Football, agents and tax!

Off_it

Apologies if this has been posted already, but if you've got some time free and are interested in this sort of thing then this is well worth a read.

New report: how Premier League Football clubs have avoided £470m of tax, and how to stop it – Tax Policy Associates Ltd

Personally I'm not sure the numbers all stack up, but there's no doubt it's all a bit "smelly" and there's shed loads at stake.

(@PragueAddick - enjoy! )

Swisdom

Interesting reading.  FIFA massively dropped a bollock when they de-regulated Agents and it became like the wild west.  Obviously there was scope for people to exploit the numerous loopholes on offer.  That's what has happened here and that's presumably part of what FIFA are attempting to rectify with their new Fifa Football Agents Regulations (FFAR)

The new FIFA Agents Regulations are hoping to rectify much confusion and lawlessness of this but are hugely unpopular within the"Intermediary" industry and there are going to be multiple parties pushing back against it.  Nobody quite knows how this will all transpire and it's just making FIFA look a bit silly at the moment becuase they have not consulted agents sufficiently (despite them saying they have) and agencies in the process - they are just forcing this all through and it will end up with some pretty big legal cases - of that I'm certain.

One of the new rules is that the player will pay the agents' fees now following an invoice - though written consent can be given to the club that the payment CAN be made by them provided it is clearly shown on the payslip that it is being deducted from the player's wages AFTER TAX.  The exception here is that the club can pay the agents fees if the remuneration is below $200k pa therefore the tax should be being paid by the club.

Agents fees are now capped at 5% up to $200k and then 3% on any balance above that - so the days of agents making millions from a move (Mino Raiola is the one that always gets banded about here supposedly making $40m from moving Paul Pogba) seem to be gone.

HOWEVER these percentages do double in the event of "Dual Representation" as the article states so become 6% above $200k and 10% upto $200k if they are representing the club and the player.

I dare say there is still scope to wriggle out of paying taxes in the grand scheme of things but it is also worth noting that ALL agents payments will be pauid through the FIFA Clearing House as another attempt to be more transparent and also more efficient.  I can see that being a massive clusterfuck too.

It is certainly going to bring about some challenges but I must admit I would welcome a lot more regulation in a VERY murky field at the moment.

Roll on 1st October when it kicks off I guess

randy andy

Swisdom said:

Interesting reading.  FIFA massively dropped a bollock when they de-regulated Agents and it became like the wild west.  Obviously there was scope for people to exploit the numerous loopholes on offer.  That's what has happened here and that's presumably part of what FIFA are attempting to rectify with their new Fifa Football Agents Regulations (FFAR)

The new FIFA Agents Regulations are hoping to rectify much confusion and lawlessness of this but are hugely unpopular within the"Intermediary" industry and there are going to be multiple parties pushing back against it.  Nobody quite knows how this will all transpire and it's just making FIFA look a bit silly at the moment becuase they have not consulted agents sufficiently (despite them saying they have) and agencies in the process - they are just forcing this all through and it will end up with some pretty big legal cases - of that I'm certain.

One of the new rules is that the player will pay the agents' fees now following an invoice - though written consent can be given to the club that the payment CAN be made by them provided it is clearly shown on the payslip that it is being deducted from the player's wages AFTER TAX.  The exception here is that the club can pay the agents fees if the remuneration is below $200k pa therefore the tax should be being paid by the club.

Agents fees are now capped at 5% up to $200k and then 3% on any balance above that - so the days of agents making millions from a move (Mino Raiola is the one that always gets banded about here supposedly making $40m from moving Paul Pogba) seem to be gone.

HOWEVER these percentages do double in the event of "Dual Representation" as the article states so become 6% above $200k and 10% upto $200k if they are representing the club and the player.

I dare say there is still scope to wriggle out of paying taxes in the grand scheme of things but it is also worth noting that ALL agents payments will be pauid through the FIFA Clearing House as another attempt to be more transparent and also more efficient.  I can see that being a massive clusterfuck too.

It is certainly going to bring about some challenges but I must admit I would welcome a lot more regulation in a VERY murky field at the moment.

Roll on 1st October when it kicks off I guess

How is dual representation even legal? Can't think of a clearer example of conflict of interests than someone negotiating both sides of a deal and making money of both parties.

Off_it

randy andy said:

Swisdom said:

Interesting reading.  FIFA massively dropped a bollock when they de-regulated Agents and it became like the wild west.  Obviously there was scope for people to exploit the numerous loopholes on offer.  That's what has happened here and that's presumably part of what FIFA are attempting to rectify with their new Fifa Football Agents Regulations (FFAR)

The new FIFA Agents Regulations are hoping to rectify much confusion and lawlessness of this but are hugely unpopular within the"Intermediary" industry and there are going to be multiple parties pushing back against it.  Nobody quite knows how this will all transpire and it's just making FIFA look a bit silly at the moment becuase they have not consulted agents sufficiently (despite them saying they have) and agencies in the process - they are just forcing this all through and it will end up with some pretty big legal cases - of that I'm certain.

One of the new rules is that the player will pay the agents' fees now following an invoice - though written consent can be given to the club that the payment CAN be made by them provided it is clearly shown on the payslip that it is being deducted from the player's wages AFTER TAX.  The exception here is that the club can pay the agents fees if the remuneration is below $200k pa therefore the tax should be being paid by the club.

Agents fees are now capped at 5% up to $200k and then 3% on any balance above that - so the days of agents making millions from a move (Mino Raiola is the one that always gets banded about here supposedly making $40m from moving Paul Pogba) seem to be gone.

HOWEVER these percentages do double in the event of "Dual Representation" as the article states so become 6% above $200k and 10% upto $200k if they are representing the club and the player.

I dare say there is still scope to wriggle out of paying taxes in the grand scheme of things but it is also worth noting that ALL agents payments will be pauid through the FIFA Clearing House as another attempt to be more transparent and also more efficient.  I can see that being a massive clusterfuck too.

It is certainly going to bring about some challenges but I must admit I would welcome a lot more regulation in a VERY murky field at the moment.

Roll on 1st October when it kicks off I guess

How is dual representation even legal? Can't think of a clearer example of conflict of interests than someone negotiating both sides of a deal and making money of both parties.

I think dual representation in itself CAN be fine in certain circumstances. I've done it myself on occasions when both parties are on the same side of an argument and share common goals.

But that's definitely NOT the case when you've got an agent securing and/or negotiating a deal between a club and a player when it comes to determining salary and other benefits. There is a clear conflict of interests there.

Of course, the reality is that the agent - in most cases - isn't working for or representing the club at all, they're working for the player. The club are just paying some or all of the fees. And that's the whole point.

KingKinsella

Off_it said:

randy andy said:

Swisdom said:

Interesting reading.  FIFA massively dropped a bollock when they de-regulated Agents and it became like the wild west.  Obviously there was scope for people to exploit the numerous loopholes on offer.  That's what has happened here and that's presumably part of what FIFA are attempting to rectify with their new Fifa Football Agents Regulations (FFAR)

The new FIFA Agents Regulations are hoping to rectify much confusion and lawlessness of this but are hugely unpopular within the"Intermediary" industry and there are going to be multiple parties pushing back against it.  Nobody quite knows how this will all transpire and it's just making FIFA look a bit silly at the moment becuase they have not consulted agents sufficiently (despite them saying they have) and agencies in the process - they are just forcing this all through and it will end up with some pretty big legal cases - of that I'm certain.

One of the new rules is that the player will pay the agents' fees now following an invoice - though written consent can be given to the club that the payment CAN be made by them provided it is clearly shown on the payslip that it is being deducted from the player's wages AFTER TAX.  The exception here is that the club can pay the agents fees if the remuneration is below $200k pa therefore the tax should be being paid by the club.

Agents fees are now capped at 5% up to $200k and then 3% on any balance above that - so the days of agents making millions from a move (Mino Raiola is the one that always gets banded about here supposedly making $40m from moving Paul Pogba) seem to be gone.

HOWEVER these percentages do double in the event of "Dual Representation" as the article states so become 6% above $200k and 10% upto $200k if they are representing the club and the player.

I dare say there is still scope to wriggle out of paying taxes in the grand scheme of things but it is also worth noting that ALL agents payments will be pauid through the FIFA Clearing House as another attempt to be more transparent and also more efficient.  I can see that being a massive clusterfuck too.

It is certainly going to bring about some challenges but I must admit I would welcome a lot more regulation in a VERY murky field at the moment.

Roll on 1st October when it kicks off I guess

How is dual representation even legal? Can't think of a clearer example of conflict of interests than someone negotiating both sides of a deal and making money of both parties.

I think dual representation in itself CAN be fine in certain circumstances. I've done it myself on occasions when both parties are on the same side of an argument and share common goals.

But that's definitely NOT the case when you've got an agent securing and/or negotiating a deal between a club and a player when it comes to determining salary and other benefits. There is a clear conflict of interests there.

Of course, the reality is that the agent - in most cases - isn't working for or representing the club at all, they're working for the player. The club are just paying some or all of the fees. And that's the whole point.

I have no experience of this industry, and I'm not at all versed in making "deals". When you say "dual representation can work" are you referring to football or other industries? Isn't that a sort of arbitration-
 Working for both sides sounds bit murky, ie not transparent. OK if its for world peace-good- but not if money is involved.
Considering the size of sums of money that are involved in football I would suggest that all deals over a certain value- choose your own number- dual representation should be banned.
I'd also make it mandatory. for all monies involved in player transfers to be declared- who gets what. You still hear of deals where the transfer fee is not disclosed, and I presume all other fees.

Off_it

KingKinsella said:

Off_it said:

randy andy said:

Swisdom said:

Interesting reading.  FIFA massively dropped a bollock when they de-regulated Agents and it became like the wild west.  Obviously there was scope for people to exploit the numerous loopholes on offer.  That's what has happened here and that's presumably part of what FIFA are attempting to rectify with their new Fifa Football Agents Regulations (FFAR)

The new FIFA Agents Regulations are hoping to rectify much confusion and lawlessness of this but are hugely unpopular within the"Intermediary" industry and there are going to be multiple parties pushing back against it.  Nobody quite knows how this will all transpire and it's just making FIFA look a bit silly at the moment becuase they have not consulted agents sufficiently (despite them saying they have) and agencies in the process - they are just forcing this all through and it will end up with some pretty big legal cases - of that I'm certain.

One of the new rules is that the player will pay the agents' fees now following an invoice - though written consent can be given to the club that the payment CAN be made by them provided it is clearly shown on the payslip that it is being deducted from the player's wages AFTER TAX.  The exception here is that the club can pay the agents fees if the remuneration is below $200k pa therefore the tax should be being paid by the club.

Agents fees are now capped at 5% up to $200k and then 3% on any balance above that - so the days of agents making millions from a move (Mino Raiola is the one that always gets banded about here supposedly making $40m from moving Paul Pogba) seem to be gone.

HOWEVER these percentages do double in the event of "Dual Representation" as the article states so become 6% above $200k and 10% upto $200k if they are representing the club and the player.

I dare say there is still scope to wriggle out of paying taxes in the grand scheme of things but it is also worth noting that ALL agents payments will be pauid through the FIFA Clearing House as another attempt to be more transparent and also more efficient.  I can see that being a massive clusterfuck too.

It is certainly going to bring about some challenges but I must admit I would welcome a lot more regulation in a VERY murky field at the moment.

Roll on 1st October when it kicks off I guess

How is dual representation even legal? Can't think of a clearer example of conflict of interests than someone negotiating both sides of a deal and making money of both parties.

I think dual representation in itself CAN be fine in certain circumstances. I've done it myself on occasions when both parties are on the same side of an argument and share common goals.

But that's definitely NOT the case when you've got an agent securing and/or negotiating a deal between a club and a player when it comes to determining salary and other benefits. There is a clear conflict of interests there.

Of course, the reality is that the agent - in most cases - isn't working for or representing the club at all, they're working for the player. The club are just paying some or all of the fees. And that's the whole point.

I have no experience of this industry, and I'm not at all versed in making "deals". When you say "dual representation can work" are you referring to football or other industries? Isn't that a sort of arbitration-
 Working for both sides sounds bit murky, ie not transparent. OK if its for world peace-good- but not if money is involved.
Considering the size of sums of money that are involved in football I would suggest that all deals over a certain value- choose your own number- dual representation should be banned.
I'd also make it mandatory. for all monies involved in player transfers to be declared- who gets what. You still hear of deals where the transfer fee is not disclosed, and I presume all other fees.

Both, but my experience is manly outside of football. 

If A wants something and B can do it for him, but B isn't bothered either way, then you can represent A and B to C as they are both on the same side in wantng C to do something.

In that scenario representing A B & C would be a no no!