What is and isn't Third Party Ownership

Doesn't seem much difference between the third party ownership of Tevez and the whole agent situation that haunts football. Chuck into a contract a release clause and you're average agent has as much control over a player as MSI and Just Sports.</p>

Read this transcript of the commission's findings and they could be talking about agents.

8. A recent, and the FAPL would say, disturbing development has occurred within the football world, namely third parties who are not themselves football clubs owning the economic rights of individual players. Those concerns have been referred to by Mr Foster in his evidence, namely:

(a) The third party may be able to determine when and to whom the player may be transferred, which may not coincide with the wishes and interests of the club for whom the player is playing, or the player himself, and thus potentially influence the playing policies of the club.

(b) In the event of the third party having a particular transfer in mind, it may seek to influence the playing performance of the player.

(c) The third party could prevent a transfer of the player against the interests of the club.

(d) The third party could prevent the termination of the player's contract with the club and against the wishes of the club. The club's disciplinary control of the player could be affected.
</p>

 

In The Times today its claimed that Rio Ferdinand,Mark Viduka,Dominic Matteo,Michael Duberry, Eric Bakke,Danny Mills,Michael Bridges,and Oliver Dacourt were all bought by Leeds on lease back deals,the players were registered to Leeds but bought by third parties who leased them back to the club and were reimbursed over the period of their contracts .

 

I thought the Tevez problem was due to

failure to declare the third party ownership correctly, hence it coming to light after Mascherano's thoroughly investigated transfer to Liverpool and the subsequent rule-bending in favour of the Scousers.

Third party ownership is, from what I understand, legitimate provided that the relevant paperwork and declarations have been made to the authorities. If this is so, and, given that there were stories in the press relating to the ownership of the two players at the time of their transfer to West Ham, surely West Ham are at fault for not submitting the appropriate paperwork/declarations to the authorities. Of this, they have been found guilty. The only possible dispute is the nature of the punishment, surely?

 

RE: I thought the Tevez problem was due to

You're right West Ham didn't register them properly ,then lied to the Premier League about it,then withheld documents.

 

they did. that was the problem. the leases were based on all the gate receipt money going into a sealed box then a fixed amount coming out each month to pay the leases. which is great when attendances are high. A nightmare when attendances fall and you still have to pay the fixed amount

 

You're wrong

Third party ownership is forbidden under Premier League rules, which is why West Ham went to great lengths to hide it. </p>

They admitted to and were charged with contravening:

Rule U18 which states: "No club shall enter into a contract which enables any other party to that contract to acquire the ability materially to influence its policies or the performance of its team."

This is the rule that forbids Third Party Ownership. </p>

I am making the point that a lot of what your bog standard agent does is also breaking this rule and the way Leeds bought players a few years ago also did.

and Rule B13 which states: "In all matters and transactions relating to the league, each club shall behave towards each other club and the league with the utmost good faith."

This covers the fact that they lied about it. </p>

Here is the judgement in full.</p>

 http://www.premierleague.com/public/downloads/publications/PL270407final.txt

</p>