[Archived] Stevens Outcome

[daren]

So the agents don't pay taxes? Why not pay agents a retainer and then a fixed percentage (based on a contract) for any transfer/contract negotiations. In that case, the player is paying the agent for his services, so the agent gets taxed, not the player, on that transaction. If it's possible to register as a business, and register themselves as an asset, the taxes drop even more, as the agent becomes a business expense. Don't know if that's possible, though.

These changes will probably lead to a certain amount of upheaval, but things will balance out over time. Simply put, footballers not playing at one of the "big four" will have to realise that if a club goes out of business they lose their job so their wage negotiations have to be a negotiation, not a demand. Otherwise, within 20 years there won't be 4 league divisions in England, there'll be two. Simply put, it's not sustainable and I strongly doubt that the football TV rights will be as expensive next time either (internally, anyway).

I blame Chelsea for current wage levels. Just before Abramovich took over Chelsea, wages were adjusting downward to a more reasonable level - but the outrageous money that he was throwing around ruined that. Now that his chequebook is harder to get at the wages will probably plateau over the next couple of years and then hopefully trend downwards - even the biscuit magnate doesn't have bottomless pockets, after all. Players generally get paid less all over Europe, so the wage level in England is artificially high, and will end up on a par with the rest of Europe - because of foreign takeovers. These people will be businessmen who will realise that the players aren't as powerful as they think they are when the crunch comes. No-one will feel sorry for someone getting paid £140,000 a week when their wages get cut to £75,000 a week!

[nicko]

No, agents do pay taxes.

However your club - and all the others - will have to pay more wages and national insurance payments to accomodate this great new plan to have agent's fees paid by players.

[nicko]

Nothing you have said there Nicko can in any way detract from what I posted earlier, and which you have just quoted. I don't doubt for one minute that what you have just said actually happens, but my point is that it should NOT happen and is both illegal and corrupt. I am surprised and disappointed that you as a prominent journalist apparently support such practices.

It's not about supporting practices, it's about the tax man getting more money out of a new arrangement when it is completely unnecessary.

I, for one, do not see why that should happen.

[BiggusLaddus]

It's not about supporting practices, it's about the tax man getting more money out of a new arrangement when it is completely unnecessary.

I, for one, do not see why that should happen.

As long as I have to pay 'benefit in kind' to be able to use my company car and internet, then how can it be anything other than tax evasion for a millionaire footballer to not have to pay the fees of the agents who got them their millions in the first place.

Sometimes fair costs more, thats just the way life is.

[American Rover12]

Having done some basic research and reading the thread here, it seems that the change of payment to the agent will cause more problems then fix them. Instead of players paying the fee's the clubs should do more to make sure their agent payments are better recorded and the books kept, as to avoid shady deals. This will only increase the money clubs will have to pay, and that higher cost will be passed down the line as it always is. As stated before, we all knw the agent and the player are gonna get theirs, and the club's gonna make sure it gets it's own too.

[Fife Rover]

Having done some basic research and reading the thread here, it seems that the change of payment to the agent will cause more problems then fix them. Instead of players paying the fee's the clubs should do more to make sure their agent payments are better recorded and the books kept, as to avoid shady deals. This will only increase the money clubs will have to pay, and that higher cost will be passed down the line as it always is. As stated before, we all knw the agent and the player are gonna get theirs, and the club's gonna make sure it gets it's own too.

Exactly! The whole rotten business that is today's professional football is ALWAYS going to result in the inevitable further exploitation of the poor fan who buys his ST or pays on the gate. I wonder how we managed without agents for about a hundred years or so?

[daren]

I am just wondering how the whole system works now. Does the agent represent a player for free except for commissions based on contract or transfer negotiations? Do the club have set agents to negotiate with players agents? I'm surprised that the club pay the player's agent - I always imagined that the agent's cut came out of the signing fee. It's all very confusing. An explanation would be appreciated. I have to say that the clubs paying the agents really appears to leave the door open for corruption (presumably the idea of this is to cut that down).

It seems to make sense, at least on the surface, for the agents client to pay the agent some sort of retainer, with commissions based on performance. It doesn't make sense that the club will pay the player 1.4m for the player to pay the 500,000 to the agent (to use nicko's example). To be honest, the main repercussion that I would imagine is that players would look more closely at what their agents are up to if it's their money that's paying them, although that could be wishful thinking!

[nicko]

I wonder how we managed without agents for about a hundred years or so?

Ah yes, those halcyon days of minimum wages, shocking conditions for the supporters, chairmen who picked the team along with a committee in bowler hats.

The fact is that the whole of the current Rovers squad will - like most others - have been signed thanks to agents.

The game has moved on, Bosman happened because players were wage slaves and chained to unfair contracts.

Maybe you want them back too?

[nicko]

I am just wondering how the whole system works now. Does the agent represent a player for free except for commissions based on contract or transfer negotiations? Do the club have set agents to negotiate with players agents? I'm surprised that the club pay the player's agent - I always imagined that the agent's cut came out of the signing fee. It's all very confusing. An explanation would be appreciated. I have to say that the clubs paying the agents really appears to leave the door open for corruption (presumably the idea of this is to cut that down).

It seems to make sense, at least on the surface, for the agents client to pay the agent some sort of retainer, with commissions based on performance. It doesn't make sense that the club will pay the player 1.4m for the player to pay the 500,000 to the agent (to use nicko's example). To be honest, the main repercussion that I would imagine is that players would look more closely at what their agents are up to if it's their money that's paying them, although that could be wishful thinking!

The best way to answer that is that deals, when players sign or renew contracts, are agreed between the club, the player and his agent. The deals get done that way and all of the parties would be happy or else they would not be concluded.

Some agents will charge a percentage of the contract, but usually that would be paid to them separately as their commission for the deal. Others just ask for as much as they want - and agree with the club, using the interest of other clubs to push up the terms.

Players employ agents who can get them more money, either through wage rises or moves. They could not negotiate on their own in most cases.

Agents are also limited to the length of time that they can have a client. If they do not do their job then they will lose their client.

Bear in mind that most agents only charge between five and ten per cent of the player's earnings. That is pretty fair to me.

Don't think clubs are some sort of generous benefactors, they would screw the player down if they could. So it is a good thing to have balance.

[Tris]

Players employ agents who can get them more money, either through wage rises or moves. They could not negotiate on their own in most cases.

Bear in mind that most agents only charge between five and ten per cent of the player's earnings. That is pretty fair to me.

It's pretty shocking to me - if I've understood you correctly which I may not have!

It means a bunch of corrupt slugs rake in shedloads of cash for doing nothing. Let's forget the really big wage earning superstars, let's concentrate on the journeymen who make up the numbers in middle and lower level squads.

So each £20K a week player is netting his agent between £1,000 and £2,000 PER WEEK?! Half a dozen such players and the poor agent breaks a million quid a year!

And these parasytes have a massive incentive to up their own income by moving their clients around or forcing wage increases by stirring the pot planting transfer gossip - often all via the tabloid press.

Ah - Nicko - I can suddenly see why you like agents so much. I guess they pretty much pay your wages too!!

[awhom111]

I never thought that I would actually support the player's unions that American Sports have. They actually collectively bargain agent's cuts right into the deal they sign with owners. Agents also have a lot more regulation and they are less likely to break rules because the league can blacklist them and prevent them from taking on new clients.

It's funny because FIFA has all the power, but no ability to exercise it, leaving the individual FAs with little power themselves. In football the players are both more and less powerful than they are in American sports, but the league is a lot less powerful.

[American Rover12]

I never thought that I would actually support the player's unions that American Sports have. They actually collectively bargain agent's cuts right into the deal they sign with owners. Agents also have a lot more regulation and they are less likely to break rules because the league can blacklist them and prevent them from taking on new clients.

It's funny because FIFA has all the power, but no ability to exercise it, leaving the individual FAs with little power themselves. In football the players are both more and less powerful than they are in American sports, but the league is a lot less powerful.

so true

[philipl]

This will probably be viewed as being a bit naive but I understood the new rules were intended to prevent blatant conflicts of interests through double or multiple payments to agents by conflicted parties and make the practice of clubs paying agents to undermine and disrupt legally-binding contracts of employment at other clubs much more difficult.

The operable word is "intended". As in all financial regulation, the laws of find the loophole and unintended consequences apply.

I hardly think the screwing of the poor player applies anymore to anyone who makes Premiership appearances. The amounts agents take out of the game are beyond obscene.

[nicko]

It's pretty shocking to me - if I've understood you correctly which I may not have!

It means a bunch of corrupt slugs rake in shedloads of cash for doing nothing. Let's forget the really big wage earning superstars, let's concentrate on the journeymen who make up the numbers in middle and lower level squads.

So each £20K a week player is netting his agent between £1,000 and £2,000 PER WEEK?! Half a dozen such players and the poor agent breaks a million quid a year!

And these parasytes have a massive incentive to up their own income by moving their clients around or forcing wage increases by stirring the pot planting transfer gossip - often all via the tabloid press.

Ah - Nicko - I can suddenly see why you like agents so much. I guess they pretty much pay your wages too!!

I think you will find the percentage figures are based on FA and FIFA guidelines and seem to have worked very successfully for years now.

Well, it certainly works in the real world...if not yours.

[thenodrog]

The game has moved on, Bosman happened because players were wage slaves and chained to unfair contracts.

Rubbish Alan. Your definition of slavery must be very different to mine. When the Bosman ruling came in in 1996 the top Prem players were already earning salaries in excess of half a million pounds per annum with the average prob being in the region of £300,000 p.a.! Now their earning capacity is indecent in most people's viewpoints. The real losers in all this apart from the supporters of coures are the lower league clubs and grass roots football. The money that would have funded the development of spectator facilities and player development all the way down the scale now either represents a floating palace in St Trop, a bulging Swiss bank account or a luxury housing development surrounding some harbour on the south coast. It's like the last few yeras of the Roman empire and a definite sign that the world has gone mad.

[nicko]

Rubbish Alan. Your definition of slavery must be very different to mine. When the Bosman ruling came in in 1996 the top Prem players were already earning salaries in excess of half a million pounds per annum with the average prob being in the region of £300,000 p.a.! Now their earning capacity is indecent in most people's viewpoints. The real losers in all this apart from the supporters of coures are the lower league clubs and grass roots football. The money that would have funded the development of spectator facilities and player development all the way down the scale now either represents a floating palace in St Trop, a bulging Swiss bank account or a luxury housing development surrounding some harbour on the south coast. It's like the last few yeras of the Roman empire and a definite sign that the world has gone mad.

Players at all levels were at the wrong end of the deal before freedom of contract came in, particularly those at the lower end.

If you were stuck with a club they could basically do what they wanted with you, it was a far more ruthless set-up than it is now.

Bosman may have been one unhappy player who took on the system but I can think of dozens of others who could have fought against the 'slavery' that existed. I knew many of the players who were basically treated like dirt, so I have some insight on this.

If it has swung the other way, so be it.

Players are very-well paid at the top level, but there is so much money around that they should be.

Players at the bottom end will struggle - as will their clubs - because they are working at a different level.

Sadly, that's the way of the world.

As for complaining about spiralling wages and the power of the cheque book...I don't remember too many Rovers fans complaining when Jack Walker came along.

There is no harm in spending money on the best, but getting self-righteous later on is frankly daft.

[joey_big_nose]

I guess the way I feel about is that the money in football, particularly Premiership football, is ludicrous. But if you take that as a given then I suppose you have to ask who deserves to be paid that money?

I would say:

a) The players- they are after all who we want to watch

Managers- same deal really, managers design the football we watch and make it competitive.

c) The club infrastructure- they make the games possible and provide the facilities for the fans.

d) The FA- They administer the game.

e) The tax man- they use British facilities, British infrastructure and are protected by British institutions so should pay British tax which supports these elements of society.

Agents are a funny one as the game could work quite effectively without them from a supporter view and management view. But from the point of view from a player they are invaluable as they will bring a lot of expertise about law, contracts and bargaining that the average footballer who has essentially dedicated their life to succeeding in the game will not know. Without them highly trained business people such as Chairmen would be able to run rings around the player who in many cases wouldn’t have a clue.

The amusing thing about managers complaining about agents is that managers will have agents too for similar reasons (more expertise in bargaining contracts, more time to work out deals etc) to discuss their deals with the Chairman.

Ultimately, the involvement of agents is quite logical. Where it breaks down is that similar to the fact that players lack the expertise to negotiate contracts, players (and, to a lesser extent, managers) also lack the expertise in selecting agents! I guess that’s why so many substandard ones are around. But then maybe that’s to be expected as players (and managers) succeed on the basis of their footballing (or football managing) ability rather than choosing high quality representative

So the core issue for me is that the amount of cash in the game itself is distasteful rather than how it is apportioned which seems quite fair. The players are the most valued commodity so should be paid the most, the managers next, then the chairman, then the agent.

And what’s interesting is that most of the money that is fuelling this excess is not actually statistically coming out of the average attendees pocket (and certainly not at Rovers) but from casual fans the world over as there are so many of them. And it is undoubtably true that the reason that the FA Premier League is the most watch league in the world as it is the richest (so can buy the best players) which in turn brings more TV spectators which in turn makes it richer. A (perhaps not the best word) virtuous circle if you will. If we took the money out everything could unravel very quickly.

It is very very hard to see how things will financially change unless foreign fans take cue from the crowds in England and start turning off their televisions. But will that happen any time soon? And do we want them to watch La Liga or Serie A instead and let the competitiveness of our teams shrivel?

[Jimbo]

Agents are a funny one as the game could work quite effectively without them from a supporter view and management view. But from the point of view from a player they are invaluable as they will bring a lot of expertise about law, contracts and bargaining that the average footballer who has essentially dedicated their life to succeeding in the game will not know. Without them highly trained business people such as Chairmen would be able to run rings around the player who in many cases wouldn’t have a clue.

They have the PFA who can offer everyhing that they need for negotiating a new contract at a fraction of the cost of an Agent

[Damage]

Well, opinion on here suggests that supporters are in favour of this change whereas journolists are against it!

Nicko, your assertion that the clubs will lose out by having to pay the taxman makes a big assumption. Namely that everyone in the chain will get paid the same amount as previous - from your example: player million pound per year and agent 500k for negotiating. I think what will actually happen is that agents rates will get squeezed in the competition of the new market that they will have to operate in.

Agents' customers now become the players and not the clubs - they will have to show the players that they can do an effective job for a fair rate. And contrary to what you said ealier that players couldnt negotiate for themselves, I think we'll find many players willing to talk directly with clubs rather than paying a 10% tithe to an agent. Maybe agents will now have to work in the best interests of their clients rather than focussing on another money-spinning-transfers where they can fleece clubs!

Actually I can see a lot more work going the way of the PFA.

About bloody time as well.

[nicko]

Well, opinion on here suggests that supporters are in favour of this change whereas journolists are against it!

Nicko, your assertion that the clubs will lose out by having to pay the taxman makes a big assumption. Namely that everyone in the chain will get paid the same amount as previous - from your example: player million pound per year and agent 500k for negotiating. I think what will actually happen is that agents rates will get squeezed in the competition of the new market that they will have to operate in.

Agents' customers now become the players and not the clubs - they will have to show the players that they can do an effective job for a fair rate. And contrary to what you said ealier that players couldnt negotiate for themselves, I think we'll find many players willing to talk directly with clubs rather than paying a 10% tithe to an agent. Maybe agents will now have to work in the best interests of their clients rather than focussing on another money-spinning-transfers where they can fleece clubs!

Actually I can see a lot more work going the way of the PFA.

About bloody time as well.

The clubs will lose out because they will have to pay more. It will cost them more money and it could cost them players. There will always be another club willing to outbid you for a player...it's how far you go to get your man. Now, it is simply going to cost more.

When Rovers go for players in January it could cost you one because the package becomes more expensive. At a club that counts the pennies that is going to be an issue.

The only winner is going to be the tax man...I have to repeat that for the umpteenth time.

Players won't talk directly to clubs, that just does not happen. Like it or loathe it, that is the way it works. There's no point thinking about what should be. There is what IS.

The PFA would do better to work for their 'ordinary' members, those who need help in avoiding being screwed down the leagues. These are the guys who need cheap assistance because their pay packets are small and their livelihoods depend on clubs with no cash and few scruples.

And how would it work with foreign players? Would the PFA look after them too? No.

This anti-agent thing makes me smile. How do people think players come to clubs, including your own? It's not the stork who brings them...

[daren]

I just suppose I'm completely failing to see where the taxman is getting a larger cut.

[nicko]

I just suppose I'm completely failing to see where the taxman is getting a larger cut.

Post 75 might help...

The government minister Gerry Sutcliffe, trying to clean up football/get more revenue for the tax man, had this to say today:

"There is concern in Government about the role of agents and the integrity of the industry.

"There has been criticism of agents taking money out of the game which could have been used to reduce ticket pricing or to filter down the game to the grass-roots.

"The new regulations are a step in the right direction, a good starting point and it's important that football delivers.

"There had to be greater transparency and understanding what their roles were and it was up to football to put its house in order.

"I know the agents have concerns and I told them I hoped they were genuine concerns and that they were not looking at ways to sidestep the new regulations. I also called on them to sort it out within the sport and that I would not like to see it end up in court."

I COULD TAKE THE GUY SERIOUSLY IF HE WAS GOING TO GIVE SOME OF THE TAX MAN'S MONEY BACK TO CLUBS FOR THAT SPECIFIC PURPOSE RATHER THAN JUST FINDING A WAY TO TAKE MORE MONEY OUT OF FOOTBALL AND INTO GOVERNMENT POCKETS.

[Damage]

The clubs will lose out because they will have to pay more. It will cost them more money and it could cost them players. There will always be another club willing to outbid you for a player...it's how far you go to get your man. Now, it is simply going to cost more.

Just not true! There wasnt "another club" willing to outbid us when we bought Bennie or Sav or even Samba!. Clubs will always have a "total price" in mind when they go to buy a player - and that includes the taxman and agents fees etc. I really dont think clubs will start to subsidise your friends.

When Rovers go for players in January it could cost you one because the package becomes more expensive. At a club that counts the pennies that is going to be an issue.

The only winner is going to be the tax man...I have to repeat that for the umpteenth time.

In the longer term Im hoping the only losers are the agents!

Players won't talk directly to clubs, that just does not happen. Like it or loathe it, that is the way it works. There's no point thinking about what should be. There is what IS.

You seem stuck in your "Agents 4eva OK" paradigm. There was a world with football before agents and there will be a football world after agents.

The PFA would do better to work for their 'ordinary' members, those who need help in avoiding being screwed down the leagues. These are the guys who need cheap assistance because their pay packets are small and their livelihoods depend on clubs with no cash and few scruples.

And how would it work with foreign players? Would the PFA look after them too? No.

This anti-agent thing makes me smile. How do people think players come to clubs, including your own? It's not the stork who brings them...

I thought they went to clubs by Bentley actually! Joking aside, seems to me that agents are panicing a little!

[Boz]

Me and my work colleague earn exactly the same amount of money.

We are also neighbours and have both decided to sell our identical houses, which are valued at exactly the same amount at £250,000.

He is selling his house by himself and has been offered and accepted £240,000.

I appointed an estate AGENT who has managed to sell my house for £245,000. He charged me 1%, £2,500 and hence I have netted £242,500.

I am very pleased with the job which my estate AGENT has performed for me.

Do you think if I asked my employer, they would pay my estate agents fees?

In the utopia that is football and my employer says, “by all means we’ll pay that”. Do you think that I should pay tax on this benefit in kind which my employer has paid on my behalf?

Wakey wakey football, welcome to the real world.

In Jack’s hay day we paid over the odds in transfer fees and wages (and no doubt agents’ fees also) to secure signings. Did this give us an advantage over other clubs? Yes. Is this exactly what “big” clubs had been doing for years prior and still do? Yes. Supporters of BRFC don’t need reminding of this.

Most people will acknowledge the role of the honourable agent who acts solely for the benefit of his client, be that the club who appoints him to go and get player x, or the player who appoints him to obtain the best deal possible. There may be a little distaste about the level of income that is perceived to be going out of the game and to the agent. But that’s life. The issue is what happens when the rules are not followed.

FIFA, the FA and all the FAPL clubs set their own rules, by which clubs, players, agents are all expected to follow. Nicko, I don’t doubt that you know these far better than me and probably most posters on here. However in my opinion, what the supporters want to see happening is the end of corruption and scandals.

Do we care if a by product of the new rule which primarily, we are told, has been introduced to provide transparency in transactions in football, is that agents’ fees may also get squeezed lower and consequentially mega rich footballers, agents & clubs all may end up paying more tax? No, your average supporter will not and there is no need to repeat this. The politics of envy will rule supreme.

Nicko, do you accept that there is a perception that football has a problem in this area? There are not many people from outside football who do not think otherwise. Football has been warned on numerous occasions to clean up its act. Why don’t we see what happens?

[nicko]

You're still missing the point.

Just spoke to a very good, long-standing agent - an ex-player who saw it from both sides - who is cursing the system.

He took a long-term client from one lower league club to another recently and had to fill in a 20-page form that makes little sense to anyone, take a slice of the player's salary when the club could have given him his fee separately. Instead the club bumped up the player's wages slightly to accomodate this.

The agent also has to take more from the player because he is VAT registered. Normally - if a club pays him VAT - they can claim it back.

So the club had to pay slightly more and the player, who is a mate of his because of past moves he has got him, loses out a bit of his money and the tax man gets more from the player's increased salary.

What good does that do football?

Like I say, again, the tax man is the only winner.

Forget your preconceptions about agents, that is the reality of this equation.

As for McCarthy, Savage and Samba...all of their agents earned their cash in different ways. I don't hear anyone bleating about that. Certainly in the McCarthy and Savage cases the agents worked overtime and, I am pretty sure, the club would have paid more than they originally intended. That's the way it is.

But next time you try to sign a player you will find that the cost has increased because of this new ruling.

Then, when you have missed out on a target there will no doubt be complaints about the club lacking ambition blah blah blah.