

The club's legal team, however, argued that "engage" requires formally appointing or retaining someone to provide services on your behalf, not merely communicating with someone who might be acting for another party. Under this interpretation, simply speaking to an unlicensed agent wouldn't constitute "engaging" them unless there was a formal arrangement. …………. the panel(s) seemingly sided with the narrower interpretation.

The FA's 'Interesting' Response

Now here's where it gets interesting. The FA's response was to amend their regulations, changing "engage or appoint" to "engage with or appoint" (promptly after the case), essentially recognising the original wording was unclear. Yet they still pursued their appeal against the original decision, fighting a case based on regulations they themselves had just now acknowledged were flawed.

In all honesty I would have probably done the same, given my stubborn nature and the fact that had you asked a cross-section of people in the street their interpretation (akin to the poll I have already mentioned) they would have likely interpreted it the same as the FA - rather than the convoluted way in which an old-school English language professor would have made their case.

The Uncomfortable Questions This Raises

This raises some uncomfortable questions about regulatory clarity. When from just one small poll more than 90% of industry professionals interpret a regulation one way, when a regulatory authority itself brings charges based on that interpretation and is so adamant in their interpretation they appeal, but independent panels rule the opposite way, we have a fundamental problem.

Consider what this means for those working in the football industry, not least several thousand newly licensed football agents (many of whom without a formal legal background). If experienced professionals, legal experts, and even the regulatory authorities can arrive at the same "incorrect" interpretation, how can anyone operate with genuine confidence about compliance? The addition of a single word, "with" apparently flips the entire meaning of a hugely important regulation.

The Scale of the 'Problem'

From my own experience, I've seen how agents, clubs, and players make daily decisions based on their understanding of regulations. Many pour over regulatory documents, consult with compliance experts, seek legal advice, and genuinely MANY try to stay within the boundaries. Yet this case demonstrates that even widespread professional consensus about regulatory meaning can be completely wrong according to an independent panel's interpretation (and the view of just 3 selected individuals from a somewhat limited background, who are meant to be able to accurately interpret wording to reflect the common interpretation by a 'person in the street').

I would argue that this isn't about legal technicalities or complex interpretive principles. It's about whether the fundamental vocabulary of regulation is clear enough for the majority of those affected to understand what they're supposed to do (or can't do). When you can't rely on industry consensus, regulatory authority guidance, or legal advice to understand what constitutes a breach of regulations, the compliance framework becomes essentially unworkable.

The implications extend well beyond this single case. How many other regulations contain similar ambiguities? And with there reported to be over 11,000 FIFA-licensed agents now operating globally, plus national regulatory frameworks, the scale of potential confusion is enormous. Each of these individuals, along with the clubs and players they work with, must navigate regulatory frameworks that this case suggests may be fundamentally unclear.

Who Gets Caught in the Confusion?

This underlying problem affects everyone, not just the agents and the football clubs.

Lawyers and consultants advising on compliance can arrive at interpretations that differ from panel decisions. Club administrators investing huge amounts of time and effort in compliance systems find that even regulatory authorities can misinterpret their own rules. Players trying to understand their obligations discover that the rules governing their interactions with agents are apparently open to multiple reasonable interpretations.

The Questions Everyone Affected by Football Agent Activity, Needs to Ask

This prompts some difficult, if not uncomfortable questions:

For agents: Do you really understand the regulations you're operating under? If 90% of your peers shared an interpretation that was ruled incorrect, what confidence can you have in your own regulatory understanding?

For clubs: What's your real responsibility in ensuring agent compliance? Is it enough to understand just the basics when even the basics can be interpreted so differently?

For players: Do you understand your role in the agent regulatory system, and what happens when the regulations themselves are unclear?

For authorities: Do you understand the practical realities of how agents, clubs, and players actually interact? Are you creating compliance problems through unclear drafting?

Where We Go From Here With Understanding Football Agent Regulations

I'm not criticising any particular decision with this article. The panels applied what I perceive as established legal principles to the text before them. The FA's original charges were based on a reasonable reading of their own regulations. The widespread industry interpretation reflected genuine attempts to understand regulatory requirements.

The real issue is systemic. If this level of interpretive confusion exists around what seemed like a straightforward regulation, we need to acknowledge that our confidence in regulatory understanding might be misplaced, not because people can't read regulations, but because the regulations themselves aren't clear enough to be consistently understood.

When the difference between a breach and no breach comes down to whether a single word is implicit or explicit, included or excluded, when regulatory authorities must immediately amend rules after losing cases based on their own interpretations, and when industry-wide consensus can be entirely wrong, we've moved beyond normal legal interpretation into something more problematic.

Perhaps it's time to recognise that the problem isn't with the people trying to understand these regulations, it's with the regulations themselves. Until we address these fundamental clarity issues, everyone in the industry will continue operating with what might be false confidence in their regulatory understanding.

The question isn't whether you understand agent regulations, it's whether the regulations themselves are actually understandable.

And this case suggests that the answer might be more troubling than any of us realized.

.

Reference Points:

Breach of the Football Agent Regulations found not proven – May 2025

https://www.thefa.com/news/2025/may/21/accrington-stanley-update-220525

Independent Appeal Board dismisses appeal from The FA – July 2025

https://www.thefa.com/news/2025/jul/30/accrington-stanley-update-300725

Poll asking “If the club sign-off & speak to the UNLICENSED agent about the signing. Has the club breached the regulations?”

https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7356650599829934083

FIFA and Football Agents: Regulation or Repositioning?

Deliberate Industry Sabotage or Regulatory Failure?

18th July 2025

The FIFA Football Agent Regulations (FFAR) of 2023 were ostensibly designed to bring some order to the football agent industry. But as implementation continues to seemingly stumble from crisis to crisis, a fundamental question emerges that cuts to the heart of what may be perceived as FIFA's true intentions.

Were FIFA ever genuinely intending to bring order to the football agent world with agent regulations, or did they want to implement something that suffocated the industry, reduced agent numbers, and potentially made football agents as a whole, largely obsolete?

This isn't merely about regulatory incompetence; the evidence suggests a more nuanced strategy may be at play, one where FIFA, either consciously or unconsciously, positions itself to reshape and ultimately control a lucrative industry that shows no signs of disappearing.

The 'Repositioning' Theory

Before addressing what some may categorise as conspiracy theorising, it's worth examining the evidence with clear eyes. The football agent industry is undeniably lucrative and shows no signs of disappearing. FIFA, as astute commercial operators, would hardly be naive enough to believe otherwise. However, there's a plausible argument that certain parties connected to FIFA, both past and present, may seek to fundamentally reshape the football agent industry in ways that better serve their interests.

Whilst there is a belief here that FIFA and others may seek to make football agents obsolete, it is important to clarify that this isn't necessarily about complete elimination of the industry, but rather about eroding the industry's reputation and any professional standing to a point where FIFA can almost be seen as 'riding in and rescuing it' (if only saving the football agent industry from its self-destruction), subsequently controlling it in ways that benefit the governing body whilst potentially making most individual agents obsolete.

If this theory holds merit, then the commission cap proposed in the FFAR represents not just a regulatory tool but a strategic repositioning device. Set at levels that would challenge a vast proportion of the football agent industry, it appears almost designed to concentrate power amongst fewer, larger operators whilst marginalising individual and smaller practitioners (if not making them obsolete).

An Industry, Not (YET) a Profession

I must point out why it's important to understand why this article refers to football agency as an 'industry' rather than a 'profession' (a stance I have maintained for many years, which I find frustrating). The distinction is deliberate and significant. True professions are characterised by rigorous standards, robust regulation, meaningful licensing, established ethos, and consistent professionalism. Football agency, in its current form, falls considerably short of these benchmarks in a large proportion of cases.

Yes, FIFA may present that with FFAR they have reintroduced professional elements: the licence, the examination, and CPD (continued professional development). However, the examination system is seen as inconsistent and unfair, the regulations are fractured and in many cases unenforceable, and the CPD requirements are so minimal that an agent can meet their annual obligation in a few hours.

This further devalues the FIFA licence and the status of any FIFA Licensed Football Agent. Rather than elevating the field to professional standards, the current system creates the illusion of professionalism whilst maintaining the dysfunction that may well serve a broader repositioning strategy.

This seemingly flawed licensing approach creates a particularly unwelcome effect: by maintaining procedurally inconsistent and porous examination and licensing standards for FIFA Football Agents whilst projecting an illusion of professional credibility, FIFA increases the potential for market saturation with a mix of competent practitioners alongside those who may have benefited from the system's weaknesses. 

The unfair and poorly thought-out licensing procedures risk creating an oversupplied market (which some may argue is already past saturation point) where more licensed agents compete for the same opportunities, inevitably driving down commission rates (even with a cap) and intensifying competition for survival.

This market 'flooding' doesn't elevate professional standards, it accelerates a 'race to the bottom' that makes it increasingly difficult for agents 'to survive, let alone thrive'.

The result is a self-reinforcing cycle of suffocation that achieves the very obsolescence that a more deliberate elimination strategy might accomplish, but with the added benefit of appearing to be market-driven rather than regulatory design.

The 2025 FFAR Examination 'Watershed'

Although previous sittings of the FFAR exam have received criticism and the format and structure of the exam has been widely criticised for being such things as unfair, poor, and lacking credibility, the 2025 examination represented a watershed moment that has prompted me to document these considerations (many of which I have pondered for a few years now).

That is because this year's 2025 exam was the first fully online, annual examination conducted from candidates' chosen location, independent of any onsite invigilation. This development was positioned as progress. Instead, it has become emblematic of the problematic implementation of FFAR.

It is widely reported that technical issues plagued the process globally. Candidates reported being unable to access examinations, facing software problems that consumed crucial examination time, encountering incorrect marking, and receiving alleged inconsistent treatment by FIFA. Some have been permitted re-sits or offered refunds, whilst others now face a year-long wait for the next examination.

More concerning than the technical failures, however, has been FIFA's response. The organisation's silence on these issues, their continued scripted narratives, and their apparent reluctance to engage meaningfully with affected candidates suggest either profound incompetence or deliberate indifference.

This creates a vicious cycle: frustrated candidates may never return to attempt licensing, those deterred from the licensed path often operate unlicensed, and inconsistent examinations risk licensing unsuitable candidates, whilst excluding capable ones. The examination system now appears to be a ‘tick box’ exercise for FIFA, designed to frustrate others rather than fairly assess competence.

For someone who has long believed FIFA could eventually roll back FFAR's mistakes and repair the damage (albeit with increasing difficulty over time), this latest chapter has made such recovery difficult to envisage, even with substantial expense and effort.

The reputational damage to the FFAR and the licensing process itself may now be irreversible.

The Cascading Damage Effect

The implications of a poorly regulated football agent industry extend far beyond the agents themselves. When standards deteriorate and professionalism erodes, the consequences ripple throughout the football ecosystem. Players and coaches suffer from inadequate representation, often finding themselves vulnerable to exploitation or poorly advised on career decisions. Clubs face disrupted transfer business, with deals falling through due to incompetent handling of agent affairs or squad planning compromised by unprofessional intermediaries.

This cascade effect isn't accidental; it's the predictable outcome of systematic erosion of standards, and it provides the very evidence FIFA would need to justify more radical intervention in the future; the perfect justification for FIFA to 'reinvent the wheel' with a solution that arguably serves broader objectives.

Those at the top, larger operators and multi-agency groups, would likely survive through their ability to generate substantial commercial commissions from elite clients and also absorb operational costs due to their size. Yet individual practitioners and smaller football agency operations would face greater challenges, perfectly serving a repositioning strategy (e.g. reducing agent numbers) whilst maintaining plausible deniability.

The Strategic Value of Managed Decline

Consider what FIFA might gain from allowing controlled deterioration of current industry standards. Short-term chaos creates long-term opportunities for those positioned to provide solutions. If the current agent landscape becomes sufficiently problematic, FIFA could position itself as the necessary stabilising force rather than just an overarching international regulator.

The 2015 shift to RWWI (FIFA Regulations on Working with Intermediaries) provides a relevant precedent. The abandonment of the Player Agent licensing system at that time stripped away FIFA licensing, examinations, and client protections, prompting a flood of 'intermediaries' and arguably lowering standards significantly. Was this a genuine regulatory failure or a strategic decision to demonstrate the consequences of insufficient oversight?

By creating conditions that encourage unlicensed activity whilst licensing potentially substandard candidates, the ongoing problems with the current FFAR mechanism(s) ensure continued reputational damage. Many problems that emerged from FFAR and its implementation were raised with FIFA from 2018 onwards, by many people, and at many times thereafter, yet FIFA proceeded regardless of these warnings.

The Enforcement Vacuum

For more than 20 years, inconsistent regulation and enforcement by FIFA (and others) on agent regulatory matters have contributed to industry challenges and problems. The current FFAR continues this pattern. Many FFAR concepts have been defeated in courts, with numerous challenges still pending.

Most tellingly, the regulatory landscape has become fractured and contradictory. Some regulations apply in certain territories but not others, with FIFA licensing itself inconsistently applicable across jurisdictions. This creates chaos for agents, clubs, players, and national associations, further damaging industry credibility.

Added to this, there is a growing perception that FIFA cannot enforce many existing FFAR regulations, as demonstrated recently in CAS proceedings regarding unlicensed agent activity.

If FIFA genuinely wanted effective regulation, would they create such confusion? Or does this serve a different purpose entirely?

The Alternative Narrative – ‘Redistribution’ & ‘Transparency’

FIFA employs redistribution of transfer fees, compensation, and solidarity payments as a key justification for FFAR and the capping of agent commissions. Combined with initiatives like the FIFA clearing house, this suggests that whilst cultivating an image of 'transparency', FIFA may be seeking greater control over transfer market mechanisms and transaction flows.

Even if the ECJ/CJEU rules against FFAR, FIFA may have achieved its objective through reputational damage and industry erosion, and fragmentation. Meanwhile, players remain largely oblivious to these changes, and clubs are confused by regulatory complexity. The chaos serves a potential repositioning agenda perfectly.

It is also worth considering that even if FIFA is victorious at the ECJ/CJEU; this too would result in continued inconsistencies and chaos surrounding FFAR, given the limited jurisdiction of an EU ruling.

The Essential Element

The fundamental truth remains: agents are the oil in football's transfer engine, maintaining and lubricating the elements that very few like to touch but which represent a necessity in any well-functioning system. They perform tasks that largely nobody else wants to examine, touch, or handle.

Alternatives to football agents exist, but many will carry undesirable consequences. You can change the oil, but not with an unsuitable alternative, as it will likely damage the engine.

The Critical Questions

The football industry must confront these uncomfortable possibilities; let’s return to our central question with the weight of evidence now considered:

Does FIFA genuinely want effective football agent regulation, or are they positioning themselves to reshape and control a lucrative industry?

Are the systemic failures we've witnessed evidence of inefficiency, or are they the predictable outcome of a deliberate repositioning strategy?

If FIFA wanted to marginalise many football agents whilst maintaining plausible deniability, would they act any differently than they have?

I recognise that some may view these questions as conspiracy theorising, and that's a fair criticism. However, the pattern of evidence suggests these theories deserve serious consideration. The current trajectory indicates that certain individuals related to FIFA may be content to watch the current football agent industry model's credibility erode entirely, and see their own FFAR project ‘thrown under the bus’ ….. knowing they're positioned to benefit.

From this, several concerning possibilities emerge:

1. FIFA may abandon agent regulation once again, claiming external forces prevented success, before later introducing a 'reformed' system that better serves its interests.

2. The industry may evolve into one controlled by corporate entities utilising licensed agents as freelancers, with FIFA exercising greater oversight in a more consolidated industry with shared corporate goals and interests.

Whether through design or circumstance, the result remains the same: a system that serves nobody's interests except perhaps those who seek to reshape it in their image and for their benefit.

The question facing the football industry is whether it will recognise this possibility before irreversible change occurs, or whether it will continue down a path that may ultimately achieve what some connected to FIFA and living in various ‘ivory towers’ across football may desire: a world where football agents are deemed obsolete, or that they only exist in a form that serves broader commercial and political objectives of FIFA and others.

FIFA Football Agent Regulation (FFAR) War Coming to an End?

….. Will the Civil War Now Start?

5th February 2025

Many may understandably be looking ahead to next week's long-anticipated public hearing at the European Court of Justice (ECJ) over the FIFA Football Agent Regulations (FFAR) of 2023, and then hopefully being able to breathe a huge sigh of relief should a final ruling be delivered not long thereafter.

I want to start this article with these words, in what is already the FFAR saga that has lasted some 6-7 years so far ……….

"Now this is not the end.

It is not even the beginning of the end.

........ But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning."

~  Sir Winston Churchill, 1942

And for me, I believe these words may come to be quite apt in this saga over the coming weeks and months. Although, even the most dramatic of those protagonists heavily involved in the dispute over FFAR, should not dare to compare this relatively trivial matter of FFAR to the time when those words were first used publicly.

But as someone who has monitored, studied, if not got inextricably entangled in this FFAR saga over football agent regulations for many years (even more years before that of FFAR), I do not see the ECJ hearing next week, or even the eventual ruling of the ECJ, to be the end of the matter regarding the FFAR, or more importantly Football Agent Regulations as a whole.

Whilst some are making predictions even prior to the hearing, let alone the final ruling – despite it being rumoured that both FIFA and the opposing agent related parties are both confident, it is impossible to say what the final ruling will be.

However, what we can try to look towards is what will happen when that ruling lands. And there is just one possible scenario, I would like to focus on:

FIFA is largely defeated in the case:

and thus may decide (as in 2015) to largely abdicate much of their responsibility for the regulation of football agent

…………….. and this abdication (not necessarily following a defeat of the FFAR in its entirety), is personally, one thing I do NOT want to see happen, despite what many may think; based on their observations of my various writings, presentations, representations, analysis, arguments, and general ramblings relating to FIFA and the FFAR over several years now.

Result of Another FIFA Abdication Over Football Agent Regulation

So, what may happen if this situation does indeed transpire?

FIFA suffer a very costly and another largely embarrassing defeat (on key FFAR elements this time), and then abdicate responsibility for effective agent regulations (some may say ‘spitting out their dummy’ or to use a football analogy ‘taking their ball home’).

There is the belief in some quarters that even if FIFA do suffer a ‘defeat’, they will continue with FFAR in those territories largely unaffected by an ECJ ruling and where FIFA can exercise considerable influence at relevant political or national governance levels.

After all, the football agent regulatory space will remain fractured in light of FFAR, even if the ECJ rules entirely in favour of FIFA over FFAR.

There is also the potential for FIFA to just retain some aspects of FFAR, such as the licensing mechanism, exam, and CPD. Which, arguably provides a relatively small (in FIFA terms) yet considerable residual revenue stream for FIFA.

PLUS, walking away entirely from FFAR (and agent regulation) would arguably damage yet further an already bruised reputation, and image …….. if not ego. Not just for FIFA as an organisation, but also for some of those FIFA figures heavily involved with FFAR, and who have steadfastly (if not blindly) defended it.

The national member associations (should FIFA abdicate responsibility) will, safe to say, be largely ‘left to their own devices’. Some nations and territories such as France and Italy will no doubt ‘step up to the
plate’ once again in a similar fashion to that of post-2015, and have their national football agent regulations reinforced by national legislation and/or federal law.

Other nations and their national associations who also have national agent regulations in place since the ‘implementation’ of FFAR, will no doubt look to retain these in some way; given the time, effort, and resources already invested. Yet, some of these associations will no doubt have to modify or even evolve said national regulations, subject to how heavily underpinned they are by FFAR. Alternatively (and unfortunately), some may choose to take retrograde steps with national regulations if only for an ‘easier life’ (as some chose to do in 2015 with the age of the RWWI (FIFA Regulations on Working With Intermediaries)).

But what of the agents, how would a FIFA abdication affect them?

A Rumoured FIFA Strategy May Cause Further Damage

Yet what is probably the most saddening thing for me, having been invested in this industry and the mission to see improved football agent regulations for so long, and for that matter, something which probably resonates with so many of those who experienced the changes in 2015 and the problems caused with FIFAs introduction of the RWWI, is what will happen within the agent community if FIFA does abdicate most (if not all) of their responsibility (and duty to football as a whole) in regards to agent regulations?

Not least with all of FIFAs stated aims and objectives that they presented over several years in trying to implement the FFAR, and have tried to defend so staunchly for many years now.

And beyond the tired old labels of the football agent industry becoming a ‘wild-west’ …. because frankly, that is nothing new for this industry, it's been like that for years (and I am confident many others will attest to that appraisal), what I do foresee is a vacuum being created and the potential for a ‘civil war’ between various agent factions, groups and associations commencing.

Some in the media have propagated a narrative (whether stemming from FIFA or not) that the agents have united against FIFA in the fight against agent regulations. When the fact is the agents have been far from united in this ‘fight’ - even to the point of continual fighting among themselves with petty squabbling, bitching, and even reported threats of legal action between various parties on how to tackle FIFA and the FFAR.

And, this may stem from what some have perceived to be FIFA trying to almost employ a ‘divide and conquer’ strategy between the agents and the various agent groups, associations, and factions; if only to leverage FIFAs case for the FFAR.

And if this was the case, such a ‘divide and conquer’ strategy could well have worked in my opinion; had it not been for the fact that they were taking on such a headstrong, stubborn, and well-resourced group (i.e. the agents) in the first place.

Sadly, those rifts still exist between various agent factions, despite the efforts of some (myself included) who have tried to find and cultivate some common ground and cooperation (not necessarily love and unity) between them, but still allow autonomy on their respective differences, views and strategies.

A Vacuum That Will Potentially Lead to Further Conflict (e.g. ‘Civil War’)

And so, in the absence of other football ‘stakeholders’ such as FIFPro, the federations, the leagues, and others who have demonstrated seemingly little appetite to get actively involved to plug any gaps that FIFA may leave on the matter of football agent regulations, a subsequent vacuum is highly likely to be created, and with that, the possibility of an even ‘wilder-west’ and even ‘civil war’ in the football agency world – having widespread effect on football as a whole, not just agents.

Yes, the argument that some elements of the agent’s world will be happy to retain the status quo of a ‘wild(er) west’; is a relevant one. A largely unregulated environment and industry will no doubt suit some, and I can confidently say for some that their sole objective from the beginning was to derail FIFA (not just the FFAR) and maintain their stranglehold on power and influence …. or even something ‘personal’.

But with this, these strong agendas and other motivating factors will, I believe, endure from within the football agents world – whether motivated by money, power, politics, influence, or even ego and sheer narcism ….. and thus this will sustain the fighting over agent regulations and also identify who is the (representative) voice for the agents going forward.

Hence, until either someone takes responsibility for agent regulations, or common ground between agent factions can be found with at the very least egos set aside, the football agency industry will continue to be a wild west, an industry rather than a profession, and football as a whole will continue to struggle to contend with, and subsequently continue to moan about the problems caused by the ‘common football agent’ …….. and how effective football agent regulations are needed.

To be continued

shall we say -  in TEN years time

(I sincerely hope not)

Has The Suspension of FIFA’s Agents Chamber,

Left Football Agents & Those in Agent Related Disputes 'Sidelined'?

26th August 2024

The relatively ‘new’ FIFA Football Agent Regulations (FFAR) that were first released in 2023 along with the framework that surrounds them, have been subject to a range of criticism, scrutiny, ridicule, and many legal challenges (some that have succeeded, some that have failed and some that remain unresolved), from around the world.

Yet what many fail to realise is that the FFAR does not only harbour elements that many object to, but that the FFAR also includes some elements that if not improvements, are very welcome to many, including some in the agent community leading the aforementioned challenges to FIFA and the FFAR. 

Hence, in light of some of the legal challenges to the FFAR, FIFA seemingly took the decision to suspend several elements of the ‘new’ agent regulations (FFAR), not just those that were questionable, but also several that were welcomed by many, if not vital in facilitating the practicalities of licensed football agent-related activity.

One such element that is currently suspended by FIFA (at the time of writing) is ‘The Agents Chamber’ (under Article 20 of the FFAR), which is viewed by many as a very positive and welcome element of the FFAR. However, in light of this seemingly indefinite suspension (as announced in FIFA Circular 1873 on the 30^th December 2023), this situation leaves many, not least agents, somewhat ‘high and dry’ when it comes to agent-related disputes.

Purpose of the Agents Chamber

As an integral part of the new FIFA Football Tribunal, The Agents Chamber was intended to deal with any dispute relating to Representation Agreements between a licensed football agent and a client (on or after the 1^st October 2023), so long as the dispute was adjudged by FIFA, to have an ‘international dimension’.

And to use FIFAs own words to encapsulate how important The Agents Chamber was viewed to be by many, it was described as: 

“an important step in ensuring that any disputes concerning the Football Agent Services are resolved fairly and equally for all participants in the transfer system, FIFA dispute resolution systems are being reintroduced under the FFAR for disputes arising out of, or in connection with, a Representation Agreement with an international dimension.”

Yet, in the absence of The Agents Chamber, the question has to be asked as to where this leaves agents, their clients (whether players, managers/coaches, or even clubs) and any other related football party as and when a dispute arises – and ultimately does the suspension of article 20 of the FFAR (and subsequently The Agents Chamber) abandon these participants without a clear means to resolve their dispute.

A Problem Exacerbated or with Alternatives?

Given the nature of football regulations, as well as the complex agreements that often exist in football, which include those between agents and their clients, rarely is something as straightforward as it first seems. Hence, The Agents Chamber seemed to offer at least some certainty for some agent-related disputes, as to the most basic level at which a dispute would be heard.

Yet without The Agents Chamber, it irrefutably throws such disputes firmly into a realm of uncertainty, unless:

(1)   The disputant parties can agree to an alternative means of dispute resolution (such as mediation),

(2)  The agreement/contract relating to the dispute proactively defines an alternative dispute resolution mechanism, such as an NDRC (National Dispute Resolution Chamber),  AND

(3)   The football regulations and laws (national and international) do not forbid alternative means of resolving the dispute 

As such, it is conceivable that a dispute MAY be able to be resolved through a national football dispute mechanism (NDRC), or even an ordinary court of law if such provisions are made in the original contract/agreement relating to the dispute and the nature of the dispute allows for this.

However, there is the potential that football regulations themselves may exacerbate the problem in this respect, whereby restrictions exist governing where such a dispute could be heard or the type of dispute resolution that could be utilised. That is unless specifically defined in the contract/agreement and allowed for in the football regulations, both International (FIFA) and National.

Alternative Options with Agent Disputes

As already referenced, the contract/agreement that may in turn become subject (or related) to a dispute between agent and client at some point in the future (despite the best intentions of all parties to the agreement/contract involved), may incorporate an alternative means of dispute resolution. As such, many conscientious lawyers in drafting the contract/agreement, should have proactively incorporated an alternative dispute resolution mechanism into said contract/agreement. It is not unheard of for any such dispute to be heard at CAS (Court of Arbitration for Sport), due to a clause in the contract/agreement, clearly specifying CAS as the final means of dispute resolution.

However, as covered in previous articles, the costs and expediency of CAS are not always feasible in such disputes, as is the case with various other means of arbitration and litigation. The cost of such proceedings and the associated legal costs can spiral, and to get to the hearing alone can take a considerable amount of time, let alone reaching the stage of receiving a decision, ruling, and resolution.

This is why there is a growing interest in utilising mediation to resolve such disputes; given the expediency, cost-effective and confidential nature of mediation as a dispute resolution mechanism.

Whilst both CAS and FIFA also offer ‘mediation’ as an alternative means of dispute resolution, there are some question marks over the applicable nature of mediation with these organisations for different reasons. As covered previously, substantial questions remain over whether FIFAs form of ‘mediation’ is, in fact, mediation, or some mutant quasi-arbitration approach (see ‘FIFAs Mediation – ‘True’ Mediation or Arbitration ’on the Cheap’?’ – also on LinkedIn)

Proactive Alternative Measures

With disputes in football, it is more often than not the case that ‘prevention is far better than cure’, and  the recommendation would always be for agents and their clients to incorporate not just one dispute resolution clause or option in their contracts/agreements (such as a default FIFA clause of NDRC clause), but possibly a tiered approach with alternative options for dispute resolution.

Whilst The Agents Chamber may be reactivated in the near future, there is the possibility that this may not be the case, or that it, or others, may be suspended again in the future due to such things as the legal challenge to FIFA and the FFAR. 

As such, a considered and proactive approach would be to ensure every contract/agreement incorporates a CAS clause as a ‘last resort’, while also incorporating an independent mediation clause as a first option, even before the likes of an ‘Agents Chamber’, DRC or NDRC. 

This, whereby such a mediation clause is an option for the parties to a dispute to reach a resolution, but is not mandatory.

Share

Mediation in the Dispute Between Agents and FIFA:

Would or Could It Ever Succeed?

12th August 2024

This is a topic I have written about (and spoken about) on numerous occasions in the past, often with a different viewpoint, subject to the context in which it is considered. 

e.g. ‘Could Litigation in the Dispute(s) Between FIFA and Football Agents

Over New Agent Regulations be Avoided with Mediation? ‘ (Jan’23),

Following an event several weeks ago, where the topics of mediation and the dispute between Football Agents and FIFA over the 2023 FFAR (FIFA Football Agent Regulations) were raised in the same forum; I was again prompted to revisit the topic once more, and ask : 

“‘whether mediation, ever would have, or could have, succeeded in resolving this dispute between FIFA and Football Agents over FFAR’?”

If Only We Could Turn Back Time

The first thing that has to be considered, is just how long this dispute has been ongoing, and it still remains largely unresolved at the time of writing (July’24). 

Despite the various legal proceedings around the world only coming to the fore in the last couple of years (2022-2023), I firmly believe the ‘writing was on the wall’ and it was very evident that a future dispute and standoff over FFAR would happen ………. as far back as 2018.

Whilst much has been written about the disputed ‘consultation’ process over FFAR, with arguments on all sides having some foundation, the matter of a disputed (if not flawed) consultation process is (for me at least), at the very heart of this dispute, and is a key reason why it has yet to be resolved.

As I wrote about in a more recent article on ‘Where Is Mediation Applicable in Sports Disputes, and Where it Is Not’ ; mediation is not viable in all sports disputes. 

Mediation can however be used effectively in avoiding disputes in sport on regulatory and governance matters whereby new regulations or revised regulations may be unlikely to gain approval by those affected (i.e. stakeholders) prior to approval and subsequent implementation, and thus likely be subject to future disputes.

I do at this point have to ‘put to one side’ the debate of ‘whether football agents are FIFA stakeholders?’, and the question of ‘who represents the agents?’, although both are important factors to consider in a wider context.

However, it is my belief that in regards to the FFAR dispute, should mediation have been deployed at the time when initial proposals were being made by FIFA to the agents, and the high likelihood of a future dispute was evident, this lengthy, costly, complicated and still unresolved dispute over FFAR could have been averted through mediation. 

A Dispute Sadly Lacking a Vital Ingredient for Resolution

The second thing to consider when reflecting back on this dispute over FFAR, is whether it lacked and continues to seemingly lack one vital ingredient for mediation to be successful in reaching a resolution. And that vital ingredient is ‘good faith’ (as covered in the article ‘Good Faith- the vital ingredient to mediation’.

Having been quite closely involved and heavily invested in the FFAR saga, as well as involved in the debate over Football Agent Regulations for over 10 years, I feel that I am well positioned to comment on the actions, inaction, comments and attitudes displayed by those involved in the FFAR dispute over several years. Hence, I will say that the vital ingredient for any mediation of ‘good faith’, has seemingly been sadly lacking in many on both sides of the FFAR dispute (BOTH from the agents and FIFA).

Hence, without a significant shift in mindset on the issues, problems and people affected by FFAR from those involved in the dispute, venturing down the path of mediation to attempt to resolve the FFAR dispute(s), sadly seems to be a largely pointless exercise currently …… if only based on a lack of ‘good faith’ alone.

In Summary

So, in reflecting back on these two elements (good faith and the dispute timeline), and the dispute over FFAR, I have two primary thoughts on whether mediation could have resolved this dispute, or whether it could do so in the future.

(1) : YES – I believe mediation could have resolved the FFAR dispute,

IF the disputant parties had chosen to deploy mediation at the earlier stage, when objections and concerns were first made clear at the proposal stages. Thus, this may have avoided the initial objections, fears and concerns degenerating into a more engrained dispute, with hardened attitudes (that may ultimately have degraded any ‘good faith’ that may have initially existed).

(2) : Do I believe that mediation could still be used to resolve the dispute over FFAR?

 ……… put simply YES I do.

But that does however come with several caveats (if not concessions) in the approach of the disputant parties – not least a change in attitudes (if not representatives and decision-makers in the dispute) to demonstrate some ‘good faith’ in mediation achieving a resolution.

I am not going to try and second-guess what the ECJ (European Court of Justice) will decide, in what is arguably the most important case regarding the FFAR dispute (…….. your guess, is as good as mine).

The ECJ could find in favour of the agents, they could find in favour of FIFA, they could return a mixed verdict or they could come back with something inconclusive, and thus throw a confused industry, into a state of total bewilderment, if not madness

But the one thing that I am certain of, is that: the FFAR dispute between FIFA and football agents could have been resolved (if not largely averted) long before now – and in a far more timely, efficient and cost-effective manner.

That is if the values, attitudes, timelines, planning and approaches of all parties to the FFAR dispute had been better suited to mediation.

Share

More 'Alarm Bells' for Football Agents in the UK?

Or Just A 'Knee-Jerk' Reaction By Some.

1st July 2024

The last couple of years has meant a huge amount of upheaval and confusion for many working in and around the football agents world. Yet, that is nothing new, in such a competitive, nuanced and fast-moving industry, where participants have to often be flexible and adapt to new trends and regulations.

Whilst there is currently a considerable amount of uncertainty over the regulations and the relatively new FFAR (‘FIFA Football Agent Regulations’) with the industry awaiting a key ruling from the ECJ (European Court of Justice), does the industry really need a belated intervention from yet another authority?

Are Football Agents to Be Classified as ‘Employment Agencies’?

Last week a circular was sent to all licensed football agents by The Football Association in England (‘The FA’), relating to their consultation with the UK Government’s ‘Department for Business & Trade’ (‘DfBT’), and more specifically ‘The Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate’ (‘EASI’) which subsequently has prompted quite a lot of confusion, if not concern, amongst some of the football agent community.

The main ‘thrust’ of this communication was in relation to the ‘Employment Agencies Act’ of 1973 (‘The 1973 Act’), and what now seems to be the intention of the ‘inspectorate for the state reregulation of the private recruitment sector in the UK’, to regulate football agents as “employment agencies”, and thus require them to comply with ‘The 1973 Act’ and subsequent laws, regulations and compliance requirements therein.

At first glance, what many perceive (somewhat naively) to be the role of a football agent, is seemingly defined in a similar way to that of the ‘DfBT’:

‘Employment agency'

"a business that finds permanent roles where the work-seeker is employed by the hirer either short or long term"

……….. and in essence that is an understandable comparison (if not classification) to make with that of the perceived role of a football agent or agency in the most basic terms.

However, the role of a football agent is far more nuanced than that; given the nature of football governance at varying levels, the transfer system itself (both national and international) and also the multi-faceted role of a football agent that extends far beyond that of finding a client a job or finding a client an employee in many cases.

Was ‘The Writing on The Wall’ Already?

Whilst these intentions of the ‘DfBT’ may come as a surprise to many, it isn’t as much of a surprise to myself. Because of the research done for ‘The Agents Angle’ podcast, my own involvement in the world of mediation when it comes to football related disputes, and also the investment of time I have put into matters relating to FFAR; the ‘writing was on the wall’ in regards to such developments back in the 3^rd quarter of 2023.

As around this time, ‘The FA’ undertook a ‘consultation’ process with a group of agents, that they selected, on proposed changes to the NFAR (‘National Football Agent Regulations’) to run in parallel with the FFAR from FIFA. Subsequently, consultation documents were released by ‘The FA’ to the group, and matters relating to ‘football agents’ potentially being classified as ‘employment agencies’ was seemingly first mentioned, e.g. :

"In addition to the Regulations, Participants should also make themselves aware of and comply with the requirements of English law in relation to agents, including where The Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 2003 apply."

However, since this time ‘a lot of water has passed under the bridge’ in regards to football agent regulations; not just in England, but also in regards to the over-arching element of FFAR from FIFA. There were suspensions of parts of the FFAR, suspensions of ‘the FAs’ own NFAR, an Independent ‘Rule K’ arbitration hearing (that arguably found more in favour of the football agents than The FA and FIFA), and ultimately the implementation of a revised NFAR by the FA in England.

Yet it is understandable given the fact that many agents weren’t privy to the original FA consultation on the new NFAR (and thus the related FA consultation documents), weren’t licensed at the time or ultimately not as focussed on such minutiae (as some of us) on the matter; that this latest update has prompted confusion and a considerable amount of concern for many …….. well, that is those who actually read the email from the FA (all should read such emails, but too many don’t).

A Feeling of An Industry Being ‘Slowly Suffocated’

Generally, the more experienced amongst the football agent community are a resolute bunch. Relatively unflappable and have the creative minds and legal support to ‘roll with the punches’ and adapt to the challenges that face them …… but even in a matter of days (if not hours), it seems that this announcement is prompting a lot of concern.

Although it may not be admitted by many (if only to avoid showing a sign of weakness), I am confident to say that given what is now several years of uncertainty over FFAR, many in the football agent world feel ‘under attack’. Hence with the likes of a proposed ‘cap’ on agent fees from FIFA as part of the FFAR it is safe to perceive this as the ‘football agent industry’ slowly being suffocated with more and more (often conflicting) restrictions from various quarters ……. affecting BOTH the good professional operators as well as the more unscrupulous elements in the football agent industry.

Recent HMRC Activity in the World of Football Agency and Tax

At this point, it is worth mentioning that the ‘DfBT’ is not the only UK Government agency to take an increasing interest in the world of the football agent, as there has been increased scrutiny, communication, and clarification if not ‘warnings’ from HMRC (the UK tax authorities) in recent years.

However, there is 1 key difference for me in regards to HMRCs engagement with the football agent industry when compared to this latest announcement from the ‘DfBT’. That is that whilst HMRC have arguably changed their approach in recent times, they haven’t seemingly changed their view of the regulations, liabilities and governance that apply to football agent related activity.

Yet this communication from the ‘DfBT’ being ‘thrown into the mix’ at a hugely volatile and uncertain time for football agent industry (primarily caused by FFAR), comes from an authority that has until now demonstrated little (if any) interest in the football agent’s world. This is despite, it being the football agents themselves who have drawn ‘SOME’ parallels between their industry and the likes entertainment, music and modelling agents for many years, BUT these have largely been ignored.

Valid Fears or a 'Knee-Jerk' Reaction from Football Agents?

Besides only having a few days to consider this communication from the ‘DfBT’ and some of the supporting documents (yet, not ‘the 1973 act itself); and also the fact that I am not an employment lawyer or have any extensive experience of the employment agency and entertainment agency world, I can understand the concern of many in the football agent community in perceiving there are huge problems ahead in roundly classifying football agents as ‘employment agencies’ and making them subject to the ‘Employment Agencies Act’ of 1973.

Yet the line that may have ‘triggered’ many a football agent in relation to this matter (should they not have thoroughly reviewed the supporting guidance) is that:

‘Employment agencies and businesses are prohibited from charging fees to workers for finding or trying to find them jobs’.

Quite rightly this comment when used alone, will cause alarm bells to ring for football agents given that many work primarily for players (i.e. workers), and it is that client that is the primary source of an agent’s commission.

Furthermore, there are many problems in treating football agents somewhat ‘blindly’ as ‘Employment Agencies’, and seizing on the basics of this concept, such as the basic definition from the ‘DfBT’ of an ‘employment agency’ under the act, i.e.:

‘an ‘employment agency’ provides or holds itself out as being capable of providing work-finding services’

Thus, it is understandable, the concern amongst some football agents, given that definition and the fact that the description befits the role perceived by many as that performed by a football agent.  Whilst those in the football industry will accept that in many cases, the role of the football agent goes far beyond that of ‘work finding’, this definition could be another demonstration of a lack of understanding of an industry that already feels greatly misunderstood.

Dual-Representation ('duality')

Another reference to ‘employment agencies’ regarding regulations in the documentation from the ‘DfBT’ that may cause alarm amongst football agents, is that:

‘if the agency charges the work-seeker a fee for finding them work they are prohibited from charging fee to the hirer’

This opens up an age old ‘can of worms’ in the world of football agency relating to ‘duality’ (dual representation), which under NFAR and FFAR is in certain cases accepted, given largely the long-standing and broad acceptance of ‘duality’ in the football agency world.

However, on further examination of the supporting guidance from ‘‘DfBT’’, there are exceptions which in turn could apply to football agents, and thus allay some of the fears of football agents,  i.e. :

‘Employment agencies and businesses are prohibited from charging fees to workers for finding or trying to find them jobs.

Exceptions to this are for finding jobs for performers and certain other workers in the entertainment field, and photographic or fashion models’.

Operating Client Accounts & Receiving Money on The Client’s (player) Behalf

‘operating a client account where the agency receives money from a hirer (club) on behalf of a work-seeker (player)’

This requirement for ‘employment agencies’ may understandably seem like ‘overkill’ from an operational perspective for independent agents and smaller agencies.

Yet more notably, it will seemingly conflict with some elements of football agent regulations; such as, whereby the agent is not permitted to receive money on behalf of the player (work-seeker) from the club (hirer). PLUS, the matter of such things as ‘clearing house’ mechanisms in football also needs to be considered, not least the FIFA Clearing House.

‘Transfer Fees’ in the World of ‘Employment Business’

‘Employment businesses can charge a transfer fee to a hirer when one of its temporary work-seekers is taken on permanently, or through another employment business by the hiring company (or a third party that the hirer introduces them to)’.

This is another aspect that may cause confusion not just amongst football agents, but also amongst the wider football community who deal in agent related matters. Not least the conflict it could cause in relation to certain football governance aspects such as TPO (Third Party Ownership), and disguising the ‘true nature’ of a contractual relationship. However, on closer scrutiny of the ‘DfBT’ regulations, this does not relate to ‘Employment agency’ definition as the envisaged classification for football agents.

However, it could cause some confusion on matters whereby a transfer initially involves a trial for a player or a short-term contract arrangement, that then develops into a longer-term arrangement/contract with a club. Thereby possibly being adjudge to be in contravention of some national or FIFA agent related regulations.

Are The Concerns of Football Agents Well Founded?

After considering the information available at this time on the matter, it is my belief that whilst some agents have expressed concern over the proposal for football agents being subject to these regulations and classified as ‘Employment Agencies’, there may not actually be as much to be concerned about as some may think.

In rushing to digest the limited information provided in the communication from ‘the FA’, it is understandable how this could be perceived as a yet another attack on the football agent industry, that is still reeling from the challenges and problems prompted by the FFAR from FIFA.

Yet on further detailed examination of the supporting guidance that is available from the ‘DfBT’, whilst it seems there may well be further compliance requirements for football agents in being classified as ‘Employment Agencies’, the threat to their livelihoods that may be perceived may well be somewhat misguided.

This is especially prevalent when the allowances that seem to be made “for employment agencies that find work for certain occupations in the entertainment and model sector (including professional sportspersons)” are considered.

Hence further clarification needs to be sought on how the role of the football agent will be handled under these regulations before complaints be made and/or alarm bells sounded. The football agent industry needs to ensure that the ‘DfBT’ needs to properly understand the various roles of football agents and how the industry operates; rather than rely on this being conveyed by third parties such as The FA or FIFA.

What Next?

Moving forward, it is vitally important that all licensed agents who have questions, queries or concerns about this notice and the envisaged changes, take up the invitation to relay these to the ‘EASI’ and the ‘DfBT’. This is not only to assist these authorities to better understand the role of the football agent and the football agent industry itself; but also, to obtain clarification on the regulations themselves and allay any concerns that they may have.

Much has been said in recent times about the poor (if not failed) ‘consultation’ process by FIFA with football agents regarding the FFAR, and also a history of a lack of effective consultation between the football authorities and agents on a plethora of other football agent regulatory matters.

As such, it is my belief that there is the potential for these regulations (if applied fairly and correctly) to actually assist in further professionalising the ‘football agent’ industry, if not help those who operate conscientiously within the industry itself.

Share

FIFA's Temporary and Partial Suspension of FFAR Leads to Yet More Confusion and Potential Disputes

Fractured Football Agent Regulations Will End in Disputes That Should Be Resolved Through Mediation

31st December 2023

Following a year of confusion since the new FIFA Football Agent Regulations were approved (December 2022), and several years of disputes and acrimony over the new regulations prior to that, I have already commented that we are heading into turbulent times when it comes to disputes relating to football agents.

Hence, in the last few days with FIFA ‘throwing yet another hand-grenade’ into the already fractured and confused agent regulatory landscape, with circular 1873 announcing on 30^th December 2023; the temporary suspension of several aspects of the FFAR worldwide - this will no doubt further exacerbate problems and confusion for many in the footballing world not least agents and their clients (i.e. players, clubs, managers/coaches).

The 'Suspension' of FIFA Football Agent Regulations (FFAR) is Open to Varying Interpretation and Misinterpretation

The one thing that has been evident in the last few hours (as I write this, less than 48 hours after FIFA circular #1873 was published) is that many are interpreting this announcement, and its subsequent implications very differently. 

These varying opinions are understandable given how uncertain and fractured the agent regulatory landscape already was even before this latest development. Yet, also considering the different roles, backgrounds, responsibilities and theatres of operation for the many thousands affected by these regulations, they will understandably have different views, opinions and interpretations.

If One Thing is Certain ....... It is Further Confusion

Whilst we all want certainty after over 5 years of debate and over a year of legal wrangling; the only thing that we can be sure of is that this proclamation (circular) from FIFA has left people even more confused and uncertain, at a time when we were hoping for clarity (not least with the transfer window in many countries due to open imminently).

In fact, in England (one of football’s largest football and transfer markets), The Football Association has been ‘dealt a cruel hand’; having been due to implement their new National Football Agent Regulations (NFAR) under FFAR less than 2 days after FIFAs circular (1^st January 2024), on the eve of the transfer window opening and all during a public holiday.

FIFA's National Member Football Associations Passed a Unpalatable ‘Hot Potato’

One of the first things to note from the FIFA circular (#1873) is the apparent non-committal nature of FIFAs guidance to their Member Associations (the National FAs), in that FIFA “recommend(ed) all the member associations to temporarily suspend the equivalent provisions from their national football agent regulations”. 

This arguably puts the onus on the national associations (MAs) to take the decision over NFAR in relation to FFAR, rather than FIFA take responsibility (for a situation of their own making), and no doubt they then risk the wrath of various participants for any decision they may take with their NFAR.

Subsequently, there is then the added complication for those MAs who have already implemented their NFAR (investing time, money and resources in doing so), if only to correlate with FIFAs guidance and fulfil their obligations under FFAR (A3:P1 “Member associations shall implement and enforce national football agent regulations by 30 September 2023”).

Subsequently, are these MAs now expected to reverse their NFAR (either in full or part) and thus cultivate more confusion for themselves and the participant for whom they have a ‘duty of care’?

‘Order, Counter Order Result in Disorder’ ….. if Not Confusion, Conflict and Dispute

On a personal note, the phrase “Order, Counter Order Equals Disorder” is one I try to refrain from using unless absolutely necessary, as I associate it with a person from my past who was guilty of being absent when it came to their own ‘duty of care’ to others ……. but in this situation and considering some of the key protagonists, it seems very apt.

Whilst I won’t, for the purposes of this article go into all of the suspended aspects of FFAR from the aforementioned FIFA Circular, I do want to focus on those aspects that I believe will cause further confusion; and thus, conflict and dispute for many participants.

Conflicting Contracts and Representation Agreements (FFAR vs NFAR)

Whilst many agreements and contracts involving agents will (or at least, should), define the applicable laws and jurisdiction governing said agreements, even if only for the purpose of dispute resolution mechanisms such as arbitration (as with The FA’s ‘Rule K’ arbitration process in England). This is often reinforced by footballs own prescribed standard dispute resolution mechanisms whether national or international (through FIFA), that avert football participants in dispute from litigation (although some would claim the hidden purpose is to keep matters confidential and ‘controlled’).

Yet, given the fractured, uncertain and confusing nature of the implementation of FFAR over the last year; this has understandably led to many such agent related contracts and agreements becoming more complex to account for variations between territories, different phases of FFAR implementation as well as other aspects such as licensing, caps on commissions and remuneration schedules.

In light that we now see further potential variations to the regulations between different national football associations (MAs) with some even applying a partial FFAR implementation, it is almost guaranteed that many such agreements will now need revising yet further, rewriting or even conflicting with the effects of changes as a result of the latest FIFA circular. Subsequently, this will now possibly result in more conflict and disputes, if only because of mass confusion and overcomplication.

Suspensions of Article 20 and 21 – Dispute Resolution and Football Tribunal

From a dispute resolution angle, one key area that FIFA have seemingly suspended as part of their circular; are articles 20 and 21 of the FFAR, which for me is a very questionable course of action for FIFA to take. 

This is firstly because FIFA establishing a Football Tribunal of which the Agents Chamber was one such facet; was one of the elements welcomed by many as part of FFAR.

However, in seemingly suspending the Football Tribunal for agent related matters, it leaves a question as to where disputes of an agent related nature with an international dimension will now be heard and decided upon due to the suspension. 

Furthermore, if a dispute of a solely national dimension cannot be resolved in a ‘national arena’ (DRC) this would sometimes be passed to the FIFA football tribunal for resolution.

Yet, with the suspension of these articles in FFAR, are we to assume that agent related disputes of an ‘international dimension’, or where a national MA does not make provision in their NFAR, that agent related disputes will have to be resolved through the national judicial courts with costly and non-confidential litigation?

It Will Soon Be Over with an ECJ Ruling …….. Or Will It?

Whilst many are commenting on the fact that the ECJ (EUCJ / European Court of Justice) will provide some clarity with their ruling on FFAR, even with the FIFA circular on the worldwide temporary suspension of FFAR referencing that it will be in place “until the European Court of Justice renders a final decision in the pending procedures concerning the FFAR”; there are two glaring questions for me to ask :

Whilst I won’t, for the purposes of this article go into all of the suspended aspects of FFAR from the aforementioned FIFA Circular, I do want to focus on those aspects that I believe will cause further confusion; and thus, conflict and dispute for many participants.

Whilst I won’t, for the purposes of this article go into all of the suspended aspects of FFAR from the aforementioned FIFA Circular, I do want to focus on those aspects that I believe will cause further confusion; and thus, conflict and dispute for many participants.

1 .       When will the ECJ ruling be made? As on past evidence and timescales a reasonable estimate is that a decision will be made in late 2024 – during which time new contracts, agreements and transactions will be finalised under an uncertain, speculative and confusing regulatory framework for agents.

2 .       What impact, if any, will it have on the rest on the world outside of the European Union (which now includes the major football market of England and the rest of the UK).

The Role of Mediation in an Age of Uncertain Football Agent Regulation

So, with all the uncertainty that remains there will likely be many disputes experienced and generated ‘under this cloud’ of FFAR confusion, many of which will be required to be resolved in a confidential, timely and cost-effective manner.

Hence, I firmly believe mediation is the way forward for many in resolving such disputes in an world whereby ‘Football Agent Disputes Are Ready to Go From Busy to Overdrive’, and the form of mediation is definitely NOT FIFA’s somewhat twisted interpretation of ‘mediation’ – which is ‘arguably not ‘True’ Mediation but Arbitration on the Cheap’. 

Share

Football Agent Disputes Ready to Go from 'Busy' to 'OverdrivE'

Are Footballs Exisiting ‘Standard’ Dispute Resolution Mechanisms Enough, and Able to Cope?

14th December 2023

For some time now, if you ask anyone involved in disputes in football “how they are” or “how is business” whether lawyer, barrister or governance official, it is somewhat inevitable that many will respond by saying something along the lines that; they are “busier than ever”.

The rapid growth of football in financial and commercial terms, understandably has led to a very competitive industry and with that fierce competition comes disputes between various participants, which include not least football agents and disputes relating to agents matters.

Are Footballs ‘Standard’ Dispute Resolution Mechanisms Enough?

The football world has some very effective governance structures, but along with those there are some ‘less effective’ mechanisms (if not failings). However, the first issue with these mechanisms in a dispute, is to establish which set of regulations apply and which mechanism is to be used in any one particular dispute.

For example, does the dispute apply at an international football level (i.e. FIFA), a regional level, a national level, a competition level or does it ‘fall outside’ of football’s often clandestine jurisdiction and thus the law of the territory applies in the first instance. Hence this in turn takes time and money to establish where a dispute can or should be resolved, and in a strange way can in itself trigger another dispute.

The claim is that by implementing a prescribed dispute resolution framework in football the likes of FIFA, the (Con)Federations and the national (member) associations are streamlining and simplifying the dispute resolution process for themselves, applicable participants and stakeholders. However, some may argue that there are other reasons for this approach, if only to control the process and exclude unwanted scrutiny, hence prompting the frequent accusation of cultivating a culture that ‘lacks transparency’.

With the growing number of disputes in football and their changing nature, FIFA in recent years have embarked on a number of legal and governance reforms, and just one of these is the relatively new FIFA ‘Football Tribunal’, of which the ‘Agents Chamber’ is just one element.

The introduction of the ‘Agents Chamber’ by FIFA not only highlights the increased role and influence of agents in the football industry, but also arguably the increased number of disputes involving football agents and disputes relating to football agent matters.

However, without going into too much detail of the technicalities and details of the ‘football tribunal’ and related matters, I severely doubt whether it is enough or able to cope with many of the disputes that ‘come to pass’ on agent related matters.

Was 2015 a 'Dress Rehearsal' for an Increase in Agent Related Disputes to Come Now?

Not much remains to be said about 2015 in agent regulation terms, as the deregulation of football agents by FIFA (with the implementation of RWWI : 'Regulations on Working With Intermediaries') was an unmitigated disaster, whether people foresaw this or not.

Combined with the growing influence of agents, the lucrative football industry (including for agents), many of those specialising in the niche market (at the time) of sports law, and football law back then, predicted an increased number of disputes relating to football agent matters (if not understandably ‘rubbed their hands together’ behind closed doors) and they were without doubt correct in their predictions.

Around that time, you could count the number of specialist 'football lawyers’ quite easily and none were really well-known names outside of legal circles and football governance ranks. Yet, in the 8 years since the deregulation of football agents, the number of ‘football lawyers’ has grown hugely, and some of the original lawyers and barristers specialising in the football sector are now arguably more well known than many of the prominent agents they have been representing.

Don’t get me wrong, these well-known specialists have largely earned their accolades, notoriety and recognition. At times they have had to adapt as much to this ‘strange new world’ as anyone else; and to some extent they have played pivotal roles in moulding not just laws and regulations relating to football, but also the culture and standards, if only to ‘plug the gap’ left by FIFAs deregulation of the football agent industry in 2015.

Order, Counter Order and Disorder from the Football Authorities, Will Lead to ‘Overdrive’ for Football Agent Disputes

As if the deregulation of football agents by FIFA in 2015, and the subsequent disarray and increase in the number of disputes relating to football agents and agent related matters wasn’t enough, I firmly believe that the introduction and implementation of the new FIFA Football Agents Regulations (FFAR) in 2022/23 will send agent related disputes in football into ‘overdrive’.

Whilst I could go into great detail on my reasoning for this prediction (as well as notable signs of this happening already), I believe it is important to present the case for such reasoning - the following are just a small selection:

• The break-up of agencies and affiliations formed under the backdrop of 2015 deregulation, and thus establishing who is the rightful agent and who isn’t.
  
  

• A new generation of unlicensed agents who were previously intermediaries. Hence, are their existing contracts with a client still legally binding, when does it expire, their commissions due and the freedom of a client to seek alternative representation.
  
  

• The implementation by FIFA of their ‘client pays model’ will lead to disputes over who is responsible for the remuneration of the agent(s), the value and by what means.
  
  

• The fragmented nature of the regulations and the implementation between nations, leagues and jurisdictions – leading to an uncertainty as to where a dispute is to be resolved.

These are just a selection of some of the potential reasons why the disputes relating to football agents, may well now go into ‘overdrive’ in the football world, leading to huge costs, frustrations, acrimony and uncertainty.

An Overstretched System

Not for one minute do I believe the football authorities intentionally make life difficult for all participants and stakeholders when it comes to resolving disputes, there may be other motivations as to why the decisions taken and provisions made arguably aren’t as good, as effective or as efficient as they could be.

However, the implementation of the new FFAR will bring to the fore disputes relating to agents that the new football regulatory framework will be unable to hear …. let alone actually adequately resolve for many reasons.

Whilst some may rightly say there are now the right legal minds available to help resolve these disputes, I would agree in one sense but disagree in others. The leading lights in that fraternity are still a ‘rare breed’ in truly understanding the nuances of football disputes and then, fewer truly understand the agent’s world. Hence as demand grows, and their time becomes even shorter; costs will rise and delays occur. Also, it is worth remembering that these same legal experts may well also come to rely on the aforementioned overstretched football dispute resolution mechanisms for these disputes

The Solution is the Football World Embracing Mediation to Resolve Disputes

As I (and others) have stated on many occasions, ‘mediation’ is a concept that is so widely misunderstood and underappreciated in the commercial world, and I would say even moreso in the football world.

Even FIFA have gone as far as 'TRYING' to introduce a mediation panel as part of their dispute resolution framework, but as I wrote about in a previous article (FIFA ‘Mediation’ : True Mediation or Arbitration ‘on the Cheap’?) I have severe doubts as to whether FIFA truly understand what ‘true’ mediation principals are. Hence, I believe this quasi-med-arb model or hybrid mechanism from FIFA is a means for them to undertake ‘arbitration on the cheap’, and retain control and oversight of the dispute rather than let ‘mediation’ truly do the job for which it is designed and resolving the dispute'

Mediation Will Not Work for All – Especially the 'Blinkered'

One word of warning however, is that mediation, due to its nature cannot be applied to every dispute; it needs the parties to any dispute to be fully willing to partake in the mediation process sincerely with a goal of wanting to resolve the dispute through the mediation process.

Hence, having worked in football for many years now, I fully appreciate that for some, the ‘need to win’, ‘save face’ and even ‘have their day in court’ is what they put ahead of costs, time, effort and actually resolving a dispute.

Yet, when those involved in football agent related disputes start to realise that there are alternatives to resolve disputes that save time, save money, puts them in control, and also undertake such processes confidentially ………… they will ‘wake up’ to mediation.

Share

FIFA Football Agent Regulations Now Mired in More Problems –

Huge Questions Over Exam and Licensing Integrity, Fairness and Validity

26th September 2023

After 5+ years of uncertainty, debate, and arguments, could the controversial new FIFA Football Agent Regulations have sunk to a new and unenviable low in terms of problems in the last week? Just a week before the FFAR are scheduled to be implemented in full on 1^st October 2023.

After what I have now entitled ‘The Debacle of Birmingham’ last week (20 September 2023) with the 2^nd sitting of the new FIFA Football Agents exam in England, I and many others are now asking whether the FFAR and the subsequent exams and licensing are now so heavily mired on the basis of questions over integrity, fairness and validity that there is no quick fix or easy way out for FIFA (or FFAR).

It is fair to say that just when we thought things couldn’t get any worse surrounding FFAR, that is indeed what is happening. Which leads to FIFA and probably moreso the English Football Association struggling to ‘nail a jelly to the wall’ (after the Birmingham exam), before the scheduled implementation of FFAR in full, in just a few days time.

Some Sympathy with the English FA – Beyond Their Control?

Whilst I still maintain that far too often The FA (England) have on many occasions over the years demonstrated complacency when it comes to the regulation of agents and also AWOL in their duty of care to licensed agents and registered intermediaries over the years, I do have a little bit of sympathy for The FA in this situation.

The fact is that the demands of FFAR have meant that they have been juggling in the last 9 months:

1. The rigid (and somewhat limited) timeline imposed by FIFA for the implementation of FFAR,
   
   

2. An ongoing ‘Rule K’ arbitration case brought by a group of prominent agencies against FFAR implementation,
   
   

3. The challenge set by FIFA to implement their own NFAR (National Football Agent Regulations) for England prior to FFAR implementation (all in the shadow of points 1 & 2 above),
   
   

4. Arguably handling the largest contingent of exam candidates for both the first and second sittings of the FFAR exam for any FIFA Member Association anywhere in the world,
   
   

   AND
   
   

5. Not least trying to keep intermediaries, candidate agents, agent groups, UEFA, clubs, leagues, player associations and of course FIFA happy with regards to FFAR.

……. all of which are things that arguably the most heavily resourced and finely tuned organisations may struggle to contend with, given the circumstances.

Added to that, I would say that many people have, at one point in their lives, had to deal with IT issues beyond their control (in one form or another) at a crucial time - which seemed to be the case in the Birmingham exam with Wi-Fi and agent platform issues.

How well The Football Association handled the situation in Birmingham could be questioned, but until a full and independent investigation (of FIFA and the FA) is undertaken (I am doubtful it ever will happen), we will never know where the fault lies and what could and should have been done.

Have the FA and other National Football Associations Been Given a ‘Hospital Pass’ by FIFA with FFAR?

The FA in England is not alone in being dealt somewhat of a ‘hospital ball’ from FIFA (to use football parlance – for a bad pass that leaves the recipient injured) when it comes the implementation of FFAR and NFAR (national football agent regulations) and subsequently the implementation of 2 exams in the space of nine months, following the announcement of FFAR.

Added to this, there were numerous reports of various jurisdictions (and national Football Associations) having technical issues with both the first sitting of the exam (in April) and the latest exam (in September) whilst others report the second exam running smoothly.

The simple fact is that after years of delay and procrastination it could be argued that FIFA made a ‘rod for their own backs’ and subsequently those of their own Member Associations (including The FA in England) in implementing a very restrictive 9-month timeline for full implementation of the FFAR. It is unclear of how informed the various national associations were in the consultation over FFAR and whether their concerns were heeded or acted upon by FIFA.

FIFA's FFAR is Now ‘Holed Below the Waterline’ by an Integrity ‘Iceberg’

It is not so much the Birmingham exam and the mass disarray that ensued that has led to the questions of integrity that now hang over FFAR and the licensing of football agents. But also, the measures and decisions that seem to have been made thereafter by both FIFA and The FA (although I think the latter would have taken instruction from the former in what would be permitted and arguably what to do).

Some of the questions that now have to be asked over the Football Agent exam are:

1. In confirming the successful passing of the exam by many of the candidates who sat the exam in Birmingham, have FIFA done the right thing prior to a thorough examination of conditions at that exam.Especially given widespread reports of rule breaking (under the FIFA exam rules) and uncontrolled exam conditions?
   
   

2. In allowing resits for those who were unsuccessful candidates from the exam in Birmingham, is this fair on candidates elsewhere?
   
   

3. Could candidates elsewhere in the world who were unsuccessful from the second sitting of the exam also demand a resit (especially if they can demonstrate problems with exam conditions) based on the points 1 & 2 above (and/or demand compensation)?
   
   

4. Are the FIFA Football Agents exam rules now deemed invalid based on question of integrity and fairness given that candidates from the Birmingham exam are allowed to sit a resit remotely under arguably uncontrolled exam conditions that breach the FIFA agent exam rules?
   
   

5. Could those who failed the first exam, now also claim a resit (and/or compensation) given the favourable conditions now afforded to those being given a resit?
   
   

6. And, ultimately going forward will all candidates sitting the FFAR exam be allowed to do so remotely under arguably uncontrolled exam conditions (meaning the FIFA exam rules have to be rewritten?

……. these ultimately bring into question the integrity of the exam, the value of the license and the widely publicised aims of FIFA with FFAR in the first place.

“New rules will guarantee minimum professional and ethical standards for the occupation of football agent”

A Shambles Leading Many to a Point of no Return with FFAR?

Many may think that we are at a point of no return with this debacle and there is no way to offset or rectify these issues. Despite my best efforts, pragmatism and trying my best to think of how the situation can be addressed, I can see very few ways out after:

1. The errors of the second FFAR exam in Birmingham
   
   

2. The ill-judged steps taken to frantically try to arrest the situation
   
   

3. The timeline implemented by FIFA with the FFAR that has ultimately left themselves and the national football association ‘hamstrung’.

Having been heavily invested in the process of FFAR for several years now and the matters surrounding football agent regulations going back many years, I doubt that this mess over FFAR could get any worse, either domestically in certain jurisdictions, or indeed globally ….. but FIFA through ignorance, arrogance or pure naivety seem to have managed it.

So where do we go from here? The sad fact is that I don’t honestly know at this stage.  I am somewhat out of ideas where efforts to the reset the balance and repair the damage will not upset or unfairly penalise someone who is innocently caught up in this mess, mainly through no fault of their own.

Could FIFA and National FAs be Praying for Redemption from the Most Unlikely of Sources, and FFAR ‘Put out of it's Misery’?

Whilst I have long had the suspicion that although they couldn’t publicly say it, the likes of the FA in England and other national football associations don’t want FFAR (for a variety of reasons), and that they have gone along with FIFA just to ‘play ball’ (pardon the pun).

Whilst in France and Italy national legislation shields the national football associations and football participants from FFAR domestically, and an injunction in Germany seemingly does the same, are both vocally objecting parties to FFAR (e.g. EFAA, TFF) joined surreptitiously by football associations and other football stakeholders in praying external forces block FIFA and the FFAR?

In all honesty, the only way I can see any ‘light at the end of this’ is that FFAR is voided and we revert back to RWWI (Regulations on Working With Intermediaries) of 2015 which is far from ideal, or the FIFA Player Agent Regulations of 2008).

If in the coming days the ‘Rule K’ arbitration in England finds in favour of the agents, that could well ‘tip the balance’, and ultimately, with the FFAR effectively blocked in France, Italy, Germany, and thus England it severely weakens FFARs validity and impact.

Added to that, the cases brought by the likes of TFF (The Football Forum) and others in other jurisdictions, as well as any judgement by the ECJ, could well be the final ‘nails in the coffin’ of FFAR ………… but what then?

The fact is that the matter of licensing and integrity with the FFAR is now seriously in doubt, and something has to be done.

Could some at FIFA even secretly be hoping that their own new FIFA Football Agent Regulations are blocked, and thus matters ‘taken out of their hands’, and ‘save them losing face’ (well not as much as they could).

I have no words apart from …………… shambolic.

Share

Can A Simple Clause for Football Agents Save Time, Money and Headaches with Disputes?

(for both the agents and their clients)?

7th July 2023

One of the biggest frustrations and concerns for many football agents is that of what happens if they become embroiled in a dispute with a client (i.e., player or club) or another football participant (e.g., another agent). This isn’t so much on the basis of the dispute alone, as this can be resolved by the parties themselves, but what happens should the parties to the dispute not be able to come to a resolution by themselves (i.e., through negotiation or conciliation)? I will ‘hold my hands up’ and admit that in the past, during my time as a Football Agent (Intermediary), I have used the ‘suggestion’ of the football dispute/arbitration proceeding (e.g., Rule K in England with the FA) to my benefit when in dispute with another football participant (e.g., player, club, agent). It was not so much a ‘large stick’ to threaten, but moreso a means of saying “if you want to do this, then let’s do it properly”. In general, such an approach usually worked (especially in lower value disputes) without even getting to the stage of a ‘hearing’ or the filing of ‘case’ papers, as the other party would (either):

• ....... already know how time consuming, expensive and complex the process is.

• ....... soon after they started to engage in the process, begin to realise how costly, time consuming and complex it would be …… usually prompted after a couple of invoices from their legal advisers.

• ....... want to get the dispute resolved rather than have the process ‘drag on’ and cause distraction, if not damage their reputation and career path.

• ....... in some cases, not want the attention of the likes of FIFA (or other authorities) to be aware of the dispute and some of the actions that they may (or may not) have undertaken which may trigger an investigation.

Just as an example; in one such case, a player refused to pay the agent commissions due to me as was clear and defined in the player-agent representation agreement. Eventually he relented and agreed to pay an already reduced settlement amount I offered prior to the dispute (as a gesture of goodwill). HOWEVER, it later became apparent that he had seemingly paid more in legal fees over a few months than was the offered settlement terms – in hindsight maybe I should have pursued the full amount (for the initial obstruction)?

Agents Try to Avoid Disputes at ‘All Costs’, Not Just THE ‘Cost’

One of the reasons why many agent disputes with clients (whether clubs or players) may not be publicised, is not solely for the fact of enforced confidentially, or, as previously mentioned that it is not cost effective to pursue a resolution through more standard and prescribed football dispute resolutions - but the requirement to minimise costs beyond that of the actual dispute at hand. Many such disputes are seemingly resolved through a private agreement, whether it be an unpublicised ‘pay-off’ or a ‘gentleman’s agreement’ for future collaborations, but one of the main factors in disputes being largely unresolved is for that of protecting reputation in a highly competitive industry. If an agent were (as a claimant) to pursue a claim against a client, they run the risk of damaging their own reputation in terms of future clients both in the immediate/short term, and also the longer term. Whereas if the dispute is reversed (with the agent as the respondent), then the damage impacts less on the other party as the claimant, after all agents are always a convenient ‘bad-guy’ when things go wrong.

Are Prescribed Football Dispute Resolution Mechanisms Good or Bad?

As with any professional contractual agreement it is standard practice to be clear on the agreed terms for matters relating to potential disputes (e.g., applicable ‘theatres’ for dispute resolution, governing laws, jurisdiction). As such, it is perfectly reasonable and sensible for FIFA and other football authorities to define a default set of terms in the first instance, and thus offers the parties to the agreement a certain degree of ‘protection’. With it rumoured that FIFA are indeed looking to develop a new standard representation agreement between agents and their clients to coincide with the implementation of the new FFAR (FIFA Football Agent Regulations) subject to various legal challenges that are ongoing (as of July 2023), this does not fill me with a great deal of confidence. Yes, such an approach is to be encouraged, given how many substandard agent representation agreements have been used for many years (both before and after 2015). However, for anyone who had knowledge of the standard agreement template that FIFA developed pre-2015 for player-agent agreements, they will recall this was a very threadbare, arguably a poor and weak template for agent agreements, and was just shy of few sides of A4.

Do Agents Resent Football’s Prescribed Dispute Resolution?

In my experience there is quite a lot of resentment amongst the football agent fraternity towards the prescribed dispute resolution mechanisms from the likes of FIFA, as many of the disputes they will find themselves facing could quite easily be solved through the likes of the courts, as with any other civil or commercial disputes.

In instances whereby an agent is owed a relatively small amount by a client, there is a tendency for the agent to write off the losses however strong their claim/case may be, as the costs of getting to the point of a ‘hearing’ through footballs prescribed dispute mechanisms, far outweighs the amount that they may actually be owed.

Hence, the resentment towards seemingly being controlled by the football regulations and not allowing the agent and a client to mutually agree on chosen dispute resolution process(es) is quite apparent. Or, is it somewhat down to the matters I highlighted in the article ‘Does Football Avoid ‘Airing its Dirty Washing in Public’ with Fixed and Prescribed Dispute Resolution Options?’ ….. BUT does this need to be the case, or could they even opt ‘out of’ such processes in the first instance.

The Option to ‘Opt-Out’

It wasn’t until a recent FIFA ‘Football Law Annual Review’ (FFLAR) when I heard it was legitimate and permitted for a football participant to ‘opt-out’ of a prescribed FIFA dispute procedure. Granted, this was not in terms of participants ‘opting out’ of a dispute being heard within FIFA’s or football’s framework, but was in terms of the parties ‘opting out’ of the FIFA DRC (Dispute Resolution Chamber) for a dispute of an ‘International Dimension’, in favour of a NDRC (National Dispute Resolution Chamber). However, if this approach to the DRC is permitted by FIFA, if ‘explicitly’ declared in a contractual agreement between the parties and mutually agreed, with the subsequent ‘fall-back’ arrangement being to revert to the prescribed mechanisms if the dispute was unresolved in the first instance is permitted, then, what is there to legitimately forbid parties stating in an agreement that they will ‘opt out’ of FIFAs prescribed dispute mechanism in the first instance, in favour of any other widely acknowledged dispute resolution mechanism? Subsequently this opens up a far more conducive, productive and sensible option to football agents and their clients through the implementation of a simple ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) clause in the contracts/agreements between agents and their clients.

A Simple Mediation Clause in Representation Agreements/Contracts

So, with this in mind it seems perfectly feasible, legitimate, lawful and permitted for parties to a football related agreement, to explicitly ‘opt-out’ of the standard dispute resolution mechanism prescribed by FIFA or any other related football governing body (e.g., National Football Association, such as The FA in England). Whilst ‘pistols at dawn’, or a ‘fight to the death’ is not an option for obvious reasons (although may be rhetorically referenced by some in the more antagonistic agent disputes), if they so wish a game of chess or ‘rock paper scissors’ if defined adequately, could be a means of dispute resolution. Whilst the above suggestions may be feasible, they are not a sensible means to resolving a contractual dispute between a football agent and another football participant. Hence, the solution may lie in the parties agreeing to enter into mediation as the first option for dispute resolution, as a more cost effective, expedient and confidential process than many other forms of dispute resolution. With an increasing number of nations acknowledging the ‘Singapore Convention’ and the subsequent enforcement of mediation settlements around the world in various courts, this is further enhanced by the fact that FIFA now also recognise mediation as a suitable means of dispute resolution in football disputes. Not least as in 2022-2023 FIFA established their own ‘mediation panel’ and mediation procedures for disputes within FIFA. Although, I argue that the form of FIFA mediation outlined thus far, ‘falls short’ of what I (and many others) consider to be ‘true’ mediation.

The Benefits of Mediation in a Football Agent Related Dispute

Without going into too much detail as to the benefits of mediation for agents involved in football disputes (not least as it is detailed on www.footballmediation.com and also in other articles I have written), the benefits are clear and obvious once people understand what mediation is – but therein lies the problem.

The simple matter is that mediation is hugely misunderstood, and football is not alone in this ignorance. All of the benefits that come from mediation are often distorted, miscommunicated or misunderstood and subsequently mediation is not always utilised or thought about in disputes where it could be hugely beneficial.

The simple matter is that mediation can provide many benefits to agents when it comes to disputes, these include:

• COST – mediation is typically a lot cheaper than the normal and prescribed arbitration-based football dispute mechanisms (e.g., DRC, NDRC, CAS)

• TIME - mediation can be undertaken at short notice (weeks, if not days), whereas football dispute mechanisms typically take a substantial period of time (months, if not years) to be ‘heard’ (let alone a judgement passed, or an award be made).

• CONFIDENTIALITY – the process of mediation is largely confidential. Unless the parties decide to divulge details of the mediation or settlement, matters remain confidential. Therefore, in cases that the undertakings of the parties to the dispute may be ‘questionable’ and they may not want them divulging to the football authorities, this can be stipulated. Only where matters are illegal or those where the mediator thinks matters may be a safeguarding issue, will such matters be divulged.

• WITHOUT PREDJUDICE – whilst the objective of mediation is to reach a settlement between the parties in dispute without the need to revert to arbitration or litigation, this cannot always be guaranteed. However, in addition to mediation typically being a confidential process, it is also ‘without prejudice’, and as such, matters of the mediation cannot be used in any subsequent arbitration or litigation proceedings (with the exception as to whether mediation has been attempted or rejected).

• INDEPENDENT (no judgement) - the mediator is (typically) an impartial facilitator of the process, they are not a judge or assigned representative of either party and therefore there is no judgement in the process beyond that of the participants own judgement(s).

• CONTROL – I think it safe to say that many football agents (as with other football participants) favour being ‘in control’ of the situation. As such, mediation facilitates this objective, as the process is voluntary and the settlement is solely in the hands of the participants to reach a mutually satisfactory settlement (agreement) to resolve the dispute.

• VERSATILITY – my experience of football agents (and other football participants) is that they are incredibly creative, especially when it comes to negotiating, solving problems and sourcing alternatives. Hence, mediation again ‘fits this profile’, whereby it allows for the participants to develop their own settlements and agreements to resolve a dispute, rather than be restricted to those of formal process such as litigation and arbitration with prescribed and limited rules, regulations and sanctions of the football authorities (and CAS etc).

All of this can be achieved by agents in inserting a relatively simple mediation clause in their representation agreements that arguably not only benefits them, but also their clients, other football participants and I would argue even many of football’s own dispute mechanisms.

If you want to find out more about mediation in football, and how to apply ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) Clause in agency agreements then please do not hesitate to get in touch www.footballmediation.com to find out more.

Share

Are Agents the Oil in the Football Machine, Doing the Grubby Jobs that No-One Else Wants?

………. But an Integral Part of a Functioning Engine?

24th June 2023

During my time involved in football, my perception often 'flip-flops' from seeing it as the ‘beautiful game’ or a ‘grubby machine’. Suffice to say, the former is from my coaching days at a lower level of the ‘footballing ladder’ and more recently the occasions I go to watch my nephews play and develop as footballers (which currently is the stage of 8 pairs of little legs, chasing after the same ball at the same time, like a set of dis-coordinated lion cubs trying to devour a coconut). Sadly, the latter perception of a ‘grubby machine’ is more one developed from my time involved with aspects of professional football, football governance (or lack of) and the industry that surrounds it, not least the world of football agent activity. However, the simple fact is that whilst a somewhat dirty machine, arguably the grubbiest component of the machine is the oil, albeit a necessary component to keep the machine running …. and as such it is the agents who I believe fulfil this role of being the vital 'oil' in the current 'football machine'.

‘Love to Hate’ Football Agents

Everyone 'loves to hate' football agents (quite often even the agents themselves), they are the convenient target for blame, hatred and vilification …. whether it be fans, the media, FIFA, managers/coaches, players, clubs and even agents. Yet when the agent is ‘on the side’ of any of these parties that disparage them, and serve the parties best interests, all the 'sneering' is forgotten; even to the point where I have heard the names of football agents sung at football grounds. The simple fact is that agents are an integral part of the 'football machine' (business), and whilst agents vary in so many ways (e.g., level, wealth, knowledge, approach, ability, ethics, morals), they keep part of the ‘football engine’ running and thus are an integral component.

The Jobs No One Else Want (or wants/can to be seen doing)

As mentioned above, the role of an agent varies; from those who just 'broker deals', those who offer an all-round service to clients, to those who THINK they offer an 'all-round' service but in reality, don’t. The fact is agents often get left to do the undesirable tasks no one else wants to do or can be seen to do. And for the so called ‘super agents’ although they may not do the undesirable task themselves, they have a junior agent or minion who will be charged with the task, for example:

1.     Whether it be unsettling a player (i.e., 'tapping up') that is under contract at a club, this is invariably reported as an agent doing the unsettling. When in all reality the request is often at the behest of another club who wants to sign the player (and thus unsettle them) – who can’t be seen to ‘tap up’ another clubs player for risk of sanctions and/or how it is perceived. 

Afterall, how many times do we now hear the line in a manager’s ‘presser’ that they don’t want to talk about other clubs’ players, when it is blatantly obvious, they are interested.

2.     The reports in and around a transfer window; about a club being interested in a player (whether it has a hint of truth, or total fantasy) is again often tagged to an agent, and quite often it is a case of an agent trying to generate interest in a player client. However, it could again be a club using the agent to convey such a message or even the desperation of some in the media to get a ‘scoop’ and be able to add some ‘credibility’ to the story as the agent has said it (dare I say, they ask a willing agent to create a story or put their name to a quote).

3.     I accept that in cases where a player may be reported to be pushing for a transfer, new contract and/or salary increase, this may be motivated by the agent, but in a lot of the cases this is the player who is pushing the agent to act as the conduit in the request (and subsequently it is the agent who ‘cops the flack’ as the antagonist).

This is just a few of the assignments that agents get tasked with; whether lawful or unlawful in the eyes of football regulations, agents are doing the ‘dirty’ work ensuring the other components of the engine continue to function in the way that they wish.

What must be considered is that when I entered into the football agent industry, all of these actions by agents were unlawful under the football agent regulations at the time (FIFA and FA), but over time the concern of such activity has dissipated and it is arguable whether the football authorities take much notice of such actions (let alone sanction them effectively). Not least as the components of the football machine accept that there are ‘grubby’ parts of the process, and so long as it is not them that has to deal with it, then that is just fine by them.

FIFA Want to 'Change the Oil' (but replace it with what?)

As I have written about on many occasions over the last 2,3,4 or even 5 years, FIFA are looking to 'change the oil' in the 'football machine'; and by this I am referring to the implementation of the new FFAR (FIFA Football Agent Regulations).

However, in continuing with the ‘engine and oil’ metaphor, the question has to be asked whether FIFA are, with the implementation of FFAR, seeking to change the ‘oil’ in (what they see as) their ‘engine’ with:

1.    a ‘Premium Brand’ - for the engine to run smoother and better

2.    a ‘Cheaper Brand’ - to cut costs

3.   Swiss tap water - to both cut costs and give the impression of a clean image and spotless 'engine' (and reducing the risks of them 'getting their hands dirty').

Now, for anyone with even a basic knowledge of normal cars, they would appreciate that 'oil' is a vital component to keeping the engine running. They may not know why the 'oil' is so important, how it works or indeed know how to (or want to) change the 'oil'. Yet most will be aware that not using the proper oil in an engine will cause the engine to seize and/or do costly damage. Looking at the options above, many I think would welcome approach number one (agents included), in replacing the old 'oil' with a ‘premium brand’ for a more efficient engine and arguably a cleaner engine. Whilst options 2 and 3 will immediately be highlighted as mistakes. Granted, in 2015 FIFA arguably replaced the 'oil' with 'tap-water' and in 2017/18 conceded that they had damaged the engine – this was through the ‘deregulation’ of football agents (something 'FIFA' only recently admitted at CAS) and the introduction of RWWI ('Regulations on Working With Intermediaries'). FIFA may argue that they are changing the 'oil' for a 'Premium Brand' to make things function better on the matter of football agent regulations, but whilst I and many others will appreciate FIFA ‘changing the oil’, there is the argument that FIFA are using a ‘Cheap Brand’ replacement that may not damage the engine immediately, but still result in poor performance and long-term problems. Some may even say that FIFA are pouring the replacement oil into the wrong part of the engine entirely.

'Changing the Oil' or 'Changing the Engine'?

The questions that I would ask at this point are whether football (i.e., FIFA and the football authorities), want to change the engine, or just 'change the oil' (with whatever is most conveniently at hand). Personally, I would argue that between 2018 and now, FIFA have had an adequate opportunity to do both, if not aim to ‘go green’ (to continue the car and engine metaphor), developing their combustion engine to a high performing hybrid and in the long term a largely cleaner ‘all electric’ engine …. without the fumes and fewer grubby components to worry about. Sadly, after many years I think FIFAs approach with FFAR is just an means of them changing the oil, and more worryingly, they are replacing the oil with an inefficient alternative that will result in a less well functioning and dirtier engine ……. if not an overall breakdown. Share

Will Some Football Agents Mistakenly 'Cap' Their Own Commissions - and FIFA 'Get Their Way'?

21st June 2023

A recent conversation with a long-standing agent about the ‘state of play’ with the new FIFA Football Agent Regulations (FFAR), and the uncertainty surrounding their implementation and the subsequent effect they may have both in the short and long term, raised further ‘alarm bells’ in terms of errors that some agents may understandably make in representation agreements/contracts with clients concluded and signed between 16th December 2022 and 1st October 2023. Although I covered various aspects of the impact of the FFAR on the Summer 2023 ‘Transfer Window’ in recent articles (e.g. ‘Could the Uncertainty of This Summer’s Football Transfer Window with the New Football Agent Regulations Sow the Seeds of Confusion, Discontent, Conflict and Disputes?’), I am happy to admit this particular observation came about more by chance at a later stage, following the aforementioned conversation. As I stated in the linked article above, it was perfectly plausible that agents (and their clients) would have to have a variety of terms, conditions and variables in those agreements signed between December 2022 and October 2023 to facilitate (and comply with) the variations provided in:

1. the 2015 FIFA Regulations on Working With Intermediaries (RWWI),

2.  the first phase of FFAR regulations implemented in January 2023

AND 

3.  the second phase of FFAR regulations dues to be implemented in October 2023.

What Will Happen in October 2023? - Your Guess is as Good as Mine

The simple fact (at the time of writing) is that there are numerous influential factors that still have a bearing on the implementation of FFAR in the coming weeks and months, including:

• An injunction in place against FFAR in Germany

• A judgement due imminently from CAS (Court of Arbitration for Sport) on FFAR

• A 'Rule K' Arbitration hearing scheduled in England opposing the FA implementing FFAR

• Possibility of an appeal in the Netherlands against FFAR

• Cases due in Belgium and Switzerland against FFAR

• The matter of FFAR due to be heard in the ECJ (European Court of Justice)

• Possibility of other cases and injunctions elsewhere in the world.

• Rumour of some jurisdictions not able to uphold FFAR (either in part or full) due to national laws and legislation.

As such, come the 1^st October 2023 (the scheduled full FFAR implementation date from FIFA), what will happen in regards to football agent regulations and the agreements and contracts that are subject to the regulations, is very unclear. However, what I am confident in saying, is that one or more of the above will have an impact on FFAR and its implementation in some way. This overall uncertainty has made the situation very complex for agents (and their clients) in negotiating, concluding and signing representation agreements/contracts in recent times. This in turn has a ‘knock on’ effect with the negotiation of transfer, employment and commercial agreements in the applicable transfer windows. How these agreements are structured and concluded will have an impact from (and on) the aforementioned representation agreement, and vice versa. Yet, whilst agents may have well structured and established representation agreements/contracts as well as the more template based ones provided by national member associations (both of which may have been suitable), the complexities of the potential outcomes over FFAR need specialist and high level legal skills to navigate this strange predicament shrouded in confusion and uncertainty.

Old (bad) Habits Die Hard

The need for specialist legal advice in these circumstances is imperative for both agent and client, and in many ways, this is a positive thing. However, there are quite a few negatives to consider, and whilst many of the higher-level agents and agencies have qualified and experienced specialist football/sports lawyers on call (if not even in-house) to steer them through the uncertainties of FFAR and the possible implications, this is not the case for a vast majority of agents, clients and other football participants. Some agents may well rely on (albeit by necessity, rather than choice) old agreements, standardised templates from a member football association, turn to a less specialist lawyer or sadly ‘muddle through’ with representation agreements/contracts that do not necessarily comply with the FFAR either in full or in part. This will without doubt lead to agreements that don’t comply with the FFAR or even the laws of the applicable jurisdiction. Not only will this lead to the parties (i.e. agent and client) being subject to possible breaches of uncertain football regulations and national laws; it also leaves them more susceptible to potential dispute and conflict between themselves as part of the applicable agreement.

Further Confusion, If Not Disputes?

Whilst many of these representation agreements/contracts will not seek acrimony and dispute, but instead attempt to make the best of the confusion over the FFAR both, there is no doubt many such agreements will end up in dispute either directly or indirectly in relation to the FFAR. As I covered in an article back in April 2023, resolving disputes in football are costly, time consuming and often complicated, not least because football participants are required by FIFA and the other football authorities to resolve their disputes through quite prescribed arbitration mechanisms. Subsequently, I am confident in saying that the confusion over FFAR (especially with those representation agreements signed between December 2022 and October 2023), will result in a lot of disputes between various parties in relation to agent related agreements. Sadly, this is not something a large number of participants can afford, irrelevant of how justified, right or legitimate their claims and/or complaints may be, as the costs often outweigh the ‘returns’ in terms of time, money and effort. A lot of people are starting to become more aware of the benefits of mediation in football disputes, and that is the reason why I started to offer qualified football mediation services - to offer a cost effective, quick and creative means of resolving football related disputes. Arguably, the level of confidentiality and resolution provided by mediation lifts it even beyond the confidentiality and resolutions offered by many forms of arbitration. With independent mediation, FIFA and the football authorities may not even be aware of any settlement to the dispute (or even the dispute itself) unless the parties agree jointly to disclosure. Needless to say, the confidentiality provided by mediation is also incredibly valuable in an industry where the slightest hint of weakness, lack of knowledge, hesitancy, vulnerability, susceptibility is to be avoided to maintain reputations and livelihoods.

FIFA ‘Slight of Hand’ - or Achieving a Questionable Objective by Chance?

Whilst some at FIFA may greet this uncertainty with a wry smile, if only for the confusion it has caused amongst the football agent fraternity, the phrase ‘confusion reigns supreme’ seems quite apt in this case. A small and very suspicious part of me is thinking what if FIFA meant to cause such confusion and uncertainty that meant the ‘cap’ on agent commissions and other more contentious facets of FFAR were subsequently adopted subconsciously (even by the agents themselves). Admittedly, I am not averse to a conspiracy approach when it comes to the football world, whether it be FIFA, a club, a football body or anyone else for that matter. However, given my involvement and observations of the implementation of the RWWI in 2015 by FIFA, there may well be some resemblance from the old FIFA regime’s approach back then (with RWWI) to that of the newer FIFA regime and FFAR. The matter that in the ‘run up’ to 2015, FIFA put a ‘cap’ on agent commissions in various draft versions of the RWWI, and then seemingly removed it in others, whilst also changing the fact that it was detailed as a mandatory cap, and then changed to an advisory cap always made me think that FIFA were never confident of getting a mandatory cap imposed. Yet, by making it such a talking point, causing confusion and ultimately implementing an advisory cap in the RWWI, maybe this was enough to put it in the football psyche and the advisory cap thus adopted as an industry (or deFacto) standard. There is no doubt that for many years, FIFA regimes (new and old) have wanted to implement a cap on agent commissions, this is not something new for 2017/18 (2023). Hence with FIFAs approach to FFAR over the last 4-5 years, could the approach be that dissimilar to that of 2015 with RWWI? Is there doubt within FIFA over the legality of a cap on agent’s commissions (as in 2015) despite their bravado and uncompromising approach? And as such, is the thought process that with uncertainty over the cap on agent commissions (and other elements of FFAR), that agents may be forced to implement agreements that will comply with the FFAR in full after the 1^st October 2023 should the FFAR be implemented in full …….. thus imposing the cap themselves, even if it isn’t legal or lawful? Share

Could The Uncertainty of this Summer's Football Transfer Window with the New Football Agent Regulations Sow the Seeds of Confusion, Discontent, Conflict and Disputes?

17th June 2023

The previous article covered the notion that the summer football ‘transfer window’ in 2023 could be one of the most uncertain, not least as it falls in the middle of the introduction of the new FIFA Football Agent Regulations (FFAR). ( see : ‘The Summer of 2023 Could Well Be The Craziest of Transfer Windows – Particularly for Agents’).

The FFAR are scheduled to come into force ‘FULLY’ on October 1^st 2023 (having been approved by FIFA in December 2022), these regulations are still subject to various legal challenges, so only time will tell what the full impact will be not only in October but notably the weeks, months and years that follow.

A Volatile, Frantic if Not More Rapacious Spring and Summer than Usual for Agents

Even at the best and calmest of times, football agents have to be ‘on their guard’, as there will always be another ‘entity’ trying to unsettle or attain (‘poach’) their clients whether by ‘fair means or foul’. The simple fact is, for some considerable time (particularly since 2015) there have been more agents/intermediaries than there have been ‘higher end’ (dare I say, ‘profit yielding’) clients; resulting in a highly competitive, aggressive if not rapacious agent industry.

As such, the uncertainty caused by the way the FFAR have thus far been implemented has ‘thrown another spanner into the works’, with the reintroduction of the agent licensing system including the adjustment back to only ‘natural persons’ being approved as licensed agents and not also ‘legal persons’ (e.g., agencies/companies) as was the case under the past FIFA Regulations on Working with Intermediaries (RWWI).

Subsequently, it has been noticeable since FIFAs approval of the new FFAR in December 2022 that the volatility in the destabilising of agent-client agreements has been evident and the ‘poaching’ and unsettling of agent/agency clients has become even more prevalent as the market not only becomes more lucrative, but also competitive.

'Unlicensed Agents' (former 'Registered Intermediaries')

The first (and possibly the most obvious) aspect here is for those who may be unable to attain ‘FIFA Licensed Agent’ status under the FFAR by October 2023, either because they fail to meet the criteria or fail the agent’s exam. This would mean that they will not be able to undertake licensed FIFA agent activity after the 1^st October, and/or their existing representation agreements with their clients would arguably become null and void from the 1^st October 2023.

This is not to say that such individuals (or companies) are unable to operate in this summer transfer window as Registered Intermediaries under the 2015 RWWI (Regulations on Working With Intermediaries, it is my understanding that they absolutely are, and it is reasonable to think there are many hundreds (if not thousands) who still have to attain a FIFA Football Agents License for October 2023 (at the time of writing – June 2023).

However, from the 1^st October 2023 there could be a huge impact on the work such individuals undertake during the summer transfer window (and even before the window) as agent-intermediaries:

• They are not permitted to undertake agency activity after the 1st October 2023 without a FIFA license under FFAR – so does this then draw into question the validity of their agreement/contract with their client (players, clubs, managers) on the terms and obligations of any such contract concluded after 16th December 2022 and/or 9th January 2023?

• Some of these intermediaries/agents may have already had their positions undermined by others attempting to ‘woo’ their clients on the premise that the agent won’t be licensed from 1st October and the client is free to sign with them, noted from the fervour of some to identify others who failed the first FFAR agents exam in April 2023.

• If the agent were to attempt to honour their obligations under the agreement after October 2023 they would be operating as an unlicensed agent and thus be subject to sanctions and possible exclusion from applying for a FIFA Football Agents License in the future.

• If the agent’s client was to honour the terms of the agreement and make payment AND/OR use the services of the (now unlicensed) agent this would then raise another issue on the matter of the client breaching FIFA regulations and thus also make them liable to sanctions by paying an unlicensed agent or employing an unlicensed agent to provide ‘agent services’.

• A big factor to also consider here are the legal implications, because if the agent-intermediary is an ‘unlicensed agent’ (under FFAR) post October 2023 – does this then mean they are permitted to undertake any legal action or recourse outside of FIFAs (and footballs) prescribed dispute resolution mechanisms and move straight to litigation through the courts etc, as they are no longer considered a ‘football participant’?

Like many others affected by the RWWI in this transfer window, this is not an easy situation for such agent/intermediaries, as whilst caught up in this confusion and trying to undertake agent duties for clients in the transfer window, they may also find themselves having to prepare for a crucial football agents exam on the 20^th September 2023, and their last chance to attain a license before 1^st October and the new regulations.

The result of this is of course disputes. Disputes between agents, disputes between players and agents, disputes between clubs and agents, disputes between managers and agents even disputes between players/managers and clubs.

The ‘Cap’ on Agent Commissions & Restrictions on Multi Party Representation

I couldn’t really get too far into such an article without mentioning the issue of the cap on agent commissions under the new FFAR, not least as I believe it will have a significant impact in this transfer window, both in the immediate and longer term. Without getting into the ‘rights and wrongs’ as well as the specifics of the cap, this again will seemingly have huge implications come the 1^st October 2023.

• In effect the business transactions undertaken in this 2023 summer transfer window fall under the 2015 RWWI, meaning amongst other things (subject to national restrictions) there is no cap on the agent’s commissions, length of representation agreement, who pays the agent or indeed the restrictions on dual representation.

• However as of the 1^st October 2023, this changes overnight in regards to all agent representation agreements concluded after 16^th December 2022, when all agreements will then have to be amended (or include a secondary set of clauses) to adhere to the FFAR in full; including the cap on agents fees etc. 

The implications, complications and considerations from this could possibly generate an article of its own, not least as there are so many nuances and questions that may still need to be answered and problems addressed. Just some such examples are:

• If a contract between an agent and a client doesn’t adhere to the FFAR from the 1^st October 2023, is the agreement null and void?

• If a contract is honoured by any party to that agreement on terms and obligations (e.g. payments that exceed the cap, payments that aren’t permitted dual-representation) are they in breach of the FFAR and subject to sanctions?

• With the ‘client pays’ model (see section below) the terms of the agreement may need variation as of the 1^st October 2023, as does who is permitted to make the payment changes, and for what.

(You are going to get used to the following sentence(s) in this article 😊) -

The result of this is of course disputes. Disputes between agents, disputes between players and agents, disputes between clubs and agents, disputes between managers and agents even disputes between players/managers and clubs.

‘Client-Pays’ Model (Theory)

Whilst the notion of the ‘client-pays’ model from FIFA is something I consider to be a relevant (if not commendable) aspect of FFAR in theory, the implementation and execution by FIFA I still find questionable (as with many other matters relating to FFAR). Even to the point where since the release of the FFAR officially in January 2023, I believe there to have seemingly been some ‘slight of hand’ by FIFA with supplementary documents to the FFAR to possibly ‘move the goalposts’ a little on the aspect of the interpretation of ‘client pays’ to avoid criticism and complaints (although I would argue there is still seemingly some contradiction between the FFAR documents from FIFA on this matter).

However, this again is an important consideration in regards to the summer 2023 transfer window and the implementation of the FFAR ‘fully’ in October 2023, in a similar way to some of those aspects mentioned already. As such the party referred to as having the responsibility to pay the agent in any agreement finalised after 16^th December 2022, may arguably have to change after the 1^st October 2023 on the full implementation of the FFAR, so as to comply with the FFAR.

As such, some may get a ‘nasty surprise’ when the obligation to pay the agent suddenly falls to them, or some agents may even find themselves unable to get paid on agreements agreed some 9 months previously, based on the changes.

The result of this is of course disputes. Disputes between agents, disputes between players and agents, disputes between clubs and agents, disputes between managers and agents even disputes between players/managers and clubs.

Agent or Agency Representation

Another thing to consider is the adjustment that agents and agencies look to make in terms of their fiscal considerations (if not cuts), should the capping of agent commissions and other restrictions come into force under FFAR (once all the legal challenges are concluded).

This gets a bit more complicated when we consider the adjustment under FFAR back to just ‘natural persons’ as FIFA licensed agents, whereas under RWWI, ‘legal entities’ (i.e. companies, agencies) were able to become ‘Registered Intermediaries’ (as mentioned previously).

In light of FFAR this has seemingly resulted in agencies understandably looking to move clients from agency-representation-agreements (as ‘legal persons’) to a hybrid nominated agent/agency arrangement (if not in place already); if not discarding agents all together or making them consultants to cut costs, but possibly keeping the clients through another (senior) agent.

However, this metaphorical ‘blade’, ‘cuts both ways’, as intermediaries (agents) may see an opportunity to secure the client with whom they have built up a relationship as their own client, rather than a client with their parent-agency/employer and arguably use this position as leverage to either secure better terms with the parent-agency, move to another agency (thus taking the client with them) or even consider ‘going it alone’ as an independent agent.

And whilst the primary assumption here is an increase in the disputes solely between agents (and/or agencies) - 

........ the result of this is of course a wider range of agent-activity related disputes. Not just disputes between agents, but also disputes between players and agents, disputes between clubs and agents, disputes between managers and agents even disputes between players/managers and clubs.

‘Legacy’ Contracts/Agreements and Their Long-term Impact

I haven’t yet touched upon representation agreements/contracts that agents/agencies concluded with a client prior to the 16^th December 2022 (when FFAR were approved), as to all intents and purposes these seemingly fall largely outside of the remit of FFAR and will largely be unaffected in October 2023 (and the summer transfer window), unless renewed or amended.

If an agent-client representation agreement was concluded in say November 2022, arguably most of the new provisions of FFAR would not be applicable until typically November 2024. Thus, the agreement resides in a ‘RWWI-vortex’ somewhat, unregulated and not impacted by such elements as the ‘cap’ on agent commissions and permitted dual-representation. And when we consider the fact that, in some territories representation agreements between agents/intermediaries and their clients have been permitted to have longer terms than that of 2 years, this term of seeming FFAR ‘untouchability’ for some is extended even further than November 2024 (as would be the case with a 2 year limit on the term of a representation agreement).

Some may argue it would take an agent/agency with psychic ability, a crystal ball or dare I say ‘insider information’ to establish representation agreements to bypass the impact of FFAR prior to December 2022, as FIFA had the hindsight to establish that the FFAR would have some applicability as soon as the regulations were approved. However, this is in my opinion simply not the case, as the mention of a ‘cap’ on agent fees and the more contentious elements of FFAR were spoken of and/or proposed by FIFA since 2018/19. As such if people think some savvy agents haven’t been wise enough to be renewing representation agreements with clients in the intervening period, then you vastly underestimate them.

Whilst there is some uncertainty surrounding what happens should the representation agreement/contract expire prior to client’s other contracts expiring (e.g. playing, commercial) or being renewed, amended etc – it is worthwhile considering that the implications of such, may well have an impact way beyond October 2023.

And just when we thought things couldn’t get any more complicated, let’s take the possibility of a playing/employment contract being signed by a player in the Summer 2023 transfer window, but  their associated agent representation agreement being signed with their agent in November 2022. Therefore, it is seemingly possible for the term of that agents participation in that transaction falling outside of some aspects of FFAR, until the Summer of 2031 in the case a 8 year playing contract (not unheard of – e.g. Mykhailo Mudryk signing a reported 8½ year contract with Chelsea in January 2022). 

** A subsequent after thought by myself whilst writing this article is that, some agents/agencies may even risk allowing ‘legacy’ agreements to run for as long as they can, so that they apply in the summer transfer window not just in 2023, but possibly even 2024. With the aim of allowing their representation terms to ‘escape’ some of the restrictions imposed by FFAR (e.g. no ‘cap’ on agent commissions).

However, with this huge reward also comes huge risk. Granted the larger agents/agencies are far more resilient to the attempts of others to ‘poach’ their clients, but in taking this risk, the more vulnerable agents may risk losing clients as the remainder of a representation agreement slowly dissipates.

Granted these aspects are all very nuanced and somewhat complicated, if not theoretical. But in combination with other factors (some of those covered above) - 

....... the result of this is of course disputes. Disputes between agents, disputes between players and agents, disputes between clubs and agents, disputes between managers and agents even disputes between players/managers and clubs.

Do Measures Undertaken by FIFA Signal Imminent Chaos and Disputes?

So, with all of this in mind, are FIFA and the football authorities expecting chaos, confusion and disputes as a result of FFAR after the 1^st October 2023?

Whether you give FIFA credit for seemingly demonstrating some foresight with new dispute resolution mechanisms; such as the ‘agents chamber’ as part of the new FIFA Football Tribunal and the new

mediation panel (for which I have some considerable reservations and concerns, which I will cover in a future article), I think the resounding answer is YES - FIFA do seemingly expect disputes and problems as a result of the new FFAR.

The question is whether FIFA see the problems rather naively as ‘teething’ problems or longer-term issues, remains to be seen – but no doubt discontent, conflict and disputes will happen because of these changes. PLUS, it is worth noting that many of the measures FIFA have put in place, only cover transactions with an ‘international dimension’ ……… what happens to the huge number of other disputes?

Share

The Summer of 2023 Could Well Be the Craziest of Transfer Windows – Particularly for Agents

14th June 2023

Football transfer windows often border on the realms of ‘crazy’, whether they be in the summer or winter, and with this it can safely be said that agents play their part in adding to the craziness and unpredictability, as do the clubs, players, managers, media and others. Yet, can we expect the 2023 summer transfer window to be a bit stranger if not more manic than usual, not least with the recent introduction of the new FIFA Football Agent Regulations (FFAR) ‘into the mix’? With the FFAR scheduled to come into force ‘FULLY’ on October 1^st 2023 (having been approved by FIFA in December 2022), these regulations are still subject to various legal challenges whether they be scheduled challenges for the future, those already underway or even those awaiting a judgement (with at the time of writing; an injunction already in place in Germany against the FFAR). It is safe to say that there is a considerable amount of uncertainty caused by the changes to the agent regulations and the subsequent licensing heading into this summer’s transfer window. Whether this be in relation to existing agent related agreements, new agreements, agreements with former registered intermediaries or agreements with newly licensed agents; and that is without even starting to consider the outcomes from the aforementioned challenges to the FFAR. Even those heavily involved with the FFAR are uncertain as to what the outcome(s) will be, although some would have you believe they know what will happen ……. the simple fact is they don’t, none of us do!

“Nah!!!!! The New Agent Regulations Won’t Affect Summer Transfer Window, as they aren’t Fully in Force until after it closes (for many)".

Many would be forgiven for making this assumption, that because the new agent regulations (FFAR)  won’t be ‘fully’ in force until 1^st October 2023, there will be little impact on the Summer 2023 transfer window, not least as the transfer window closes in many key FIFA jurisdictions prior to October. Yet, this assumption is largely incorrect, and can be placed in the same bracket as the incorrect assumption that: ‘many transfers and contract signings (negotiations) are done in a matter of weeks, if not days. When the truth is, the ‘ground work’ for many such transfers and player registrations takes many months of planning, preparation and negotiation to formulate and complete. Plus, the higher up the ‘footballing-ladder’ these transactions are, the more complex and time consuming such matters generally become. I think it is safe to say that many of the transfers, contract renewals, registrations etc for the summer have already been very much developed in the months following FIFAs ‘belated’ approval of the FFAR (in December 2022), if not even prior to that time. As such, agents, clubs and players would (or should) have been planning for the various outcomes of the new FFAR and the subsequent impact of the FFAR on their professional agent dealings for the summer transfer window.

It Isn’t All About the ‘Cap’ (on Agent Commissions)

Although much commentary on FFAR is focussed on the ‘cap’ that FIFA are trying to impose on agent commissions as part of the FFAR, and this matter is arguably the key area of complaint for many of the challenges to the FFAR; the planning of many agents heading into this summer transfer window extends well beyond just the subject of a ‘cap’. I am not exaggerating by saying that the ‘cap’ is a vitally important consideration for most agents (as well as their clients - whether club, coaches/managers or players) heading into the summer transfer window, as come the 1^st October there is an impact on any summer 2023 transfer window business for any agent (or intermediary), even moreso those agents:

1. Whose representation contract with a client (e.g., player, club, coach) was concluded after 16^th December 2022, even if it was concluded between 9^th January 2023 (introduction of FFAR in ‘part’) and 1^st October 2023 (FFAR in ‘full’) or even thereafter,

AND/OR 

2.  Who does NOT hold a FIFA Agents License as of the 1^st October 2023.

Many agents, agencies (and intermediaries) would have contingency plans for the FFAR, and ultimately restructuring their business operations to contend with the possible implementation of the cap and various other new FFAR stipulations and regulations. However, dare I say that in a lot of cases this would have had to include not only a plan B, but arguably a plan C, D, E, F and various other letters of the alphabet; because in all honesty no one (at the time of writing this article) really knows what is going to happen. Even if we take the most basic assumption (NOTE: this is not one preferred or predicted, from my perspective) that the FFAR are implemented globally and unchanged from those approved by FIFA in December 2022, this would still mean added complexity in many of the contractual dealings of many agents and their clients, thus impacting on this coming summer’23 transfer window.

For example : If a registered intermediary (agent) signed a new representation agreement (contract) with a client (e.g., player) in February 2023, that agreement would arguably have to have 2 sets of terms (instead of just 1) to facilitate both the regulations pre-October 2023 and also post October 2023 (and again I hasten to add this is unlikely to solely be in relation to the aspect of the ‘cap’).

Contractual Complexities May be ‘Good News’ for The Lawyers

On the advent of FIFA introducing the new FIFA Football Agent Regulations (FFAR) in January 2023 (approved in December 2022), part of the new regulations was the establishment of a FIFA Agent Working Group (AWG).The complexity and unpredictability surrounding these issues is arguably good news for the lawyers in many ways. Not least, as many agent related contracts and representation agreements would have arguably become more complex in the last 12 months (i.e., 2022-23), to contend with FFAR and its subsequent predicted variations and implementation. I for one, am a great believer in developing more robust contracts and explicit representation agreements (contracts), rather than the ‘back of a fag packet’ approach that rarely serves in the best interests on many (if any) of those who are parties to the agreement. However, this is not always the case in football. Players for one ‘generally’ prefer simple representation agreements and this is understandable, unless they have an astute independent lawyer ‘in tow’ to check the finer details. Hence, either during or in anticipation of a transfer window, players and clubs are understandably considering their own futures (e.g., contract renewals, transfers), yet with this transfer window we now have the added complication of the agents (and agencies) understandably looking to secure their own interests and establishing new contracts (representation agreements) with their clients – just to deal with the impact of FFAR. That is, unless the agent/agency had a ‘crystal ball’ and ‘hedged their bets’ on issues such as caps and FFAR matters prior to the approval of FFAR, and thus concluded a new representation agreement in late 2022. This combination of agents looking to finalise new representation agreements or secure variations to existing ones, whilst their clients may be more concerned with securing contractual stability with clubs/players, arguably leads to a 'perfect storm’. This will possibly create a climate of instability, uncertainty and speculative practices; and whilst it may give some leverage and advantage to some in a hugely competitive industry, there will also be a negative impact, potentially leading to the exploitation of others.

Cross Border Issues

As if this was not enough to contend with (and please note I have merely ‘scratched the surface’ on the impact and implications of FFAR in this article), there is the distinct and very realistic possibility that whilst the FFAR may be implemented in full in October 2023, the FFAR may not be applied consistently in all countries and territories. This could ultimately lead to, amongst other things (i) 2 or more different sets of agent regulations being applied to a single international transfer/transaction, (ii) one set of domestic football agent regulations in one country being dramatically different to another territory thus arguably putting one set of clubs and agents at a competitive advantage. Even on the relatively straightforward issue of the cap on agent commissions in the FFAR, this is even in doubt as to whether it is even legal in some countries. So, there is a realistic possibility that agent caps could be applied in one country but deemed unlawful elsewhere, and thus one part of an international transfer is capped, whereas another part of the same transaction isn’t? Furthermore, this aspect further complicates the contractual complications referenced earlier; as it is perfectly possible that the representation agreement an agent has with a client (player, coach or even club) may have to accommodate further complex variations on the basis of the geographic variables affecting the agent services, clients and any related transaction.

"Don’t Worry, It Will Soon Be Over" …………. Or Will It?

Some may say that come the 1^st October 2023 things will start to calm down and everything will sort itself out with regards to FFAR. Having been part of the FFAR process for over 2 years, and the overall football agent regulation debate for what must be in excess of 10 years, I would greet that news with ‘open arms’ …………. however, I find it difficult to share such optimism. I sincerely hope that things do sort themselves out soon, and looking at the issue in a positive light, there are some proactive protagonists making strenuous efforts resolve the various issues and disputes over the FFAR. However, I do believe that the uncertainty and ‘storm’ surrounding FFAR and what many perceive to be a rushed implementation process, will not be resolved any time soon. And with various legal complaints and proceedings against FIFA and the FFAR, I think the uncertainty and confusion will extend well beyond this summer 2023 transfer window. 

Conclusion - 'Disputes and Confusion'

It was never going to be ‘plain sailing’ for FIFA with the development and implementation of the FFAR, and whilst I have big doubts and concerns about how they have gone about it, the problems for FIFA are no longer of any great concern for me ……… ‘they have made their bed, and now they have to lie in it’. However, the ramifications for agents, agencies, players, clubs, coaches/managers etc, I personally see as being one littered with confusion and disputes for many years to come, and such disputes wont be just between FIFA and the agents this time. Whether it be agents arguing with other agents about who represents a particular player, clubs arguing with clubs about who pays the agent, players arguing with agents over the amount they have been paid; the disjointed nature and uncertainty surrounding FFAR is nothing more than a minefield of confusion and distortion. Further analysis of how and where I see such disputes arising I will cover in a future article, where I will endeavour to look at how such disputes can be resolved in such a seemingly restrictive and prescribed dispute resolution mechanism in football (similar to such matters covered in the previous article : ‘Does Football Avoid ‘Airing it’s Dirty Washing in Public’ with Fixed and Prescribed Dispute Resolution Options?’ ). The simple fact is that the summer 2023 transfer window I believe will be ‘interesting’ ……… and even if not immediately apparent, it may be even crazier and manic than usual ‘behind the scenes’ regarding agents and the impact of the new FFAR.  Share

Why Don’t Some Football Agents Want Any Form of FIFA Agent Regulations?

15th May 2023

When I passed my FIFA (and FA) agent’s exam back in the early 2000’s, I was proud to say that I was a ‘Licensed Players Agent’ and as such wore the badge of being licensed/authorised by the FA (and ‘technically’ FIFA) as a form of credibility, a kitemark, if not even an honour.

Whilst my opinions of the two organisations may well have waned quite a lot since that time (for reasons I won’t go into now), I still believe that football agents should be licensed. And with that, regulations implemented and enforced effectively by the likes of FIFA and the national associations (such as The FA in England) both nationally and internationally.

Whilst I think I am safe in saying that many of my fellow agents will share a similar (if not the same) opinion to myself that football agents should be licensed and regulated fairly and effectively, there are some who are adamant that football agents should not be licensed and regulated by the football authorities, let alone FIFA. The reasoning for this is because of any one of a number of reasons, whether they are deemed by some to be valid or somewhat frivolous, if not seemingly childish.

The Obvious Failings of Football Agent Regulations

As I have touched upon (if not explicitly stated) before; in my opinion, there are two key factors in the failure to effectively regulate the football agent industry.

The first being the failure of the regulations to evolve at the same rate as the industry itself, which is somewhat understandable due to the rapid growth of the football agent industry and the complexities associated with it.

Whilst the second key factor I believe to be the matter of largely ineffective enforcement, and the seeming inability and indisposed nature of the football authorities to tackle the issue of football agent regulations and licensing, whether it be domestically or internationally.

However, I don’t believe either of these factors is a good enough reason for football agents to object to regulation and licensing. Whilst some may then argue that the football authorities have effectively failed in regulating football agents for some time, and this is a reason to pass that responsibility elsewhere or not regulate or license the industry whatsoever (something the same people argued against with FIFA in the run-up to 2015). I don’t believe this to be the case, especially when such parties are offering no reasoned or joined-up thinking in their alternatives.

The Fallacy of Self-Regulation for Football Agents

For many years I have heard the argument from some key people in the football agent industry presenting the case for football agents regulating themselves, and whilst I believe the sentiment of some here is genuine (albeit a little misguided), for others I believe their case is totally unfounded; if not deluded and shrouded in self-interest.

As such, it remains my belief (as has been the case for many years), that football agents should not (note, I don’t say ‘could not’) regulate themselves, and even if it was a possibility through the appointment of an independent body, I still believe even then that the nuanced nature of the industry would make this unfeasible.

It is my belief that under the current circumstances, the regulation of football agents falls jointly to the football authorities (e.g. FIFA, the (con)federations and the National/Member Associations) AND one or more recognised agent representative associations, along with contributions of other key stakeholder groups directly involved in football agent activity (e.g. clubs, players, coaches).

FIFA Agent Working Group ((F)AWG) in 2023

On the advent of FIFA introducing the new FIFA Football Agent Regulations (FFAR) in January 2023 (approved in December 2022), part of the new regulations was the establishment of a FIFA Agent Working Group (AWG).

Article 25 of the FFAR 2022/23 :

(1) FIFA will establish a Football Agent Working Group composed of representatives of professional football stakeholders and agent organisations.

(2) The Football Agent Working Group will act as a permanent consultative body in relation to any Football Agent-related matters.

Whilst on the ‘face of it’ this seems to be a positive move, in supposedly giving agents a representative voice on regulatory matters. When examined more closely and given further consideration, it sadly for me seems to be merely a ‘token gesture’ on the basis that the AWG :

• Is arguably not a representative group for licensed agents/intermediaries, as the AWG includes a seemingly inexplicable selection other stakeholder representatives.

• The FFAR specifies that the AWG is a ‘consultative body’, and as such it can be reasonably presumed by many that the AWG is a body for comment rather than possess any powers, veto or decision-making ability.

• Agent representatives are shortlisted and selected by FIFA, and not the licensed agents and intermediaries themselves. So, is the AWG truly representative of agents/intermediaries?

I have written before (FIFA's Agent Working Group - Right Thing, Right Place, Wrong Time?) that I believe that the potential of the AWG is something to be welcomed, after all ‘something is better than nothing’ (supposedly).

However, I don’t believe the AWG is enough to persuade many agents that they either have a legitimate representative ‘voice’, are being listened to, or even are recognised as ‘stakeholders’ by FIFA and the football authorities.

In fact, the establishment of anything like the AWG after the approval of the FFAR, if anything, gave weight to the argument that FIFA did not adequately consult with agents/intermediaries over the FFAR and further the argument of some that FIFA should not regulate football agents.

Ego’s, Pomposity, Vendettas and Stereotypes

It goes without saying that the football industry has more than its fair share of egos and regular demonstrations of pomposity amongst the various participants, and this by no means excludes those in the football agent industry or those in football governance (e.g. FIFA). The motivators to gain power, wealth, influence, to be the best, the most successful, or just to ‘win’, often dictate the actions and approaches of many, whilst also blurring their focus as to where their true duty of care and professional focus should be.

The concept of ‘losing face’ or any form of credibility in the football industry (especially amongst agents and the football authorities) is something that is definitely not taken lightly, especially by those more well-known names and faces.

Any form of scrutiny, ridicule or denting of their profile and ego is totally unacceptable to some; whether it be public and/or professionally in private; and when this does happen, quite often the ‘die is cast’ and a vendetta set for some form of ‘retribution’. Whilst I cannot say this is the case for all of those who object to the right of FIFA to regulate football agents, I do believe that some do use this reasoning in one form or another to reject FIFAs authority on football agent regulations.

Most notable is the case of one high profile agent/agency whereby FIFA charged them over extensive alleged breaches of the regulations, which were subsequently dropped by and large. Hence, from that point on I do believe the agent/agency in question thus felt victimised by FIFA and was very much at the ‘head of the charge’ against FIFAs authority to regulate football agents and the introduction of the new FFAR.

Added to this, there is a habit for many in the industry to somewhat lazily accept stereotypes and exhibit bias toward others (which I must admit I am guilty of at times). Whether it be a football official inadvertently insinuating that some ‘agents are criminals’, framing a presentation as the “terrible subject of agents”, agents themselves viewing ‘FIFA as corrupt’ (given the events of 2015-2016) or that FIFA have no understanding of the agents industry; none are an accurate representation of the other party and just exacerbate resentment and criticism between them.

Not ‘Listening’, Let Alone ‘Hearing’

This mindset of vendettas and stereotypes along with the often blinkered, if not ignorant approach by both sides in the dispute over football agent regulations in my opinion helps no one. And as my late nan used to say ‘you just want to bang their heads together’ or alternatively ‘knock a hole in their heads and post a letter’ (to get the message through), you cannot help but think she would be right with these, in this situation.

The simple fact is that there seems little empathy in these disputes and disagreements. However balanced or reasoned an idea may seem to be, the other party may well listen but not necessarily hear or understand the viewpoint or situation of the other (due to their own bias, preconceived ideas, or sole objectives and motivations), THUS little or no positive progress is made (or has been made).

The ‘War’ is Underway over Football Agent Regulations in 2023 (as in 2015)

This simple fact is that at the time of writing (15th May 2023), the ‘war’ is well underway between the Football Agents and FIFA (and in some cases the national Football Associations) over the new FIFA Football Agent Regulations (FFAR). It is safe to say that the skirmishes are over and there are now battles in various courts and jurisdictions around the world, and thus far there have been some victories for FIFA. But even with that in mind, the most telling cases are yet to come and arguably the ‘biggest and heaviest agency hitters’ are yet to ‘step up to the plate’ against FIFA.

Yet this was the case in 2015 with FIFAs Regulations on Working With Intermediaries (RWWI), so has the agent industry and the football authorities learned anything or evolved (in terms of regulations) in that time?

Whilst some agent groups are quite forgiving on the matter of FIFA setting the regulations and authorising the licensing of football agents, others are as intransigent as some of their counterparts in football governance, in being blinkered to full and meaningful agent consultations and dialogue. This situation has now developed to a point where an increasing number of agents and agent groups now question the authority (and ability) of FIFA to regulate the football agent industry or license football agents in a fair, reasoned and proportionate manner.

In Conclusion

I can accept the reasoning for much of the criticism of many in rejecting FIFA agent regulations (most notably the FFAR of 2022/23) based on past/present failings and failed consultation with agents. I cannot go as far as to categorically and justifiably reject the position of FIFA to set out a framework for the regulation and licensing of Football Agents (especially not for the international aspects of the industry).

Whether my opinion as to whether FIFA at times present themselves as ‘the law’ when it comes to all things football, is right or wrong, it is clear that national legislation will in most cases take precedence over FIFA regulations on matters of a national dimension (as the French and Italian authorities have proven).

The matter of whether effective Football Agent Regulations and Licensing is required is a ‘no brainer’ for me, with a resounding yes. Whether FIFA should be setting the grounds for Football Agent Regulations and regulating the industry, is a more nuanced question.

Based on how regulation has been undertaken in the past (and how agents have been consulted over regulation), definitely leaves question-marks over FIFAs ability to regulate firmly but fairly, and thus gives some credence to the agents who object so vehemently.

However, whilst these agents object it also seems that they present few (if any) plausible alternatives to FIFA setting out a framework for football agent regulations with FIFA as arguably the only world governing body for association football.

Share

How Could Football Agent Regulations (even FFAR) Be ‘Sold’ to the Agents?

6th May 2023

As I have always stated, I do not profess to have all of the answers to the problems and issues surrounding the football agent industry, in fact I doubt anyone does have all the answers, or will have any time soon. At the time of writing (3^rd May 2023), ‘battle lines’ are very much drawn by various agents and agent groups in their objections and legal challenges to the new FIFA Football Agent Regulations (FFAR). Yet, this was the case in 2015 with FIFAs ‘Regulations on Working with Intermediaries’ (RWWI), so is this just Deja Vu or has the agent industry and the football authorities learned anything or evolved (in terms of regulations) in that time? 

Failure, Resentment & Ridicule of Football Agent Regulations

For me, there are two key factors in the failure to effectively regulate the football agent industry. The first is the failure of the regulations to evolve at the same rate as the football agent industry itself. The second is the matter of largely ineffective enforcement of such regulations; and the seeming inability and indisposed nature of the football authorities to tackle the issue effectively, fairly and consistently, both domestically and internationally. Subsequently, this has resulted in a growing level of ignorance and resentment towards the regulations and the football authorities, if not even encouraged some licensed agents to go unlicensed or breach the agent regulations as it will save them time, money and make life less complicated with little or no consequence. So, whilst FIFA’s new FFAR (FIFA Football Agent Regulations) has drawn considerable criticism, resentment and legal challenges from many in the football agent community. How could football agent regulations and licensing effectively be ‘sold’ to football agents as a positive thing and something to embrace rather than reject, object to and rally against?

< 1 > A Representative Voice & Stakeholder Status for Agents

Whilst FIFA may well argue that the AWG (Agent Working Group) as part of the new FFAR does offer a representative voice for agents; to many, the AWG in its current form is considered to be a voice that is neither representative, nor one that FIFA and others will have to listen to (let alone hear), not least because the AWG seemingly has very little (if any) power or jurisdiction. – see ‘FIFAs Agent Working Group – Right Thing, Right Place, Wrong Time?’ The matter of a truly representative body and association for football agents is a topic that particularly frustrates, rankles, if not infuriates and saddens me (as I wrote about in the article : ‘Why haven’t football agents got a credible and legitimate voice as a football stakeholder?)’. As one of my friends (and a valued mentor) Mel Stein used to say on the matter: 

“there should be no regulation without representation”

, and although I didn’t always agree with Mel in terms of the context in which he sometimes used the phrase, the phrase itself applies very much here. A professional and truly representative body for licensed football agents (as stakeholders) akin to FIFPro, ECA etc, is something I believe can easily be done, with the willing and resolve of key people involved in football. However, it is apparent that there seems to be protagonists in many of footballs different stakeholder groups (including the agents and FIFA) who are seemingly unwilling to put in any effort to establish a truly representative voice/body for licensed football agents …….. if only to seemingly suit their own agendas.

< 2 > Agents as Football Creditors

A lot is made of the amount of commissions paid to agents, in fact some within FIFA have established it as the key justification for the cap on agent commissions/remunerations within the FFAR (a matter I have covered at length in how it is unjustified in the vast majority of cases, and a policy to garner populist support and political points scoring rather than a valid argument). However, what is not realised by many (or ignored by some), is the amount of commissions that go unpaid to agents for work they have legitimately undertaken (i.e. for clubs and players) particularly at the lower levels of the industry. And that there is little or no protection in place for licensed agents as creditors, unlike other football participants such as clubs and players. Until relatively recently, the ability for the football authorities to adequately protect the legitimate earnings of players was not in place, and in a similar way, the means to protect the rightful compensation of clubs for the development of players was limited. However, with the introduction of technology, FIFA and the football authorities now have more resources at hand to adequately protect the rightful earnings of players, clubs and coaches/managers through such systems as the Transfer Matching System (TMS), and the related domestic systems (DTMS). Is it not too much to ask, that similar protection of the rightful and legitimate earnings of licensed agents (as stakeholders) is also now a realistic possibility, in a similar way to the protection afforded to clubs, players, managers and coaches to sums that they are rightly due? With this in mind, almost coinciding with the introduction of the FFAR has seen the launch of the FIFA Clearing House (FCH) in ensuring international payments between football participants (e.g. transfer fees, agent commissions, training compensation, solidarity payments) are tracked, and that all parties are remunerated fairly and appropriately. (Note: at the time of writing May’23 there is no confirmed date for the FCH to process agent payments). Whilst there is a very vocal (if not overly ‘loud’) contingent of agents who object to the FCH, I can personally see a huge benefit to this system for licensed agents. If the FCH is operated efficiently and fairly, unlike the Clearing House operated in England by The FA for many years which is seen as slow and flawed (if not challenged as an illegal banking facility by some), the FCH is arguably a step in the right direction. Whilst the FCH at some yet undefined point in the future only handle agent payments in regards to transactions of an international dimension, I personally could see agents ‘opting in’ to the FCH for not only their commissions relating to international affairs but also give permission for it to also handle their rightful commissions due on domestic transactions, if it meant the agent commissions they were rightly due, are protected. Furthermore, if the commissions that are legitimately due to agents were underwritten by either the interest earned on the moneys handled by the FCH and/or even by insurance, it would again be a major selling point to agents. This in turn would not only help agents and encourage them to be part of a licensing system, but also help FIFA towards its well-publicised goal of financial transparency across all of football.

< 3 > Agent Solidarity & Compensation

Taking into account a second justification (or excuse) of some at FIFA for the imposition of the cap on agent commissions as part of the new FFAR; is the disparity between the rise in agents fees over many years compared to the (largely unrelated) training compensation and solidarity mechanism? This subsequently leads to another concept that I believe would also be a big ‘selling point’ to a vast majority of licensed agents, in the form of a solidarity/compensation mechanism for agents; operating in a similar vein to that of the FIFA Training Compensation and Solidarity mechanisms for clubs. In correlation with such systems as the FCH, TMS, D-TMS etc; if a solidarity mechanism was in place for agents guaranteeing them a small proportion of legitimate agent commissions over the years of the players career (i.e. processed through the FCH), would not only safeguard the agent’s efforts for their role as the agent in the developmental years of players, but also encourage them to opt-in to effective regulations. There is no getting away from the fact that agents openly accept the chance of losing a young footballer client to a larger (or more ‘persuasive’) agent/agency when the player starts to mature and show promise, is very high (if not inevitable). As such, many agents don’t invest as much time in young players as they would like to, or young players are effectively ‘hoovered’ up by ‘club-preferred’ agents/agencies as a ‘batch’, in the hope that one or more of them ‘make it’ as professionals. Whilst this may not be detrimental to the player(s) who ‘makes it’, it does however mean that the duty of care afforded to the group of players (and their families) is likely diluted. A solidarity/compensation mechanism for agents would thus encourage licensed agents to invest more time in helping young players during their formative years (as well as players at a lower level of football), with the understanding that should that player be a successful professional footballer later in their career yet move to other agents/agencies, the original agent is still rewarded for their time, effort and contribution towards the players success. 

< 4 > Easier Dispute Resolution

One of the biggest frustrations for many agents (and other football participants for that matter) is that when they are in dispute with another football participant, they have to seemingly undertake the dispute resolution mechanisms that are prescribed by FIFA or the National Football/Member Associations (MAs). The time, complexity and cost of such mechanisms has the potential to leave many disputes unresolved, thus having a detrimental effect on the sport and various football participants and stakeholders involved either directly or indirectly. Whilst I openly accept that in the last year or so, FIFA have attempted to evolve and streamline the disciplinary and disputes process with the ‘Football Tribunal’ (FT) of which the ‘Agents Chamber‘ (AC) is one of three chambers solely established for agent related matters, there is still a long way to go in terms of streamlining the disputes process. As such, I am of the belief that agents (and other football participants) should be permitted to take their dispute to any recognised dispute resolution mechanism outside of the FIFA (and football) regulatory framework; and this should be at the sole discretion of those in dispute; whether it be litigation, arbitration or football mediation. This again, I believe should be another ‘selling point’ for agents in being able to resolve disputes expediently.

< 5 > Making Other Football Participants Accountable

When it comes to the sanctions and the enforcement of the regulations relating to football agent activity, many would say (myself included) that this is the root cause of why ‘football agent regulations’ have largely failed over many years. As I have written and spoken about many times before, it is quite often the case that the ‘rewards far outweigh the risks’ for agents to bend the rules (if not break them), and even operate unlicensed. The agent regulations past, present and possibly future are often largely ineffective in regulating both agents and other football participants (e.g., players, coaches and clubs), for just this reason. Whilst FIFA and other national football authorities may well argue that they do act on agent regulatory breaches, it is questionable as to whether they do enough, whether they apply them consistently or whether the sanctions are enough of a deterrent. Whilst the comment I have heard many a time, over many years (and infuriates just as much today, as at any point in the past) from Football Association (The FA) representatives in England is that:

“We can’t do anything about unlicensed agents, because they are unlicensed”

……. this is a large factor as to why the regulation of football agents has failed. And as I have pointed out on many an occasion, this is not a valid reason for not addressing the activities of unlicensed football agents. As such, it is my firm belief that this is another ‘selling point’ to licensed agents with effective regulations, that has been blazingly obvious to the likes of FIFA and the other football authorities for many years, yet this has seemingly been largely ignored. Football Agent regulations for as long as I can remember have made it clear that it is unlawful for football participants (e.g., players, clubs, managers/coaches, licensed agents) to engage with unlicensed agents – so why does the problem persist? It doesn’t take a ‘rocket scientist’ to answer this question, because if we look at the sanctions levied against those football participants who engage with unlicensed football agents, the sanctions are infrequent, inconsistent and don’t act as a deterrent to either the unlicensed agents or the football participant – if any action is taken at all by the authorities. Subsequently, the failure to act on the actions involving unlicensed agents is again disconcerting to licensed agents, and arguably puts them at a disadvantage for being licensed. As such, by FIFA and others demonstrating that they are more proactive in tackling engagement with unlicensed agents by football participants with widespread action and meaningful sanctions, this would afford licensed agents some form of protection and benefit in being licensed.

In Summary

These are just a few of the concepts that I believe may sell the concept of effective regulation of the football agent industry and licensing by FIFA; even to the most intransigent and ardent anti-FIFA agents. There needs to be more ‘give and take’ between the football authorities (including FIFA) and the football agents (as stakeholders), as in the end, poor regulation or a lack of regulation does not benefit the licensed agents, FIFA and the football authorities or indeed football as a whole.   Share