[article]Sporting Lisbon President Rails Against 3rd Party Ownership

Harry Palmr

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/sep/10/sporting-lisbon-third-party-ownership-attack-marcos-rojo-manchester-united

The president of Sporting Lisbon has launched an outspoken attack on the investor funds which have bought “economic rights” in scores of footballers in Portugal and elsewhere, arguing the funds are a “menace” and a “monster” which undermine clubs’ finances, football’s integrity and pose a risk of increasing match-fixing.

Bruno de Carvalho, speaking at the Soccerex conference in Manchester, called for Fifa and Uefa to regulate more robustly the funds which in recent years have rapidly acquired stakes in players in South America and Europe, particularly Spain and Portugal, where the practice is rife. De Carvalho, 42, a lifelong supporter who was elected Sporting president in March 2013, said that his club are refusing to fulfil the contract the club signed with Doyen Sports, the offshore fund, which claims it is entitled to 75% of the £16m Manchester United

Of course a cynic might suggest Lisbon are just pissed off that they will get so little out of this particular sale and that his club and others in Portugal have done pretty well out of such arrangements previously.

That said Bruno de Carvalho seems genuine and this whole area of player ownership and movement has to be looked at.

DerekDGoldfish

If a club chooses not to deal with 3rd party owns players then fair enough but it seems stupid to buy a player with money invested by a 3rd party and then complain when they reap the benefits when the player does well. If Rojo had been a flop at Sporting the 3rd party's investment would have been worthless.

I don't think there is that much of a difference in 3rd parties investing in players in the hope that they will make enough money on those that will come good to cover those that don't and the likes of Chelsea buying up dozens of young players they have no room for and loaning them out hoping that the Courtois's will offset those that don't work out or Juve, Milan and the other big Italian clubs owining 50% of every half decent young player and leaving them at the small clubs to see how they work out.

Every other industry has 3rd parties providing funds for assets, and yes it can be expensive in the same way leasing a car is more expensive than buying it outright or if you rent a property it might be sold out from under you for twice what you could have got for it a few years ago but if you don't want to pay they cost then don't avail of the service.

Liam O

I think a lot of the problem stems from the fact these 3rd parties also normally act as the player's advisors and agents and it's a clear problem when they can force a player not to train and basically go on strike whenever a move suits them. Opens up a lot of match fixing possibilities too.

Guy:Incognito

Liam O wrote: »

I think a lot of the problem stems from the fact these 3rd parties also normally act as the player's advisors and agents and it's a clear problem when they can force a player not to train and basically go on strike whenever a move suits them.

Any agent can do similar though.

EuropeanSon

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Any agent can do similar though.

No, they can't force a player to do anything. Normal agents work for players, they don't own then.

RayCun

The third party owners can't (legally) force a player to stop training or playing either. They can unsettle a player, try to get him to push through a move, just like an agent can, and for the same reasons.
If Sporting Lisbon is unhappy with third-party owners they can push for changes in Portuguese FA rules, in UEFA rules, but surely the first step is for them to stop using them.