Bringing both FIFA and Football Agents onside

In this article I am not going to question whether players and coaches need an agent. I assume there is a demand for football agent services. I want to shed some light on the challenges involved for agents when representing young players, given the FIFA Football Agent Regulations. Furthermore I suggest to examine a mechanism similar to existing FIFA regulations to compensate early stage involvement of clubs.

In this article, I will not discuss whether players and coaches require agents; that's a separate topic. My focus is on the reality of football players' incomes and the implications of the 'client-pays principle' in the FIFA Football Agent Regulations (FFAR).

With the winter football transfer window approaching in Europe, heated debates and legal disputes are ongoing about the FFAR, which took effect on 1 October 2023. A major point of contention among agents and their organizations in these disputes is the legality of FFAR's service fee cap.

In essence, the FFAR limits the fee an agent can receive to a set percentage of a player's annual salary. Additionally, it introduces the 'client-pays' principle, requiring players or coaches seeking representation to pay their agents directly.

Skewed income distribution

Lets look into some income figures first. After all, with the rising salaries a (small) percentage is still a large number, right? But the salaries of the best of the best in football are not the data to look at when addressing the turmoil in the football agent industry. What about the 'average salaries' of players in 'average professional football leagues'? After all, top teams and players need these average counterparts to stand out.

The most recent representative report I found to be a valuable resource about global player income statistics is the FIFPRO report Men's global football report (2016):

FIFPRO about the report: "So we commissioned the 2016 FIFPRO Global Employment Report, which draws on the evidence of 14,000 players worldwide to help us illustrate the reality. The report drew on feedback from players in 54 countries and 87 leagues in Europe, the Americas and Africa."

Two findings from the report I believe are worth highlighting here:

• More than 45% surveyed earned less than $1000 (USD) a month
• The median net monthly salary worldwide ranged between $1000 and $2000 (USD)

A small percentage of players earn high incomes, while the majority earn relatively low salaries. This disparity is often more pronounced in players' early career stages.

I don't have any reason to assume that these distributions have changed drastically over the last couple of years.

Rich get richer

These figures indicate a skewed income distribution among players: a small percentage earn high incomes, while the majority earn relatively low salaries. This uneven distribution can also be found between continents, countries and leagues and within teams.

Furthermore, this disparity is often more pronounced in players' early career stages. The highest earners also typically secure larger sponsorships and media contracts and play for clubs participating in lucrative international competitions, leading to additional bonus earnings.

The FFAR's service fee cap, linked to a player's annual salary, means agents can earn significantly more from high-earning players than from others. However, since top earners are a minority, many agents end up representing players with lower incomes. This results from the fact that a small number of agencies represent most of the top-earning players.

A potential solution might be a mechanism similar to FIFA's training compensation and solidarity contribution regulations.

Offside: the status quo between FIFA and Football Agents

The relationship between FIFA, football agents, and clubs is complex, especially considering the evolving dynamics of the football industry. Agents guiding young players often invests time and resources in talents that may not reach elite levels or only earn marginal salaries. This investment risk is significant yet often overlooked in discussions about football economics.

FIFA's 2015 decision to deregulate agent licensing intended to grasp control of the agent market. However, this led to concerns over professional standards and ethics. Agents, feeling singled out in this regulatory framework, argue for their right to negotiate fair compensation for the value they add, a perspective not fully shared by clubs. Clubs often view agent fees as a financial burden, diverting funds away from valuable player and coaching staff investments.

At the heart of this issue is how agents are compensated, particularly in the early stages of a player's career. Because players have the freedom to switch agents, often opting for larger agencies as their careers progress. This practice can negate the initial agent's efforts in developing the player's career.

Early investment that pays out for all stakeholders involved

A potential solution might be a mechanism similar to FIFA's training compensation and solidarity contribution regulations. These systems compensate clubs for their developmental role in a player's early career. Extending such a scheme to agents could ensure they are rewarded for their early-stage investment and involvement.

Such a system would require careful consideration and design to balance the interests of all parties, but it could potentially align FIFA and agents, transforming a contentious relationship into a collaborative one. This could bring both FIFA and the agents onside.

#football #footballagent #FIFA