And so it was how we all expected. Aston Villa, having done their business earlier in the window in Enda Stevens and Robbie Keane’s loan, had a very quiet last day of the window. With the total spend this window being a quarter of what it was this time last year, it is clear that Villa are far from unique in being small spenders.
The top spenders this window, Chelsea, managed to spend less than £15m combined. Villa, comparatively, paid out on one permanent transfer, as well as the oft-discussed Robbie Keane deal. As Financial Fair Play will cause more and more of an impact, the recent tidying of the club’s finances has been needed, even if it hasn’t been exciting.
Is This The End Of The Transfer Fee?
What this reduction in spending might prompt is a review of how transfers are conducted in the country. We’ve seen that transfer fees can be of significant impact to the costs associated with the club, so anything that Premier League clubs can do to reduce this load would be a positive, especially given the restraints that FFP has and will impose.
One of my suggestions, albeit fairly radical for the English game, is to abolish transfer fees. Whilst there is undoubtedly a history of the payment of fees moving from one club to another, and an understandable redistribution of funds from bigger clubs to smaller ones when youth players progress, overall the situation seems fairly counterproductive.
Some might argue that the revenue generated by sales of young, especially English, players is important for the survival of smaller clubs. We all know, for example, that current England number one Joe Hart started out at Shrewsbury, and the £1.5m the club eventually received for him has helped sustain them given their comparatively small revenue compared to Manchester City’s.
Looking closer to home, the move from Watford of Ashley Young to Aston Villa was significant, with almost £10m being a fair amount of cash for the Hornets, and thus I imagine that they were glad of such a deal.
All that said though, transfer deadlines don’t only bring positives. Why is that? Well let me try to explain.
Example 1: Carlos Tevez
As we are all well aware, Carlos Tevez, a player who has been in Argentina for the past two and a half months away from Manchester City, is creating a very difficult situation for football. Whilst many may suggest that the nouveau riche Manchester club can afford to write off his transfer fee, a complex situation has arisen.
For Tevez, the situation is simple. In his eyes he, and his agent Kia Joorabchian, are interested in securing a move to another club, most recently suggested as AC Milan. Obviously such a move would bring agent fees for Joorabchian, as well as signing fees for Tevez, so they have clear benefits to the sale.
City, on the other hand, have their hands tied to a certain extent. Their options are currently limited to selling the player to Milan assuming they can negotiate a deal, or sacking the player, leaving him to be able to join the Italian club. Either way, Carlos Tevez and his agent win, whereas City, understandably, want to get something back for the contract rebel.
Surely if the idea of fees were removed, alongside the idea of contracts being valid for their duration, then some of this mess would be resolved? If Tevez had, in effect, cost the club nothing in a fee, then they could sack him, cancel his contract, and effectively be better off. As it stands, the only way City can make any return is by being forced to sell a player to a club at whatever fee is agreed. For me, at least, this is player power gone wrong.
Example 2: Wayne Bridge
Looking back at Manchester City, although Wayne Bridge signed on loan for Martin O’Neill’s Sunderland last night, the English left back offers another issue with players not playing. Here, in Bridge, we have a player who has largely chosen, till last night at least, to spend his whole season not playing.
When I say not playing, I don’t just mean not getting game time because of the manager, I mean not even being able to be picked by the manager. After all, Roberto Mancini hasn’t included Bridge in his 25-man squad, and thus he isn’t able to turn out for Manchester City. All through this period though, Bridge has been able to pick up a salary, without even being able to play, in effect being paid to do nothing.
Mancini had tried to move the player on but, perhaps understandably, Bridge has been hesitant. After all, and looking at the lazy person in all of us, why shouldn’t Bridge take the money and, well actually not, run?
Taking Money You Don’t Deserve Is Robbery
For all you honest souls out there, I’m sure you’d struggle to just take money for free. Earning a fortune playing football at least has some justification. Earning a fortune to deliberately not play football is a stretch too far for me. I don’t resent young men making millions if they are trying to become terrace heroes, I just find something not quite right about the idea of players getting paid to do nothing. Perhaps this is just how society has become though, what with the explosion of benefit culture – an era where getting paid for not working is almost lauded.
In fact, in the case of Tevez, the Argentinian is seeking to take Manchester City to tribunal for the concept of not being paid. City are, understandably, looking to impose some kind of penalty for the player not turning up and playing. After all, playing contracts tend to need players to play football, and staying at home in Argentina isn’t, as far as I’m aware, qualification as “playing football for Manchester City”.
Surely we deserve to setup a system where players who fail to play well suffer as a result? Surely, in this results driven world we live in, football players shouldn’t swerve the parameters of having to put in effort? Surely having fees abolished, and more suitable contracts with incentives in place for performances, would both reduce costs for clubs, as well as leaving clubs with either better players, or less costs.
Otherwise, what else do we have to look forward to? Hopefully not another period where Aston Villa have to pay out wages for players who either won’t play, don’t play, or don’t want to play.
After all, when it comes to football, the least I expect is effort, and maybe abolishing the crazy fees clubs pay, along with installing incentivised contracts, might actually free clubs up to provide better football, with players who want to play, and who play well to earn money.
Isn’t expecting a player to earn his, often grossly inflated, wage the least we can ask for our money?
The Author
