Goal Transfer List 2013: The practice of agencies stepping in to fund transfers for clubs otherwise unable to pay for top talent has come under scrutiny.
Falcao’s switch from Atletico Madrid in the summer became something of an inevitability given the Colombian striker’s status as a player part-owned by one of the many investment companies that have made it their business to buy up large stakes in players at a young age in order to make a profit in the longer term.
It is an operation which has seen clubs take on talents they cannot afford, only to then find themselves having little or no say in the eventual sale. The Doyen Sports group, an international hedge fund, has been reported to have held a major stake in the striker, although Atleti has also claimed that it owned 100 percent of his economic rights during his stay in Madrid. Falcao is listed on Doyen's official website but there is no explanation as to whether the player is simply represented by the group or whether the team has had a financial interest in his registration in the past. When asked to comment by Goal, Doyen declined to respond.
Falcao's former club Porto’s recorded accounts show charges relating to the player during the year 2010-11 cost the club around 20 million euros, with much of this being accounted for in the club’s statements as “intermediation services”.
|DOYEN'S PLAYER POOL
Alvaro Negredo (above)
Jose Antonio Reyes
Manu del Moral
Marcos Alberto Rojo
In fact, in those 2010-11 accounts which cover the sale of Falcao, it is shown that Porto held 100 percent registration rights for only six players in its first-team squad, such was the team's reliance on the practice of part-ownership with other clubs and agencies.
Atletico is believed to have followed a similar method when buying Falcao. Before splashing out on the striker, the club had been forced to sell players including David de Gea to Manchester United in June 2011 and Sergio Aguero to Manchester City the following month in order to address increasing debts which saw it needing to raise in excess of 200 million euros in a short space of time. Yet within three weeks of Aguero's sale, in mid-August 2011, the team had surprisingly agreed to a 40 million euro transfer for the Colombian.
Central to the Falcao deal was Jorge Mendes, the agent of Cristiano Ronaldo and Jose Mourinho. Mendes, along with former Manchester United and Chelsea chief executive Peter Kenyon, were involved in the formation of Doyen Sports. Over the past 12 months, David Beckham's representative, Simon Oliveira, has been added to Doyen's staff as managing director, while Neymar's commercial rights have also been acquired.
The Doyen group was widely reported to have owned at least 55 percent of Falcao’s registration either side of his sale from Porto to Atletico, suggesting that, if the company maintained an interest in the player, the Spanish club’s outlay could have been far less than the 40 million euro total fee since the club was only paying for Porto's portion of Falcao's rights and Doyen was retaining its share.
Despite this, the Colchoneros’ debt level meant that, whatever the fee, it was tough to meet and Porto threatened to report Atleti to FIFA and begin legal action. Soon afterwards, Doyen Sports began to appear as a main club sponsor on sportswear at the Vicente Calderon, a surprising step for a company with no obvious customer-facing interests.
Doyen's official website shows the players in which the group may have an interest, yet there is no clarification on just what stake the clubs have in most of its players, such is the unaccountability of agents and third parties within the FIFA framework. There are short news articles explaining that the group paid for 50 percent of Dorlan Pabon's move to Valencia and had the same hand in Atletico signing Joshua Guilavogui but full explanations of interests in its other players are lacking.
Details seen by Goal via a source close to Atletico show that the Spanish club could well have made very little profit as a result of the Falcao saga.
After a fantastic first season in Spain, the Colombian agreed to join Chelsea but changed his mind and opted to stay in Madrid following pleas from coach Diego Simeone and the board. As a reward for his loyalty, the Colombian was promised a chunk of his release clause, which was lowered, so when he was sold for 60 million euros last summer, only 45 million euros was actually paid by Monaco to Atleti, with the remainder paid to the player himself.
Atletico, then, only made 5 million euros on its initial investment of 40 million. In reality, however, the club could have made even less because the extra cash may have been paid to Doyen, where third-party investment in the player meant the company was entitled to more than the 22 million euros lent to Atletico for the purpose of signing Falcao in the summer of 2011.
With Falcao gone, Atletico paid Porto another installment in the summer (of around 7 million euros) and still owes the Portuguese side in the region of 5 million euros, with the final part set to be paid next year - more than 12 months after his exit.
Pleas | Simeone persuaded Falcao to stay at the Calderon for an extra year
In the end, it seems the Rojiblancos made very little from the South American's sale so the club was fortunate, perhaps, that it had a ready-made replacement waiting in the wings in Diego Costa.
By the time it came to Falcao’s sale last summer, many clubs who had eyed up the 27-year-old had simply been priced out of the market by the cost. Monaco, along with Chelsea and Real Madrid, were among only a small number of clubs able to afford the transfer fee that was needed to buy out the entirety of Falcao's economic rights and so expunge the third-party rights which would otherwise have been against French football rules. When the player's salary demands hit 14 million euros a year, however, Monaco became the striker's sole suitor, partly due to the tax advantages of the team's homeland.
Whatever the arguments, former Colombia national team boss Francisco Maturana believes Falcao was worth the investment.
"Falcao is a potential candidate for the Ballon d’Or," Maturana told Goal. "From when he was at Porto and Atletico, and now at Monaco, everything he does is top-level quality. I worked with him when he was in the Colombian youth teams and you could see then he had great talent.
"It was his decision to leave Atletico for Monaco. They’re personal decisions you have to respect. Monaco paid that money because they considered he was worth that figure and they could afford to do it. I’m sure he can do himself and his country proud there and I’ve no doubt he can be successful wherever he goes and is already justifying the investment made in him.”
|WHAT IS THIRD-PARTY OWNERSHIP?
Yet the perils of third-party ownership have been also highlighted by many leading footballing figures. Only recently, Lazio president Claudio Lotito was the latest to question such investments when the Biancocelesti's attempts to sign Felipe Anderson from Santos were stalled by Doyen's 50 percent stake in the Brazilian.
Lotito told to Radio Radio: "We won't be conditioned by an attitude of extortion.
"The guy wants to come to Lazio, the clubs agree, but whoever has a percentage of his ownership is using it as a form of blackmail and I don't agree."
Perhaps ‘extortion’ and ‘blackmail’ was an extreme description, but it was clear that when Lotito eventually signed up Anderson he remained far from happy with how the operation had been administered.
One influential player agent with regular experience of the South American market, who asked to remain anonymous, explained to Goal that agents will often own the final say in third-party situations.
"No two cases are ever really the same and it is not always the controlling share that decides what happens. When the initial financing for the player occurs, there can often be pre-agreed stipulations as to who makes the football decisions.
|GOAL TRANSFER LIST 2013
|Throughout this week, Goal will give you the inside track on the 10 biggest transfers of the past year|
"But in any business, he who has the balance of power makes the decisions. Often, the controlling party will have no football background, being from another field of business, and they will often rely on advisors to ensure their investments grow."
This dictation of a player's career by non-footballing decision-makers is a clear concern to football's governors. But while UEFA’s general secretary Gianni Infantino recently called upon FIFA to outlaw the practice, the world game’s governing body has so far been unable to come to a conclusion over the fairest way to bring an end to the trading pattern.
"This would be unacceptable in society and has no place in football," Infantino told UEFA's official website in lobbying FIFA.
"Footballers [like everyone else] should have the right to determine their own future. Clubs should not rely on third-party investors to acquire players that they cannot afford in the first place.
"In the long term, this is not good for the club or the player."
FIFA has since told Goal that the issue of banning the practice worldwide is being thoroughly investigated following the realization that present rules put in place, while outlawing influence on clubs from third parties, do not address the problem of investment companies owning players’ rights.
"The question of third-party ownership of players’ economic rights is a matter which is currently being discussed at various levels of the international football community,” a FIFA spokesperson told us. "FIFA’s approach to this matter has been to prohibit third-party influence on clubs, whereby no third party has the right to influence the club's choices in employment and transfer-related matters.
"At the same time, considering that there are currently different regulatory approaches in place in many of FIFA’s member associations, FIFA has mandated research in order to map the various regulatory approaches. The results of this research will feed into the discussions within FIFA’s competent bodies at upcoming meetings."
But the vast network of companies involved in a wide range of players, particularly in South America, means that FIFA will need to tread carefully in how it deals with its attempts to abolish the increasingly influential practice.
In the meantime, there may be more Falcao situations, with players being directed to certain clubs not by their hearts or heads, but by their minders.