Thoughts on why football transfers suck

[HatterDon]

The major problem with transfers in England is that the players CONTRACT is not sold to the buying club. Instead, the player gets a new contract with each transfer. In American baseball, signing a 7-year contract with the St. Louis Cardinals [for example] does NOT mean that the player is committed to stay with the Cardinals. It DOES mean that he is committed to the salary terms and other terms [a short list of clubs he'd be traded to/bonuses for performance, etc.] for the 7 years. Of course, he can renegotiate during that 7 years.

The major reason that American baseball teams sell players is to extricate themselves from a contract. The major ADVANTAGE for the buying club is that they know how much salary they're going to be paying. It's for this reason that some trades are made over the telephone during negotiations that last an hour or so.

The benefit? Agents don't have any financial benefit from a trade. Their financial benefit comes when the salary is renegotiated. So, if this player signs a 7 year contract with the Cardinals, and -- during that period -- is traded twice, the agent accrues no financial benefit for either of these trades.

I'd love to see that system in football. Without the new contracts associated with transfers today, the agents become less of a problem, teams know what they're taking on, and deals can take a matter of hours to conclude. Trades can be made on the terms of benefits to the club rather than the most bucks the agent can get.

By the way, this is the ONLY facet of American sports I'd like to see adopted in Europe and around the world.

Hmmmmm, sort of a Mini-View from South Texas.

[Mr Fulham]

I agree....the silly sums totally crack me up and, for the first time in years, I'm not really looking forward to the start of the new season. Umm...may well just be some kind of Olympic Blues.

[MJG]

I still think there should be a clearing house or some kind of transfer control run by a body to deal with all transfers.
Keep everything transparent.

[Senior Supporter]

That is very interesting HD. I was unaware of the system and it certainly has obvious advantages over our contracts system.

The one point that troubles me is that there still doesn't seem to be anything to stop the agent touting his player around to find the buyer who will agree to renegotiate the contract salary to give the biggest raise. Perhaps the agents over there are not the sharks that ours have become?

[MrWhite]

not to mention that the players seem to think signing a contract only locks them in if they achieve or underperform expectations - the minute they have a season that bumps them up into a new theoretical pay grade they demand a transfer to another club to recognize the appreciation.  it's a shame clubs aren't better protected against this type of behavior - clubs dont have the power to cut the wages of players who are underachieving expectations, so why should players get to take advantage of the system and get a free option to leave on a higher wage without being made to see-out the terms of the original contract.  i for one would love to see the likes of spurs/arsenal/fulham forcing players like modric, rvp, and dempsey to play out the contracts they originally signed, and doing so in a professional manner that doesn't involve a 'bust up' with the manager.

[timmyg]

COMPLETELY agree Don, but there's a big ol' caveat to this:

Every league in America is a single entity organization (hooray socialism!). So, Player A's contracts is not owned by the team, but by the league. Player A needs to join the players union and agree to the players union's collective bargaining agreement with the league. The team Player A is on is just responsible for actually paying the player. So player A can go from Team X to Team Y and the player will keep the same pay-rate. As Don mentioned, only when the contract is up, can the pay-rate change.

In footy, Fulham FC is an entirely different entity from QPR as it from ManU. They only commonality they share is the TV money that the association they're in (i.e., the EPL) doles out.  So of course agents benefit from this, and clubs slide into ruin paying absurd FEES simply to talk to a player.

I just don't see how footy can adopt the American style trade/transfer system without becoming a closed league(s).

Oh, and one other facet that should be adopted in footy: VIDEO ON TEAM AND LEAGUE WEBSITES

[alfie]

it is very interesting but do the players have any say in where they go?, if i played say in Calif and my club wanted to trade me to Newyork would i have a choice?

[ToodlesMcToot]

it is very interesting but do the players have any say in where they go?, if i played say in Calif and my club wanted to trade me to Newyork would i have a choice?

My limited understanding is that it's dependent upon your tenure with the league. If you've played long enough in the league, you can veto trades. I'm sure that trading restrictions can be negotiated in the player contract as well.

[sipwell]

It is why Americans loathe communism... because their organization of sports (NFL, NBA, ...) are based on communist principles. :D

[MrCheviot]

Some higher profile players get a no trade clause inserted into the contract.

The tenure rule is the 10/5 rule, i.e. 10 years in the league, at least the last 5 with the same team.

Otherwise, no you don't have a choice. Also, baseball doesn't tend to have holdouts due to guaranteed contracts and the use of salary arbitration, which is a result of the clout that the MLBPA (union) has.

[theo]

This is one of the reasons american sports, and especially ice hockey have grown on me over the last couple of years. Another reason is the salary cap and revenue sharing, which prevents players from getting quite as outrageous contracts as they do in football, this at least goes for the NHL, and also helps to keep the league competitive.

[Terry Angus]

our system wasn't designed with agents in mind; it's just a free market. agents found a niche because players who are too busy or dumb to market and represent themselves will pay someone else to do it. are you saying the system in US sports isn't broadly the same? if so, i misunderstood the film jerry maguire

i any event, i don't think the US system as described is compatible with our reasonable & civilised employment law

[HatterDon]

it is very interesting but do the players have any say in where they go?, if i played say in Calif and my club wanted to trade me to Newyork would i have a choice?

My limited understanding is that it's dependent upon your tenure with the league. If you've played long enough in the league, you can veto trades. I'm sure that trading restrictions can be negotiated in the player contract as well.

Most veteran players have a "no trade clause" which doesn't stop the team from trading the player; rather, it means that the player will have to approve the club [and get a bucket of cash for waiving the clause]. Most players accept trades to get more playing time or, towards the end of their careers, to play for a team with a shot at a championship.

[HatterDon]

Some higher profile players get a no trade clause inserted into the contract.

The tenure rule is the 10/5 rule, i.e. 10 years in the league, at least the last 5 with the same team.

Otherwise, no you don't have a choice. Also, baseball doesn't tend to have holdouts due to guaranteed contracts and the use of salary arbitration, which is a result of the clout that the MLBPA (union) has.

Actually, it was the owners who demanded arbitration. They thought it would be a tool to keep salaries down, the poor deluded dears.