Are Players REALLY "SOLD"?

[Enugu II]

I read a lot of media reports indicating that player A or B has been SOLD or Player X and Y have been BOUGHT. For instance, stating that Onyekuru has ben sold or that Aina has been bought. It sounds very bizarre considering the slave trade era. For me, it is always troubling reading statements like that. It is also used here in CE and it makes you cringe reading that stuff. Does any one else feel the same way?

The reality is that players are NEVER sold or bought as claimed. What really happens, as far as I am aware, is that the player's CONTRACT is sold or acquired any another club. When that contract is violated, the player can often walk but can he really do that if he had been physically sold?

I think we should be cautious describing the transfer of a player's contract and try to be precise rather than claiming that the player was SOLD or BOUGHT.

My tuppence.

[bushboy]

I haven't seen those terms used in ages, so I am not sure what you are talking about. The common verbiage is "Arsenal signs player X" or "player Y joins Barcelona" I'm not sure which website you are reading that still says "buys" and "sell"

[1naija]

I haven't seen those terms used in ages, so I am not sure what you are talking about. The common verbiage is "Arsenal signs player X" or "player Y joins Barcelona" I'm not sure which website you are reading that still says "buys" and "sell"

Lol. It seems uncle EII is using CE lingo as reality.

Reminds me of when I first came to obodo America. One day, there was heavy traffic on the main street to the fast food restaurant I worked at. When I go to work I asked the onyibo manager if he saw the "go slow" on the street today. The guy looked at me funny and said .."say what?"

[Enugu II]

It is a problem, not just in CE.

How does a football transfer work?
https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20 ... nsfer-work
By Miriam Quick
28th August 2017

Each summer, hundreds of millions of dollars change hands as the world’s top football clubs vie for the best players for the coming seasons. But what actually is a transfer, and how does it work?

Why should I care?

There's crazy money in it. Brazilian superstar Neymar recently moved from Barcelona to Paris Saint-Germain for 222 million euros ($265 million). This is more than double the previous record of 105m euros ($125m), paid for French player Paul Pogba. And that was only set last year. There’s no cap on how much a team can spend on players. So where does it end?

What is it?

Football is a global marketplace and top players relocate constantly. David Beckham, for example, played for clubs in the UK, Spain, US, Italy and France over the course of his career. Professional players sign contracts with clubs for a fixed term of up to five years. If a player transfers before their contract expires, the new club pays compensation to the old one. This is known as a transfer fee.


When do transfers happen?

Twice a year. FIFA regulations set out two annual periods during which clubs can buy in foreign players, known as transfer windows. The longer transfer window falls between seasons and the shorter one falls mid-season, but the exact timing is set by individual countries' football associations. In many European countries the summer transfer window closes on August 31. In the US it closed on August 9.

Is that it?

No. The player, their agent, the club and all their lawyers must thrash out a new contract. This includes details of salaries and bonuses, such as signing-on and loyalty bonuses. Players also undergo medical examinations to check they are fit to play. If this reveals previously undetected injuries, it can affect the size of the transfer fee.

Who gets the money?

That 222m-euro sum doesn’t get paid to Neymar. PSG paid it to FC Barcelona to secure his services. Technically speaking, they paid the buyout clause in Neymar's old Barcelona contract, which was set at 222m euros. Neymar's father, agent and others will share a 38m euro ($45m) payment for facilitating the move, according to some reports.

PSG will then pay Neymar's wages – around 45m euros ($54m) a year before tax – and hope to make a profit off his name and image. Image rights can be a big sticking point when negotiating contracts. Clubs generally demand the exclusive right to control how images of the player appear in advertising and publicity. But players are reluctant to give up lucrative opportunities to earn ad revenue. So all parties must strike a deal – for example, the proceeds from using the player's image are to be split 50/50 between player and club.

With Neymar, it gets even more complex. Barcelona have said they intend to sue him for breach of contract, because he received money as part of a renewal bonus when he signed a new contract last year. The Spanish club is demanding 8.5m euros ($10.1m) in damages, plus the return of an undisclosed bonus and a further 10% of that amount in interest.

Where does the money come from?

There is serious cash in football. The 20 richest clubs globally – all European – earned 7.4 billion euros ($8.9 billion) in revenue in 2015/16, according to analysis by Deloitte. The top earning club was Manchester United, clocking up 689m euros. Commercial sources such as sponsorship and merchandise accounted for 43% of revenue – the biggest slice. So expect lots of PSG Neymar shirts. Selling broadcast rights accounted for 39%, but ticket sales for only around 18%. These figures exclude transfer fees, but clubs can also make money by selling players.

Clubs make a lot of money from merchandise, so it matters a lot whose names are on the shirts they’re selling (Credit: Getty Images)
Hasn't there always been silly money in football?

Not as much as there is now. Before 1995, many European clubs had quotas on foreign players. The Bosman ruling of that year banned limits on players from within the EU, opening up a competitive international market. Transfer fees began to ramp up, as did the number of foreign players. By 2016, nearly 70% of English Premier League footballers were expats.

Today the top clubs keep getting wealthier. Burgeoning TV revenues are one reason why. In 2016, the 20 Premier League clubs signed a three-year, £10.4bn ($13.4bn) deal with broadcasters. This was the most lucrative television deal ever signed in professional football. In the UK, BT and Sky now pay the Premier League more than £10m ($12.9m) to screen each game.

This extra spending power is filtering through into higher transfer fees. Clubs spent more money than ever on international transfers last year. A record $4.79 billion was spent on 14,591 deals globally in 2016, according to FIFA – or around $328,000 per average deal.

You can see this demonstrated in the chart below, which shows the amount of transfers each year which are included in Goal.com’s list of most expensive transfers of all time. Nineteen of the top 100 happened this year – and more than half have occurred in the past four years.

Does any of this matter?

Some argue high transfer fees are bad for the game. FIFPro, the footballers' union, called the Neymar transfer ‘anti-competitive’. "Football is ever more the domain of a select group of rich, mostly European-based clubs," FIFPro general secretary Theo van Seggelen claimed in a recent statement. Escalating transfer fees have "helped to destroy competitive balance", he said, because only a few top clubs – such as Manchester United, Real Madrid or Bayern Munich – can afford to buy elite players. They then dominate the leagues, whereas poorer clubs don’t.

But FIFA data shows that high transfer fees are far from universal. In fact, only 14% of all worldwide transfers last year involved the payment of a fee. The rest were free transfers – where a player's contract expires and they move on.

Lionel Messi has a 300m-euro buyout clause in his contract – which would eclipse Neymar’s record-breaking fee (Credit: Getty Images)
How Does a Football Transfer Work?

By Miriam Quick
28th August 2017

Each summer, hundreds of millions of dollars change hands as the world’s top football clubs vie for the best players for the coming seasons. But what actually is a transfer, and how does it work?

Why should I care?

There's crazy money in it. Brazilian superstar Neymar recently moved from Barcelona to Paris Saint-Germain for 222 million euros ($265 million). This is more than double the previous record of 105m euros ($125m), paid for French player Paul Pogba. And that was only set last year. There’s no cap on how much a team can spend on players. So where does it end?

What is it?

Football is a global marketplace and top players relocate constantly. David Beckham, for example, played for clubs in the UK, Spain, US, Italy and France over the course of his career. Professional players sign contracts with clubs for a fixed term of up to five years. If a player transfers before their contract expires, the new club pays compensation to the old one. This is known as a transfer fee.

Neymar broke records with this month’s transfer from Barcelona to Paris Saint-Germain (Credit: Getty Images)
When do transfers happen?

Twice a year. FIFA regulations set out two annual periods during which clubs can buy in foreign players, known as transfer windows. The longer transfer window falls between seasons and the shorter one falls mid-season, but the exact timing is set by individual countries' football associations. In many European countries the summer transfer window closes on August 31. In the US it closed on August 9.

Is that it?

No. The player, their agent, the club and all their lawyers must thrash out a new contract. This includes details of salaries and bonuses, such as signing-on and loyalty bonuses. Players also undergo medical examinations to check they are fit to play. If this reveals previously undetected injuries, it can affect the size of the transfer fee.

Who gets the money?

That 222m-euro sum doesn’t get paid to Neymar. PSG paid it to FC Barcelona to secure his services. Technically speaking, they paid the buyout clause in Neymar's old Barcelona contract, which was set at 222m euros. Neymar's father, agent and others will share a 38m euro ($45m) payment for facilitating the move, according to some reports.

PSG will then pay Neymar's wages – around 45m euros ($54m) a year before tax – and hope to make a profit off his name and image. Image rights can be a big sticking point when negotiating contracts. Clubs generally demand the exclusive right to control how images of the player appear in advertising and publicity. But players are reluctant to give up lucrative opportunities to earn ad revenue. So all parties must strike a deal – for example, the proceeds from using the player's image are to be split 50/50 between player and club.

With Neymar, it gets even more complex. Barcelona have said they intend to sue him for breach of contract, because he received money as part of a renewal bonus when he signed a new contract last year. The Spanish club is demanding 8.5m euros ($10.1m) in damages, plus the return of an undisclosed bonus and a further 10% of that amount in interest.

Where does the money come from?

There is serious cash in football. The 20 richest clubs globally – all European – earned 7.4 billion euros ($8.9 billion) in revenue in 2015/16, according to analysis by Deloitte. The top earning club was Manchester United, clocking up 689m euros. Commercial sources such as sponsorship and merchandise accounted for 43% of revenue – the biggest slice. So expect lots of PSG Neymar shirts. Selling broadcast rights accounted for 39%, but ticket sales for only around 18%. These figures exclude transfer fees, but clubs can also make money by selling players.


Hasn't there always been silly money in football?

Not as much as there is now. Before 1995, many European clubs had quotas on foreign players. The Bosman ruling of that year banned limits on players from within the EU, opening up a competitive international market. Transfer fees began to ramp up, as did the number of foreign players. By 2016, nearly 70% of English Premier League footballers were expats.

Today the top clubs keep getting wealthier. Burgeoning TV revenues are one reason why. In 2016, the 20 Premier League clubs signed a three-year, £10.4bn ($13.4bn) deal with broadcasters. This was the most lucrative television deal ever signed in professional football. In the UK, BT and Sky now pay the Premier League more than £10m ($12.9m) to screen each game.

This extra spending power is filtering through into higher transfer fees. Clubs spent more money than ever on international transfers last year. A record $4.79 billion was spent on 14,591 deals globally in 2016, according to FIFA – or around $328,000 per average deal.

You can see this demonstrated in the chart below, which shows the amount of transfers each year which are included in Goal.com’s list of most expensive transfers of all time. Nineteen of the top 100 happened this year – and more than half have occurred in the past four years.

Does any of this matter?

Some argue high transfer fees are bad for the game. FIFPro, the footballers' union, called the Neymar transfer ‘anti-competitive’. "Football is ever more the domain of a select group of rich, mostly European-based clubs," FIFPro general secretary Theo van Seggelen claimed in a recent statement. Escalating transfer fees have "helped to destroy competitive balance", he said, because only a few top clubs – such as Manchester United, Real Madrid or Bayern Munich – can afford to buy elite players. They then dominate the leagues, whereas poorer clubs don’t.

But FIFA data shows that high transfer fees are far from universal. In fact, only 14% of all worldwide transfers last year involved the payment of a fee. The rest were free transfers – where a player's contract expires and they move on.


Could another player break Neymar's record?

Lionel Messi has a 300m-euro ($358m) buyout clause in his contract with Barcelona. Neymar’s record doesn’t look safe for long.

To comment on this story or anything else you have seen on BBC Capital, please head over to our Facebook page or message us on Twitter.

If you liked this story, sign up for the weekly bbc.com features newsletter called "If You Only Read 6 Things This Week". A handpicked selection of stories from BBC Future, Culture, Capital and Travel, delivered to your inbox every Friday.

[danfo driver]

Uncle EII, its a figure of speech.

[Ekorian]

Uncle EII, its a figure of speech.

Abi ooo. Just like BUYING a house or a car even though the house is mortgaged and the car is leased or financed!

[Polly]

Uncle EII, its a figure of speech.

Yes, like Figure 4 or Figure 8.

Which means, a player may be bought or sold, no harm and no foul and no offence. Go figure!

[Field Marshall Ogolo]

I read a lot of media reports indicating that player A or B has been SOLD or Player X and Y have been BOUGHT. It sounds very bizarre considering the slave trade era. For me, it is always troubling reading statements like that. It is also used here in CE and it makes you cringe reading that stuff. Does any one else feel the same way?

The reality is that players are NEVER sold or bought as claimed. What really happens, as far as I am aware, is that the player's CONTRACT is sold or acquired any another club. When that contract is violated, the player can often walk but can he really do that if he had been physically sold?

I think we should be cautious describing the transfer of a player's contract and try to be precise rather than claiming that the player was SOLD or BOUGHT.

My tuppence.

Very common in US sports. I also found it amazing that in this day and age they still use those terms. I concluded that whoever was bought/sold was really laughing all the way to the bank and really didn't care. But you have a point!

[EMIR KONGI JAFFI JOFFA]

This is PC gone crazy. How is it that we now equate the selling of player rights to slavery? Really? Get a job!

[Enugu II]

Uncle EII, its a figure of speech.

Abi ooo. Just like BUYING a house or a car even though the house is mortgaged and the car is leased or financed!

It isn't the same thing. In essence, you are equating a human being with a house or a car. That is exactly the analogy made by slave traders centuries ago i.e. that a human being (African) is a commodity. It is a means to dehumanize to make the trade palatable at that time. That is the central problem right there. That is exactly the logic that you have provided.

The real point is that clubs have acquired the CONTRACT of a player. There is a difference there.

[metalalloy]

Uncle EII, its a figure of speech.

Abi ooo. Just like BUYING a house or a car even though the house is mortgaged and the car is leased or financed!

It isn't the same thing. In essence, you are equating a human being with a house or a car. That is exactly the analogy made by slave traders centuries ago i.e. that a human being (African) is a commodity. It is a means to dehumanize to make the trade palatable at that time. That is the central problem right there. That is exactly the logic that you have provided.

The real point is that clubs have acquired the CONTRACT of a player. There is a difference there.

NBA and NFL players have made comments comparing team owners to plantation masters from slavery days when it comes to the way the owners talk about players.

Using the word "sell" doesn't really bother me personally, as it is used colloquially, and used to refer to players of all races and ethnicity. People understand (or those with a brain should understand) that it is a contract that is transferred and not the player. This is why i cant understand some of the comments that I read about Bale's situation and the comparisons some people are making to his "oga"

[mcal]

I read a lot of media reports indicating that player A or B has been SOLD or Player X and Y have been BOUGHT. It sounds very bizarre considering the slave trade era. For me, it is always troubling reading statements like that. It is also used here in CE and it makes you cringe reading that stuff. Does any one else feel the same way?

The reality is that players are NEVER sold or bought as claimed. What really happens, as far as I am aware, is that the player's CONTRACT is sold or acquired any another club. When that contract is violated, the player can often walk but can he really do that if he had been physically sold?

I think we should be cautious describing the transfer of a player's contract and try to be precise rather than claiming that the player was SOLD or BOUGHT.

My tuppence.

...they are investments, and or properties owned by the owner of the club. The "sold" "buy" term may not sound right because of slavery, but no one is thinking of that when used. This is headline on espn soccer website today;

Barca sell Malcom to Russia's Zenit for €40m

the other say;

Sources: Man Utd agree record £80m Maguire fee

[Enugu II]

I read a lot of media reports indicating that player A or B has been SOLD or Player X and Y have been BOUGHT. It sounds very bizarre considering the slave trade era. For me, it is always troubling reading statements like that. It is also used here in CE and it makes you cringe reading that stuff. Does any one else feel the same way?

The reality is that players are NEVER sold or bought as claimed. What really happens, as far as I am aware, is that the player's CONTRACT is sold or acquired any another club. When that contract is violated, the player can often walk but can he really do that if he had been physically sold?

I think we should be cautious describing the transfer of a player's contract and try to be precise rather than claiming that the player was SOLD or BOUGHT.

My tuppence.

...they are investments, and or properties owned by the owner of the club. The "sold" "buy" term may not sound right because of slavery, but no one is thinking of that when used. This is headline on espn soccer website today;

Barca sell Malcom to Russia's Zenit for €40m

the other say;

Sources: Man Utd agree record £80m Maguire fee

Mcal,

I already provided example on BBC using the term and your example of usage here as it pertains to Man Utd shows that it is a worldwide problem. It is a poor usage, people are neither commodity nor are they property. Footballers are contracted. When you sign a contract with a repair guy to fix your home, you do not own the repair guy. You simply have a contract with him. That is what a footballer does -- sign a contract with a club. The club does not own the player. The club has rights based on what is specified in the contract and the club can TRANSFER that contract following a transaction with another club. But that does not define it as the player being sold as journalists wrongly infer. That rubbish is very annoying and it does not matter whether the term is used in Europe or Nigeria or CE. The fact is that slave trade ended eons ago and people are no longer commodities.

[mcal]

I read a lot of media reports indicating that player A or B has been SOLD or Player X and Y have been BOUGHT. It sounds very bizarre considering the slave trade era. For me, it is always troubling reading statements like that. It is also used here in CE and it makes you cringe reading that stuff. Does any one else feel the same way?

The reality is that players are NEVER sold or bought as claimed. What really happens, as far as I am aware, is that the player's CONTRACT is sold or acquired any another club. When that contract is violated, the player can often walk but can he really do that if he had been physically sold?

I think we should be cautious describing the transfer of a player's contract and try to be precise rather than claiming that the player was SOLD or BOUGHT.

My tuppence.

...they are investments, and or properties owned by the owner of the club. The "sold" "buy" term may not sound right because of slavery, but no one is thinking of that when used. This is headline on espn soccer website today;

Barca sell Malcom to Russia's Zenit for €40m

the other say;

Sources: Man Utd agree record £80m Maguire fee

Mcal,

I already provided example on BBC using the term and your example of usage here as it pertains to Man Utd shows that it is a worldwide problem. It is a poor usage, people are neither commodity nor are they property. Footballers are contracted. When you sign a contract with a repair guy to fix your home, you do not own the repair guy. You simply have a contract with him. That is what a footballer does -- sign a contract with a club. The club does not own the player. The club has rights based on what is specified in the contract and the club can TRANSFER that contract following a transaction with another club. But that does not define it as the player being sold as journalists wrongly infer. That rubbish is very annoying and it does not matter whether the term is used in Europe or Nigeria or CE. The fact is that slave trade ended eons ago and people are no longer commodities.

...I hear you.
The bigger guy (club owner) dictates language to an inexperienced, or uneducated player.
In places where the term is sensitive, example the USA, they will never use the words for obvious reasons.
But they 'own' and dictates moves for the said player on and off the field.
Example, an NFL player was recently caught on video jumping a bull at the famous Spanish bull run, his club were mad at him for jeopardizing their "commodity" him the player.
Same thing some years back, Tom Brady of the NE patriots jumped a cliff into water below while on holiday his club was mad at him.
So the idea is there but they are careful not to use the words.

[kofi86]

I read a lot of media reports indicating that player A or B has been SOLD or Player X and Y have been BOUGHT. It sounds very bizarre considering the slave trade era. For me, it is always troubling reading statements like that. It is also used here in CE and it makes you cringe reading that stuff. Does any one else feel the same way?

The reality is that players are NEVER sold or bought as claimed. What really happens, as far as I am aware, is that the player's CONTRACT is sold or acquired any another club. When that contract is violated, the player can often walk but can he really do that if he had been physically sold?

I think we should be cautious describing the transfer of a player's contract and try to be precise rather than claiming that the player was SOLD or BOUGHT.

My tuppence.

technically (as in accounting) it is the player's registration rights that are being sold (as it is not allowed to show humans as assets on your balance sheet)

Why does it seem bizarre though? To me it does it doesn't seem bizarre at all tbh and I think the example with the repair guy is off as long as it's not an exclusive contract that forbids him to do any repair work for other parties

[jette1]

There is no denying that SOLD AND BOUGHT has always been the terminology used. In fact I raised this issue on CE more than 5 years ago but people have been desensitized I guess. And neither does the actual appearance of ownership shy away from the message conveyed in the language given that the players can be held back from representing their nation of origin and indirectly punished when they push back. We all know mikels last game for Chelsea was because he went to the Olympics against the managers wish

[Coach]

@Enugu, they are indeed “sold”, ‘tis not merely a matter of transferred contracts, rather services. The proud new owner governs their working hours, conditions, what they eat, when they sleep and beyond. Where image rights are involved, the Kings of Candy Land have a full sweep of the board. The human meat market is exactly that, only the beef is made chateaubriand and dressed in the richest sauces. Atleast on bright side. In the darker shades, the stock are sold wholesale, ship shape and Bristol fashion. Neath the dim lighting of a Masaydeez Benss, the right to load the cargo are sold in dodgier deals than that of the East India’s Cornwallis.

[Kabalega]

@Enugu, they are indeed “sold”, ‘tis not merely a matter of transferred contracts, rather services. The proud new owner governs their working hours, conditions, what they eat, when they sleep and beyond. Where image rights are involved, the Kings of Candy Land have a full sweep of the board. The human meat market is exactly that, only the beef is made chateaubriand and dressed in the richest sauces. Atleast on bright side. In the darker shades, the stock are sold wholesale, ship shape and Bristol fashion. Neath the dim lighting of a Masaydeez Benss, the right to load the cargo are sold in dodgier deals than that of the East India’s Cornwallis.

Some contracts will not even let you ride a motor bike.
For all intents and purposes, the players are owned.