Serie A has cancelled plans for next year’s AC Milan vs Como match to be held in Australia, the Italian top flight confirmed. The game was slated to be staged at Perth’s Optus Stadium on 8th February, in what would have been the first Italian domestic league match to be played overseas.

In a joint statement, Serie A and the Government of Western Australia said: “The onerous conditions from the Asian Football Confederation (AFC) to sanction the fixture could not be implemented without financial risks to the Western Australian Government and Serie A that could not be mitigated.”

Earlier this month, Italian media reported that proposals for the Australia game were facing challenges, with the AFC mandating that the match would not be organised, promoted, or marketed by Serie A. As part of these demands, the game could only by officiated by AFC referees, as opposed to the Italian Football Federation (FIGC).

Despite this, Serie A president Ezio Simonelli insisted last week that the match would nonetheless go ahead, stating: “The match will be played there as scheduled.” He added that following consultation with FIFA president Gianni Infantino and former Italian referee Pierluigi Collina, Serie A was prepared to accept the AFC’s conditions.

"A missed opportunity”

In the joint announcement, Simonelli said: “Due to an escalation of further unacceptable demands made in the last few hours by the AFC to the Australian Football Federation and, consequently, to the Government of Western Australia and the Lega Calcio Serie A, it has become impossible to play the Milan-Como match in Perth on 8th February.”

He added: “While expressing disappointment at the outcome of this project, we remain firmly convinced that this conclusion is a missed opportunity in the growth of Italian football at an international level.”
 

Men’s clubs spent more than $1 billion on agents in 2025

Men’s football clubs spent a record $1.37 billion on agent fees throughout 2025, surpassing the previous high of $889.4 million set in 2023.

This also marks a 90 per cent increase on last year’s spending of $710.4 million on agents, according to FIFA’s Football Agents Report 2025, which collated data from 1st January until 1st December.

English clubs spent the most of any country, accounting for $375 million of the overall figure, with German teams spending the second largest figure of $165 million over the last year.

Women’s football doubles

Meanwhile, the study also revealed that spending on agents within women’s professional football has doubled, rising from $3.1 million to $6.2 million.

In the women’s game, French agents generated the highest amount of service fees, with $1.2 million, followed by the UK and Italy, which totalled $809,200 and $790,500 respectively.
 

Africa Cup of Nations to switch to quadrennial format from 2028

The Africa Cup of Nations (AFCON) will switch to a quadrennial format from 2028, Confederation of African Football (CAF) president Patrice Motsepe has announced.

Currently, the continental competition is held every two years, and has taken place on a biennial basis since 1968.

The announcement came ahead of the ongoing AFCON tournament, which kicked off in Morocco on 21st December, and will run until 18th January.

African Nations League

Meanwhile, African football’s governing body has also revealed plans for the African Nations League, which will launch in 2029. The African Nations league will take place on an annual basis, comprising all 54 CAF member nations, and will be held during international breaks.

“It is an exciting new structure which will contribute to sustainable financial independence and ensure more synchronisation with the FIFA calendar,” said Patrice Motsepe.
 

Genoa CEO cleared as court dismisses A-Cap complaint

Genoa have confirmed that the Court of Genoa has dismissed criminal complaints against Genoa chief executive Andrés Blázquez, dismissing allegations of contractual fraud and unlawful influence over shareholder meetings brought by ACM Delegate LLC, a company linked to A-Cap.

The case was part of a broader effort by A-Cap to assert control over Genoa and, in effect, to block the takeover of the club by Dan Șucu. Following financing agreements signed in 2023 by 777 Partners and 600 Partners, ACM claimed that an alleged default under those loans had made it the club’s “de facto owner”.

This would include voting rights at shareholder meetings and leverage over key decisions, including any change of ownership.

The court found that ACM was never a shareholder in Genoa and that the loan documents did not give it any voting rights enforceable against the club.

Capital increase upheld

ACM also challenged a €40m capital increase approved in December 2024 and subscribed by Șucu, arguing it was designed to dilute its position and prevent it from stopping the takeover or steering an alternative sale of the club.

The judge ruled the move lawful and necessary, pointing to Genoa’s negative equity, serious financial difficulties and pressure from tax authorities to strengthen its capital.

Damien Comolli is set to leave his role as president of Toulouse, with reports indicating that he is on the verge of joining Juventus.

According to l’Equipe, Comolli's move to Juventus is not only imminent but also significant, as he is expected to play a central role in the Italian club's new organizational structure. His responsibilities will include working closely with Giorgio Chiellini, suggesting a strategic partnership within the club's leadership.

Comolli's departure from Toulouse marks the end of a tenure that began with RedBird's investment in the club and now transitions to a new chapter with one of Europe's storied football institutions. His experience and leadership are anticipated to contribute greatly to Juventus' future endeavors.

Email to employees

Comolli, who has been with the French club since 2020 after their acquisition by RedBird Capital Partners, communicated his departure to Toulouse employees via an email.

In his message, Comolli expressed the difficulty of his decision, stating, "This is probably the most difficult letter I have ever had to write in my career. To communicate the decision that breaks my heart the most." He apologized for any times he may have been overly demanding, assuring that it was never with bad intentions.

Bundesliga clubs' agent fees hit record high

According to Kicker, Bundesliga clubs have seen an increase in the amount they pay to player agents, with the total reaching a record high of nearly €250 million for the 2023/24 season.

FC Bayern Munich topped the list, paying out over €51 million for advisory and intermediary services.

The rise in agent fees corresponds with growing transfer revenues, as the Bundesliga generated approximately 1.06 billion euros from player sales, an increase of around 450 million euros compared to the previous season. The league also spent about 840 million euros on new players, marking an increase of nearly 300 million euros from the year before.

Concerns about "unhealthy relationships"

While Bayern and Borussia Dortmund lead in terms of personnel expenses due to significant transactions like Harry Kane's move to Bayern and Jude Bellingham's transfer to Real Madrid, concerns remain about unhealthy relationships between clubs and agencies that disproportionately benefit agents.

Despite criticism from club officials about reliance on agents and intermediaries, many players, especially average professionals, rely on reputable agents for negotiations and career planning against legally sophisticated clubs.

Official: Samir Xaud elected as new president of Brazilian Football Confederation

Samir Xaud has been elected as the new president of the Brazilian Football Confederation (CBF), despite a significant boycott from major clubs over dissatisfaction with the electoral process.

He received backing from 25 state federations, excluding Sao Paulo and Mato Grosso, and ten clubs, while prominent teams like Flamengo and Corinthians abstained due to the state federations' decisive influence in CBF elections.

Xaud takes over from Ednaldo Rodrigues, who was removed from his role by a Rio de Janeiro court over an alleged forged signature. His team includes vice-presidents with notable figures such as Fernando José Macieira Sarney, son of former Brazilian president José Sarney.

"A new phase"

"Today we begin a new phase in the Brazilian Football Confederation," Xaud declared in his victory speech. "Our management will be marked by the renewal of ideas and the inclusion of all those willing to contribute effectively to the full development of our sport."

However, Xaud's presidency is not without controversy. He faces a lawsuit for alleged involvement in a document forgery scheme during his time as general director of the General Hospital of Roraima, which reportedly resulted in a loss of R$1.4 million to public funds.

DAZN has rejected the French Professional Football League's (LFP) proposal to terminate its Ligue 1 domestic broadcast rights partnership at the end of the 2024/25 season.

During a meeting held by LFP on 15th April, Ligue 1’s board of directors agreed to end the contract at the end of the current campaign.

As reported by RMC Sport, the proposal included a termination fee of between €110 million and €125 million, which would be paid to the LFP.

UK-headquartered DAZN initially signed a five-year agreement worth a reported €400 million annually to become the exclusive domestic broadcaster for Ligue 1 matches until 2029.

DAZN’s ongoing dispute with the LFP

In February, DAZN withheld half of its monthly payment to LFP, and also initiated legal action, seeking €573 million in compensation pertaining to alleged ‘contract breaches’ and 'market dishonesty’.

Although DAZN would later agree to pay the outstanding fee and dropped its legal case, the Paris Commercial Court would later appoint a mediator to help resolve the ongoing dispute.

After DAZN rejected the proposed termination fee LFP Media put out a short statement noting the failure of the mediation stating that 'The contract binding the parties remains in force and LFP MEDIA expects its partner to fully fulfill all of its obligations'.

The next payment by DAZN is due 30th April.
 

Brentford's owner acquires Spanish club Mérida AD

Best Intentions Analytics (BIA), the holding company that now owns Premier League club Brentford, has confirmed a full takeover of third tier Spanish side Asociación Deportiva Mérida.

Under the agreement, BIA will acquire 100 per cent of the Mérida AD’s shares, replacing Mark Heffernan, who had been the club’ majority owner since 2021.

Matthew Benham has been Brentford’s controlling shareholder since 2012, but with the recent acquisition of Mérida, Best Intentions Analytics is now listed as the majority owner of the club. Benham is identified as the person with significant control (PSC) of BIA.

Benham’s ownership

During his tenure, the 56-year-old has presided over a period of success for the club, which have risen from League One to the Premier League. Benham’s investment also helped fund Brentford’s Gtech Community Stadium, which has been home to the team since 2020.

The deal to buy Mérida AD marks Benham’s latest ownership venture, after the entrepreneur previously served as the majority owner of Danish club FC Midtjylland from 2014 to 2023.
 

Premier League clubs spent more than £400 million on agent fees in 2024/25

Premier League clubs have spent a combined £409.1 million on agent fees during the 2024/25 season, the English Football Association (FA) has revealed.

For a second successive year, Chelsea spent the most of any Premier League team on agent fees, accounting for £60.4 million. Manchester City and Manchester United finished second and third on the list for the second year running, spending £51.1 million and £33 million respectively.

Championship clubs spent a combined £63.2 million on agent fees, compared to League One’s expenditure of £7.6 million, League Two’s total of £2.7 million, and the National League’s figure of £953,000.

Chelsea also lead WSL in agent costs

In the women’s game, Chelsea spent £623,000 on agents over the last year, which was the most of any WSL club. That figure is worth almost triple the amount of second-placed Arsenal, who spent £223,000 by comparison.

Overall, WSL clubs spent a combined £2.2 million on agent fees, which is almost a ten-fold increase on the Women’s Championship’s total spending of £286,000.
 

MediaPro challenges LaLiga’s new production deal with HBS and TSA

Spanish production company Mediapro is challenging LaLiga’s new broadcast production rights partnership with HBS and TSA.

Earlier this week, Spain’s top flight revealed the new five-year agreement, which will see the two companies replace MediaPro from the start of the 2025/26 season.

This will end MediaPro’s longstanding collaboration with the Spanish top-flight, which spans more than 20 years.

MediaPro’s response

In a statement on 14th April, MediaPro blasted LaLiga’s ‘outrageous’ new partnership with HBS, highlighting the Swiss company’s lack of a ‘technical facility’ within Spain.

MediaPro also criticised LaLiga’s production rights tender process, which it described as ‘characterised by secrecy and a lack of transparency’, and said the company will ‘consider any possible challenge to the decision’.

Ex-Manchester United football director John Murtough joins Atalanta

Atalanta have hired former Manchester United football director John Murtough as the Serie A club’s director of global development, the Italian club have confirmed.

The 54-year-old will start his role with immediate effect, reporting to Atalanta’s sporting director Tony D’Amico.

The Bergamo-based club say the Englishman’s appointment will help strengthen an area that aims to further develop its international vision.

Manchester United tenure

Murtough spent more than 10 years in Manchester between 2013 and 2024, becoming United’s first ever football director in 2021. He left the club in the spring last year shortly after Sir Jim Ratcliffe's investment in the club had been completed.

Previously, he also worked at the Premier League, Everton, Fulham and Coventry City.

The struggle for profitability in football, particularly since the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic in early 2020, is well known. Clubs across the board have toiled in the face of rising player wages, even as incomes stagnated during the flux of recent years. Yet while players have prospered, so have a group who are at once both close to and a safe distance from events on the field: agents.

Worldwide spend on agents, or intermediaries, to give them their official moniker, has more than quadrupled in the last decade. In 2014, clubs across the globe spent a shade over €180 million on agent fees. Fast forward to 2023 and that figure sat at €821 million, reflecting not only the rapid growth of the transfer market but also the rising influence of players’ – and clubs’ – representatives.

More transparency

Overwhelmingly, that spend is concentrated in Europe. Of that €821 million, €708 million (86 per cent) came via clubs under the auspices of UEFA, European football’s governing body. Formerly, analysing that expenditure at greater depth was difficult, but national governing bodies have moved to be more transparent; of the ‘big five’ European leagues, all bar La Liga now annually publish how much their clubs have spent on agents.

Off The Pitch has analysed those publications, dating back to 2019, alongside some from less renowned leagues. The results were unsurprising in some respects, enlightening in others.

Take gross spend on agents. It will come as little surprise to learn that English clubs dominate overall spending and did so across the period we considered. By 2023 collective spending on agents by English Premier League (EPL) clubs had hit €318 million, nearly €100 million ahead of the next highest European division, Italy’s Serie A.

Figures for the 2023/24 season aren’t available across all leagues, so don’t form part of our analysis here, but it’s a safe bet that English clubs have not only retained their ‘lead’ in agent spending but also significantly extended it.

EPL clubs spent a mammoth €476 million on agents in the season just past, a figure propelled in large part by sizeable agent spending at both Chelsea (€87 million) and Manchester City (€70 million). Those two clubs contributed the highest spends in 2023 too, accounting for 35 per cent of that €318 million divisional spend.

Accordingly, a ranking of the highest single-season club spends on agents across the last five years is dominated by English clubs. They make up 10 of the top 20, though it’s notable that those 10 spots are shared across just four clubs – Manchester City, Chelsea, Liverpool and Manchester United.

That reflects the dominance of a small group of clubs in England, but our top 20 listing largely illustrates the pre-eminence of the few being prevalent across Europe. Of the other 10 spots in the top 20, only two fell to clubs outside the widely perceived elite leagues, both of them being Benfica, a club well-known for being savvy dealers in the transfer market.

Ranking clubs by gross spend alone isn’t especially instructive; English clubs enjoy a significant financial advantage over their international counterparts (think how the lowest-placed EPL club routinely earns more in domestic broadcast income than all overseas teams bar Real Madrid and FC Barcelona), so it’s hardly surprising they dominate our listing. After all, the EPL routinely outspends its competitors in the transfer market by a big margin, and agent fees are generally a corollary of transfer spend.

Italian clubs dominate

Better then, to assess agent spend against a club’s individual resources. English clubs tend to spend more than anyone else in an overall sense, but does that hold true when we compare agent fees against club incomes?

Our research suggests not.  Indeed, we identified the instances whereby clubs spent the highest proportion of their annual income (being not only traditional revenues, but profits on player sales too) and found that not a single English club featured in the top 20.

Instead, this particular listing was dominated by Italian clubs. Atop it were Fiorentina who, in 2020, spent a whopping 28 per cent of their total income on agent fees. That was far and away the most in our sample, but in total 11 of the top 20 hailed from Serie A.
 

That is at once both understandable and concerning. Serie A hasn’t experienced the financial trouble French football has in recent years, but the Italian top tier has seen a fall in its most recently agreed TV deal. Given that, as we’ve seen previously, costs in European football tend to keep rising regardless of revenue levels, that doesn’t bode particularly well for Italian clubs.

There have been 10 instances in the last five years whereby an Italian club’s spend on agents exceeded 10 per cent of total income. Ten per cent mightn’t seem a lot, but when we consider that clubs routinely struggle to keep within the 70 per cent wage to turnover ratio UEFA recommends, and then have non-staff costs to factor in too, it’s clear that such a quantum of agent fees can quickly push teams (further) into the red.

Cultural tradition

Tellingly, it is not just the historically ‘smaller’ Italian clubs that make an appearance in our listing. Both Juventus, who spent €51 million on agents in 2022, and AS Roma, who handed intermediaries €66 million between 2020 and 2022, feature, highlighting that it isn’t just clubs with low revenues who have expended big money on supplementing transfer deals and new contracts.

Part of this is cultural. Italian clubs have long held a reputation for a willingness to engage with go-betweens; it is in large part why the late Mino Raiola rose to prominence as football’s most famed agent. Where other clubs in other nations might view the rising fees of intermediaries as a disappointing cost of doing business, in Italy it seems clubs and players alike are happier to accept, and embrace, the role of agents in their dealings.

Rybolovlev picks up the tab

Outside of Italy, the remaining nine clubs in our list are populated by five German teams and four French. In the case of the latter, AS Monaco appear twice, spending over 18 per cent of income on agents in both 2020 and 2021. Those were years in which the pandemic depressed incomes, but it’s also true that frivolous spending, on agents or otherwise, is easier in Ligue Un than competitor leagues. French football’s financial regulations stretch only so far as ensuring the solvency of clubs, and take no issue if that solvency is guaranteed by a rich benefactor. Monaco, owned by Dimitry Rybolovlev, a Russian oligarch, can thus spend whatever they please provided Rybolovlev picks up the tab.

It is a different tale in Germany, and there we see that clubs with relatively low revenues – Hertha Berlin and TSG Hoffenheim – have spent chunkily on agents in order to remain competitive in the Bundesliga. That both clubs appear multiple times in our listing suggests the pairing felt engaging intermediaries frequently was the best way to bolster their squads. Results, however, have been mixed. While Hoffenheim have generally hovered around midtable, Hertha Berlin were relegated in 2023.

Our research found that the richest clubs tended to spend the most on agents, and further interrogation suggests this is a maxim that holds true further down football’s pyramid. In Portugal, a league with three or four large clubs followed by a number of also-rans, it is those large clubs that make up the vast majority of agent spending.

A perhaps more surprising example arrives in the form of England’s second tier. EFL Championship clubs have generally spent in the region of €50 million on agents in recent years, and though that figure dropped to €36 million in 2023 our analysis found a more prominent constant.

Across the five years we considered, those clubs most recently relegated from the EPL routinely accounted for a third of the Championship’s entire annual agent spend. In other words: three teams made up half the total agent spend of the other 21. That’s indicative of a finding that permeated our analysis, particularly in respect of English clubs: the more money a club has available to them, the more they’re likely to expend on agent fees.

Whether agent fees will continue to rise remains to be seen. UEFA’s new financial regulations specifically include agent costs within the expenditure they’re seeking to limit, or at least tether to what a club can reasonably afford with excessive external funding.

Yet it’s impossible not to see the link between the continued rise of player wages and that of agent fees. Indeed, there’s a solid argument that agents have helped drive the former, and thus can fairly argue they deserve the latter. Whether that will continue into the future remains to be seen, but it’s hard not to see agents as an integral part of the football economy now – whether clubs embrace it or begrudge it.

Leading player agent bodies have said they are engaging in coordinated litigation to stop FIFA’s recent agent reforms, saying the changes pose an existential threat to their industry and will lead to “market failure”.

Last month FIFA implemented its biggest changes to the rules governing agents in a generation, introducing basic service standards for football agents and their clients. These include a mandatory licensing system, prohibition of multiple representation to avoid conflicts of interest and the introduction of a cap on agent fees.

“We have multiple actions across multiple different territories that are impending,” said Fahri Ecvet, Wasserman’s COO of Global Football, and a director of the Association of Football Agents (AFA), a UK trade representative body.

Ecvet was speaking at a conference event at Wembley on Tuesday co-hosted by the EFAA, UCFB and the University of Amsterdam, at which he was joined by other leading agents.

“There is going to be lawsuits,” said Jonathan Barnett, chairman of Stellar-ICM and president of the Football Forum (FF).

Barnett, who is one of Europe’s leading agents, representing the likes of Gareth Bale and Jack Grealish, added: “I don't get into the minutiae of it all, but there is going to be lawsuits. We will win and if we don't, it's going to change the face of agency and players and everything else.”

Rob Jansen, founding president of the European Football Agents Association (EFAA), said that the reforms were a “one man fight by Gianni Infantino – president of the most corrupt organisation in the world”.

Coordinated action

Ecvet said that he believed that he was in a “good position” to say that the regulations were unlawful “in various different territories.”

“When you look at all the different aspects of European competition law and even take European law out of it in different territories around the world, on the face of it, this is a restraint of trade and the law is on our side,” he said.

“The burden sits with FIFA to prove that it's lawful. We think they're going to have very difficult job in proving that. It's obviously our job to take this on and when we're doing that.”

He also said that he believed that FIFA may have underestimated the agents’ determination and grit to fight this “because we're here to the very, very last moment.”

“We're not going anywhere. We're not going to allow the industry to change in the way they want it to change. And we call upon all agents around the world to support us in that.”

He described “a really, really good working relationship” amongst the three agents bodies and promised that this would be utilised to defeat FIFA’s plans.

“We've realized that the best way and the only way to really defeat FIFA is for us to be unified,” he said.

Fahri Ecvet explained that the three agent bodies have regular working meetings, without being detailed about what these meetings were specifically about. But he assured that they have multiple actions across multiple different territories that are impending. And in order for that to be successful, “we need to be in good communication with one another.”

“We're working on all of that, and we're working through the regs on a practical basis to work out the parts that we think are okay and the parts that we think are not okay and our legal challenges are going to be based on all of them.”

Market failure

FIFA say the reforms with “reinforce contractual stability, protect the integrity of the transfer system and achieve greater financial transparency.” But the reforms have drawn a mixed response from those across the industry. Some agents favour the greater professionalisation that they promise, but many are critical of the cap on commissions, which they say are geared towards stopping excesses at the top of the market, will leave less well-paid players unrepresented and force smaller agencies out of business.

Ecvet said that the new rules were designed to favour clubs and warned of “market failure”.

“The second you have a superstar player that is a free agent that comes into the market and there's a bidding war it's very unlikely that clubs will adhere to that transparent 3 percent that FIFA are hoping for,” he said.

“We want transparency. We encourage transparency. But our fear is that the system will drive things underground. And that's really not what we want.”

The fee cap, he added, would limit the services agencies provide players.

“We do everything we possibly can to make sure we act in the players best interests and provide players with the easiest possible life in whatever is that they want to do,” he said. 

“How exactly does this system encourage and enable us to do that if they are significantly limiting our ability to be able to provide those services?”

Barnett said that the fee cap would see large agencies, such as the one he ran, having to make redundancies, and he warned that smaller ones would go out of business.

“We are a major company with 7,000 employees,” he said.  “They're not going to go through anything that's illegal or anything wrong, so our figures will go down. We'll have to cut services back and players will suffer.”

Better policing

The Huddersfield Town and former EFL CEO David Baldwin said that there was a need for better “policing” of agents after FIFA deregulated the industry in 2015 but questioned whether the new rules solved the problem.

Deregulation, he said, created a scenario where what he termed “the good, the bad, and the ugly” operated in the industry, but added that most experienced football executives knew who to work with and who not to work with.

“Could the re-regulation of that actually filter some of [the bad actors] out? I think this is more about the policing going forward, not necessarily the governance rules that try and prevent it in the first,” he said.

“So if there's a mechanism for better monitoring and better intervention, when people do step outside the lines, that's probably a better way forward to work on a daily basis.

Baldwin said that agents aren't going any time soon, and they're fundamental to getting deals done. According to him it's about the relationships you build with them, and it's about being able to define who's a good operator, who will work with you, who's on a win win relationship.

“And if you find that you've got people who are poor, operators choose not to use them. You know, the marketplace for players is broad enough, and you'll soon sort out the wheat from the chaff.

“Ultimately, clubs don't like to go into direct dialogue with each other because they always think there's a bit of cloak and dagger going on. An agent operating in a good way can smooth out all of that, and to get to the root of whether a deal can be done quite quickly. And actually, when you were talking about transfer windows where the clock is ticking, you sometimes need it to happen pretty quickly.”

Open to consultation

Barnett dismissed FIFA’s recently unveiled Football Agent Working Group as “a waste of time”, claiming that he hadn’t heard of any of its members. He said the world governing body was run by “complete morons” but added that he wouldn’t be averse to sitting down with FIFA “with a blank sheet of paper and work out what needs to change.”

Off The Pitch understands that Barnett and others held talks with FIFA in 2018 but turned down further invitations. Barnett acknowledged that he had on one occasion walked out of talks with the world governing body.

“We're not such a terrible organization. There are good agents, there are bad agents and that's in every field - there are good and bad people.

“We need to sit down and I've got no problems sitting down. We can explain to them how the agency works. We've got no problem with people coming into those meetings who understand football and have a proper discussion and come out with rules that are sensible and proper, and that that I believe is the future.”

How did he see the future of the agent business?  “As it stands at the moment I think it's a great business,” he said. “I've loved every minute of it in my life. I’ve been very fortunate, I built up a nice business and it’s been very good to me and I think it's a very good business to be in.”

FIFA was contacted for comment.

On 9 January, FIFA implemented its biggest changes to the rules governing agents in a generation. The world governing body say that its FIFA Football Agent Regulations (FFAR) is “a landmark step towards the establishment of a fairer and more transparent football transfer system”.

Under the new regulations FIFA have introduced basic service standards for football agents and their clients. These include a mandatory licensing system, prohibition of multiple representation to avoid conflicts of interest and – perhaps most eye-catchingly – the introduction of a cap on agent fees, which will rein in an industry that claimed remittances of $622.8 million last year.

FIFA say the reforms with “reinforce contractual stability, protect the integrity of the transfer system and achieve greater financial transparency.”

“This is an activity which is of paramount importance for the football industry,” says Portuguese sports lawyer Gonçalo Almeida. In the early-noughties Almeida was legal counsel at FIFA’s Players’ Status Department and helped oversee the previous generation of regulations governing player agents, as well as drafting the exam agents had to take back then.

FFAR help reclaim control of football intermediaries by FIFA after it deregulated agents in 2015, placing governance in the hands of member associations. Then, MAs were left to introduce minimum standards for agents as they saw fit, but given the global complexion of the transfer market led to all manner of inconsistencies. Perhaps it is no coincidence that the past eight years have seen a stratospheric rise in intermediary fees.

Opposition and challenges

There is a nine month transition period before the new regulations are brought into place. Moreover they are still subject to legal challenges being brought by agents’ associations. Agents claim FIFA did not properly engage with them in the drafting of the new rules and will have “severe consequences” for “thousands” of small and medium-sized player representatives.

The European Football Agents Association say that it will “do everything we can to protect our profession and block the implementation.”

It accused FIFA of making FFAR (FIFA Football Agent Regulations) “to appear as if a democratic, inclusive decision-making process has taken place … [when it] cannot be further from the truth.”

“Agents have not been consulted in an official capacity, and FIFA’s decisions have not genuinely considered the perspectives of football’s stakeholders; instead, they’ve been unilaterally made.”

But what is the reality of the situation?  Is it a power grab by FIFA or were changes necessary? What are the main issues at stake? Will it – as FIFA’s Head of Agents Luis Villas-Boas Pires says – “raise professional and ethical standards” or is it unenforceable regulation that will be brought down by litigation from agents associations? Will clubs adhere, or will they – as some have with financial fair play – find ways to circumvent the rules?

FIFA veteran

Few people are better placed to answer these questions than Almeida , who, as Founding Partner of the law firm, Almeida, Dias & Associados, now oversees five offices in four countries, with a speciality in sports law.

Almeida feels that even though FIFA in the Blatter era initially oversaw regulations that provided a “great improvement”, “even in those days we could feel that FIFA was no longer interested to be closely connected with such an activity.”

The challenge facing the governing body was its small Player Status Department of less than ten people having to deal with the multi-million agents industry on top of “all other aspects between clubs, players, coaches, eligibility for national teams, and so on, too.” Moreover, when there was a controversy involving agents they were invariably – given their full title as a “FIFA licensed agent” – giving the governing body a reputational headache.

Rather than investing in resources to better regulate the system, Almeida – who left the world governing body in 2006 – says that FIFA created “a distance” between itself and its duty to govern agents. He says that FIFA’s 2015 decision to deregulate the industry was therefore “not surprising”, but he adds that it was “disappointing” and a “major, major mistake.”

Infantino reforms

In February 2016 Gianni Infantino was elected FIFA president and brought transfer market reform back to the centre of FIFA’s regulatory responsibilities. The consultation and work on the agent reforms was part of this and took around five years before its approval at a FIFA Council meeting in Doha at the end of last year. The 9 January launch marked the initiation of a nine month transition period.

“This new administration of Mr Infantino from a legal perspective has made so many improvements in such a short period of time that you can only congratulate them,” he says.

Almeida says that as well as promoting greater professionalism the new rules simplify agent’s work, especially in transnational transactions. Under the old regime, member associations took on the regulatory role, in some cases forcing agents to register under several jurisdictions and adhere to rules particular to that country.

So, in some countries you needed to live there, in others you need to take an exam in a native language, as well as paying thousands in fees to different FAs. “From a practical perspective, it was completely chaotic,” says Almeida.
 

Other shortcomings have been rectified, he says. He gives the example of regulating agent’s renumeration in relation to minors. Previously agents weren’t allowed to be paid to represent a minor – “a nonsense when you have players of 16 or 17 playing for Champions League clubs” – which led to grey areas and abuses. This has been brought back under control, says Almeida and “Agents may represent minors of age and be remunerated up to a certain age or from a certain age.”

Then there is dispute resolution, which once more falls under FIFA’s competencies. “The new agents chamber will rule upon these disputes from an international dimension,” he says.

Cutting fees

But what of the shortcomings and challenges? The headline of the reforms has been an assault on agents fees capping them at 3 per cent for transfers above $200,000 and 5 per cent below. How will agents be prevented from getting – for want of a better word – “backhanders”? FFP has often been circumvented by related sponsorships and other skulduggery; what’s to stop an agent demanding payment to a related company to make up for the shortfall in their compensation?

Almeida says there are some “legitimate” complaints from agents over the renumeration side of the reforms and that he understands their frustration.

“If you're an agent and you look at other stakeholders and there's no limitation on their renumeration, you wonder why there's a limitation on your activity when there's no salary caps on coaches or players, like it exists in the in other sports,” he says.

“But I must say that the abuse that has been frequent in the past with regard to certain commissions needed to be stopped.”

Cultural change

His belief is that there will be a cultural change initiated by FFAR, ultimately rooting out bad actors in the industry.

“Those who perform well, will continue to perform well and still be extremely well renumerated,” he says. Clubs, on the other hand, will realise that they are “jeapodised” by big, or under the counter commissions, not just financially, but now by FIFA’s disciplinary regime. He feels this will be a sufficient deterrent for most within the game.

And what if it’s not? What if there’s another Erling Haaland or Paul Pogba – where the agent had a significant say in the destinations of these players and earned tens of millions in commissions. What if money was channelled in via proxy companies?

Then it becomes a case for “the criminal and tax authorities of each country.” Taken to its logical conclusion, such behaviour could impact a club’s ability to meet its licensing criteria and thus compete.

Challenges and praise

However, Almeida believes this is the area that FFAR is most likely to face legal actions before national or European courts.
 

“I do believe that will end up happening, trying to suspend or to cancel these regulations up to a certain extent,” he says.  “I'm not sure about the outcome. No one is, but I believe that will happen.”

Almeida acknowledges that there will be other challenges and tweaks FIFA will need to make along the way, but overall he says FFAR is positive for the game and believes it will be for agents too.

“In my humble opinion, it's a very welcome evolution,” he concludes.  “It's very progressive. It's very realistic. It's very close to reality. FIFA embraced this activity, as I mentioned, of paramount importance for the football industry, and it's now again on top of it, regulating it, supervising it, calling for itself the jurisdiction upon any conflicts and disputes arising from this activity.”

Player agents unhappy with FIFA's proposed reforms face an uphill battle in any legal challenge they decide to launch, say experts.

But there are still several possible ways to attack the reforms, including arguing proper procedures have not been followed and that the reforms breach European Union competition and antitrust legislation.

The sweeping reforms include a cap on an agent's commission at 10 per cent of a transfer fee and 3 per cent of a player’s salary. Agents will also be prohibited from representing multiple parties in a deal (for example a player, the club selling the player and the club buying the player).

Individuals who wish to become agents will have to follow more formal steps, including passing an exam and paying an annual fee. And FIFA intends to establish a "Clearing House", responsible for processing payments to clubs due "Training Rewards" after developing a transferred player.

FIFA says there have been three stages of a "robust consultation process" and "constructive talks" with agent associations about the reforms.

Some agents, however, aren't happy. The Football Forum group of agents, which includes "super agents" Jonathan Barnett and Jorge Mendes, tells Off The Pitch FIFA has "ignored many invitations from our side to reconsider their position and start a proper consultation process." 

Asked if it intends to launch a legal challenge to the reforms, a spokesman for The Football Forum says: "players would be irreparably weakened any many agents would be automatically driven out of the market" under the regulations.

"This is something we cannot accept, not least because their rules are also completely flawed from a legal point of view," the spokesman says.

"These rules are in breach of the laws, in particular competition law, of (the) European Union and many jurisdictions, which is a paramount evidence of how FIFA consider to be above the law and not bound by it. This should ring a bell to many and not surprise those who are a bit familiar with recent football history."  

One of the reasons the reforms have been introduced is to stop what FIFA calls "abusive and excessive practices".

In December, FIFA’s Intermediaries in International Transfers Report found nearly two-thirds of the fees paid to player representatives were more than $1 million. Agents were paid $500.8m in 2021, more than the previous year despite total transfer spending falling. The report revealed one agent had received a fee worth 118 per cent of the transfer fee for a player paid by a German club to a French club.

Recent Off The Pitch analysis revealed clubs in Europe paid about €2.6 billion in agent fees in the last three years. That figure excludes spending by Spanish clubs.

The Football Agent Regulation, which FIFA expects to be implemented by the end of this year, is the biggest reform of the industry since it was deregulated in 2015. The move meant no limits on what intermediaries could be paid and required no previous experience to register.

"Quite possibly (agents) will challenge (the reforms), but there is ample evidence to show the unscrupulous environment that currently exists. This may persuade any adjudicating body to rule in favour of FIFA," Dr Gregory Ioannidis, a sports lawyer and leader of Sheffield Hallam University’s international sports law course, tells Off The Pitch.

Two options for a legal challenge

Legal experts tell Off The Pitch agents could launch a challenge in two ways. First, they could file a claim before a civil or commercial court in any European country, says David Díaz, head of sports law and partner at Baker McKenzie Madrid.

"With the goal for the court probably to elevate a question to the European Court of Justice, as it was in the case of Bosman or the more recent case of the Super League," Díaz says.

The agents could ask the court for preliminary interim measures, which, if granted, would mean FIFA was unable to implement its regulations while the court considered the case.

"They could potentially argue restraint of trade and/or breaches of competition law, particularly in the EU territory. Abuse of a monopolistic position could also be argued," Ioannidis says.

Díaz agrees agents would likely focus on antitrust and competition EU Law by arguing the regulations are a restriction to "the freedom to provide services, the freedom to agree, commercially speaking, a contract." He says there are potential legal arguments in Articles 101 and 102 of The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

"In the end I think the competition and antitrust law from the European Union will be the one that will be the main argument, as we have seen, from the public information we have, in the Super League case," Díaz says.

An appeal to CAS

A second legal route for agents would be to appeal to CAS (Court of Arbitration for Sport). FIFA statutes state CAS is competent to hear disputes.

Stephen Taylor Heath, head of sports law and partner at JMW Solicitors, says there are two grounds on which agents could appeal to CAS.

"Firstly, it would be on the grounds that FIFA has not followed its own internal constitutional procedures in the way in which it implements these rules and regulations," he says.

"I suspect that FIFA will be alive to that argument. And they will make sure that when these regulations are brought in, that it's in accordance with FIFA's constitution so that can't be challenged.

"They would also say that these rules have been refined and in consultation with the relevant parties affected by these regulations, including representatives of the agents. And so they will say they've followed a fair consultation process, which is an aspect of a fair process for implementing rules

"CAS will not decide necessarily whether the decision that's been made was the right decision, it's whether or not it was a decision that FIFA were entitled to make."

The second challenge would be arguing the regulations are "effectively unlawful".

"The type of legal principles you would be arguing is restraint of trade. That it's anticompetitive," Taylor Heath says.

"It's difficult for agents to argue illegality in relation to these particular regulations because they're operating within the football world. And the whole point about sporting governance is that rules are made that are specific to a particular sport."

How FIFA can defend the regulations

Part of FIFA's legal argument, Díaz says, would be that it is football's "rule-maker" and has the ability, legally speaking, to set regulations. It could also argue Articles 101 and 102 are not applicable.

"Because FIFA is not an association that is engaged in the production and distribution of goods … So therefore, it should not be subject to the specific ban for some restrictions," Díaz says.

"And probably they will also say that these regulations do not impose quantitative restrictions on access to the occupation of the players agents, and therefore, they don't harm competition."

The lawyers say legal precedents point to the courts siding with football's world governing body, providing it can show the regulations are "proportional" and in the "public interest".

The 2006 Meca-Medina ruling, concerning two long-distance swimmers who had appealed against bans for failed drugs tests, was a landmark judgement in the European Court of Justice and could be a relevant precedent.

"The European Court of Justice stated that the restrictions imposed by an international (sporting) federation are only acceptable to the EU legal order if they pursue a public interest. And if they are proportional for the goal to achieve," Díaz says.

FIFA president Gianni Infantino is well aware of the Meca-Medina ruling. While director of legal affairs at UEFA, he wrote an article questioning whether the ruling was "a step backwards for the European sports model".

"The trouble with open-ended and subjective concepts like 'proportionality' is that they can mean almost anything you want (or at least it is always open to argument)," Infantino wrote.

"In any event, the net result now seems to be that almost any sports disciplinary measure could potentially be attacked under EU competition law. In effect, the issue becomes a lawyers’ playground and a nightmare for sports bodies and administrators."

Ioannidis thinks such precedents make it "highly likely FIFA would be successful in defending its position."

"Eventually, it would be a discussion on proportionality and whether FIFA’s restrictive approach meets the legitimate aim pursued," he says.

It remains to be seen whether the dispute will end up in court or if there is still a chance of FIFA finding a compromise with the agents opposed to the reforms.

"What I'm certain is FIFA especially, but probably both parties, will exhaust all the resources they have to reach a settlement and an understanding," Díaz says.

"The likelihood for agents to file a claim? I think it's likely to be honest because some of them may really feel that their business is severely impacted by these regulations."

Agents are the gatekeepers to almost any transaction in the football industry, taking millions from clubs in commission on player salary and transaction fees. In 2015 FIFA proposed a recommended cap on agent commission intended for both players and clubs, while simultaneously deregulating the market. 

After four years, and clubs’ spending on agent commission more than doubling from $297 million to $654 million (FIFA TMS), FIFA acknowledged the need for serious reforms to regain control.

Since 2019, FIFA has been exploring different regulatory measures to impose on agents to ensure a larger chunk of the money stays within the football ecosystem, recently proposing concrete hard caps on agent commission which are expected to be implemented later this year. Last year the CEO of Bayern Munich, Oliver Kahn, deemed Alaba’s agent Pini Zahavi “disconnected from reality”, following failed negotiations with the Austrian defender. 

With many football associations having published the latest club spending on agents, we have taken a closer look at the figures. 

Our analysis reveal that clubs in Europe paid approximately €2.6 billion in agent fees in the last three years, showing little effect of the pandemic. And that does not even include Spanish clubs, while we are yet to receive fees paid in DFL and LFP for the latest fiscal year.

A ‘V-shaped’ tendency

In 2020, the total spending on agent commission was $496 million according to FIFA , having seen a significant drop of 24 per cent which was almost entirely attributable to the fall in transfer fees paid of 23.9 per cent amid the initial Covid-19 outbreak, and therefore not because of a change in sentiment favouring agents getting a smaller piece of the pie. 

So it is no surprise that as the footballing industry heals financially, the total amounts paid out to agents are once again on the rise. The Premier League’s most recent agent fees distribution was almost identical to the overall total of the year before, showing no covid-related effects. 

What really defines whether agent fees are shown to have effectively risen in 2021 is whether the associations disclose the fees on a seasonal or calendar-year basis. The main driver for the decline in agent fees was the summer window in 2020. 

The top English tier is still by far the biggest income stream for agencies, paying far more than the other Big Five leagues.

Manchester City saw a significant rise in agent fees from €34 million to €41.3 million for the current season, of which the majority likely stems from the signing of Jack Grealish, since the club hadn’t been very busy on the transfer market apart from that.

The biggest year-on-year rise was Inter Milan, who went from €9 million in 2020 to a whopping €27.5 million in 2021, certainly due to the big sales of Achraf Hakimi and Romelu Lukaku in the summer.

In addition, it is also worth noting that big movements in the totals for Eredivisie are mainly is due to Ajax’s transfer activities. In 2020 for instance, Ajax paid €33.8 million in agent fees, equivalent to more than two thirds of the total agent fees paid in Eredivisie. 

There was only a slight difference between figures for Ajax and those for Manchester United and Manchester City 

Proportionally, the biggest clubs do not pay the most in agent fees

When looking at agent fees as a proportion of clubs’ turnover, the average share of agent fees paid was 5.8 per cent of turnover in 2021. However, the ten clubs with the highest ratios all exceeded 10 per cent, with current Serie B club Parma Calcio right at the top, paying out 26.7 per cent of their turnover. 

That is hardly a surprise when looking at the club’s spending in 2020/21, signing players for more than €100 million, according to Transfermarkt.

The Danish side AaB - Aalborg BK - are in second place, as the club spent approximately 21 per cent of their income on agent-related expenses in 2021.

According to media reports in Denmark, a big slice of the club’s total agent fees of 1.8 million was for the transfer of Jores Okore to Chinese Changchun Yatai, allegedly paying around 62 per cent of the sale income to the agent facilitating the transfer. 

Other clubs, such Brentford and Ajax, probably feature due to a significant proportion of their total income being driven by player sales, with the sides effectively paying more in agent fees with this business model. 

Brentford’s intermediary bill increased from €2.9 million to €4.1 million following their promotion to the Premier League.

That increase may seem modest compared to that of Watford, who also got promoted back to the Premier League in 2021/22 - although the North London side now seems likely to go down again. 

The club went from paying just €2.4 million in 2020/21 to just below €15 million in their first season back, the highest outside the Big Six in England. Compared to investing €43 million and selling for €13 million according to Transfermarkt, the total agent fees seem rather excessive.

Newcastle were expected to be the main driving force in the recently-concluded winter transfer window, with observers assuming the spending power of their new Saudi owners would be put on display to get the club back out of the relegation zone.

And they did not disappoint, investing around €100 million in Bruno Guimarães, Chris Wood, Kieren Trippier, and Dan Burn. 

Coming on the back of years of fan unhappiness about the lack of investments made by Mike Ashley, it is rather surprising that Newcastle’s agent fees dropped from €12.8 million to €9.1 million.

Research conducted by Off The Pitch shows that three of the world’s leading football agencies hold talent with a total market value outnumbering all but one football club globally.

Wasserman, ICM Stellar Sports and Gestifute each hold player talent worth more than €1 billion, with Manchester City the only club worldwide having a squad with a market value in excess of a billion.

US agency Wasserman, which represents 710 players, including the likes of Federico Valverde, Aymeric Laporte and Nathan Ake, tops the list with players collectively worth €1.45 billion. ICM Stellar Sports (€1.39 billion) and Gestifute (€1.05 billion) also have talent rosters worth more than 10 figures.

British agency, PLG, which represents Liverpool full backs Trent Alexander-Arnold and Andy Robertson among its small client base, has the highest per-client market value, with its 15 players averaging transfer valuations of €15.08 million.

Off The Pitch can also reveal that 25 player agencies have rosters with market values in excess of €200 million.

When placed in a combined “rich list” with clubs, 16 player agencies rank among the top 50 in terms of total market value.

New restrictions

The research comes as FIFA is moving to limit the power of player agents by restricting their commissions and increasing regulation.

A consultation paper was recently circulated among stakeholders and its president, Gianni Infantino spoke on the future of the transfer system last week at a symposium where the body released its commentary on the regulations on the status and transfer of players.

Many in the football industry are unhappy that some leading football agents have accumulated what has been termed a “disproportionate” amount of market power as gatekeepers to players.

One governing body sources describes an “undesirable and unacceptable scenario”, in which some agents have become “ultimate decision makers” on big transfers when in fact they should be a “subsidiary service” provided to actors within the football transfer system, rather than direct participants.

The accumulation of talent collectively worth nine or ten figure sums by individual agencies is seen as demonstrating the level of control that agents have within the transfer system.

“They are just as powerful as the richest clubs,” acknowledges one source.

Threefold problem

The problem with this market power, say those advocating tighter regulation, is that agents are able to use it to exploit significant economic failures in the transfer system for their own benefit.

One source, who has pushed for greater regulation, points to three ways in which agents can exploit these shortcomings.

One is by serving as “gatekeepers” and taking advantage of this relationship to generate fees “that are disconnected from the value of the service actually provided to the player or clubs concerned.”

Clubs, according to this view, have no choice but to pay the agent in order to get the star player, but the problem becomes “more acute” when an agent has a large number of star players on the books as a club will not want to get on the wrong side of such a powerful agent and risk being frozen out of the agent’s network.

Another is by exploiting “hidden information” in which an agency will take advantage of knowledge of its client base by negotiating a lower salary for the player, who does not know how much to expect, and “pocketing the difference” in the form of a large service fee for themselves.

A third form of sharp practice is a “hold-up problem”, by which agents hold clubs to ransom by escalating their own fees as closure of the transfer window approaches.

Off The Pitch has canvassed leading agents on some of these allegations and all say that they are extreme examples carried out by outliers within the industry.

FIFA considers a realignment of agent regulation as central to wider reforms of the transfer market. Zurich sources say that the transfer system should be based on solidarity to reward training clubs, when the vested interests of agencies reward a speculative foundation.

Until the power of agencies are limited, they say, no meaningful transfer reform can take place. They point to the escalating amount of commissions – which trebled between 2013-19 – while solidarity contributions and training compensation payments remained stagnant as evidence of this.

Period of consolidation

Our research into the market value of talent rosters comes as leading agencies seek to consolidate their positions through mergers and acquisitions. Last month two of Europe’s largest independent football management agencies, England’s Unique Sports Management (USM) and Germany’s International Sports Management (ISMG), announced that they had merged to become Unique Sports Group (USG) with immediate effect.

It follows last year’s takeover of Stellar Group by US talent agency ICM and Wasserman’s purchase of Key Sports.

Last month Marlon Fleischmann, executive director of USM – which ranks sixth globally in terms of market value – told Off The Pitch that agencies were maturing so that they became “very sophisticated” as they moved to help players navigate the complexities of an increasingly digitized, multi-platform world, as well as the personal challenges that come from being megastars.

“We’ve got a raft of services and infrastructure that was never there under previous agency models,” he said. “I think it is the industry reflecting that maturity in producing more sophisticated models and really looking at these clients and how do we put 360 service around them? How do we secure them? How do we make sure they get the absolute best from us?

"And we are providing the best services and what goes into making a top level pro football both on and off the pitch, and that has to be done jointly, holistically together.”

Agent fees have been one of the big talking points in the football industry for a long time. Many see agents as necessary intermediaries between clubs, protecting the players and helping them make the right decisions in their careers, while others see them as vile people acting out of self-interest. 

Both agents and clubs have for the last couple of years been sitting tight and waiting to see when and how new FIFA regulations will be implemented, which is expected to take effect in early 2022.

Wednesday FIFA president Gianni Infantino said:

“Seven billion for transfers. 700 million for agents. And only 70 million for training of players. It's not right and something needs to change in this respect. And we are changing it.”

A reported cap of 10 per cent has been heavily criticised by the agent community, which thinks that the cap would damage upcoming agents and agents in lower divisions, and lead to even more oligopoly in the industry. 

But how do the numbers look?

Looking at agent fees in four out of the big five leagues (the Spanish football federation is not making fees publicly available despite a FIFA demand) reveal that total agent fees have risen 34 per cent from 2017 to 2020 totalling up to €2.88 billion in the period. 

Of course the rise in agent fees has been driven to a large extent by the steep rise in transfer fees year after year until 2020, while reports from FIFA show transfer fees decreased 24 per cent in 2020 compared to 2019 - due to the uncertainty connected to the Covid situation and declining revenue across the globe.  

However, despite global transfer spending declining in 2020, both the Premier League and Ligue 1 paid out more to agents than ever before. 

A dive into the teams’ agent fee spending in the four leagues shows that even though the Premier League spends the most, Dortmund and Juventus are among the top three clubs paying out the most to agents.

At the lower end of agent fee spending, we find - not surprisingly - some of the smaller Ligue 1 teams, but also the two Italian clubs Atalanta and Napoli. 

Relating the spending on agents to the total expenses in the four leagues reveals that agent fees made up 6 per cent of total expenses on average for the four leagues since 2017. 

Of the ten clubs with the biggest agent spending in the Premier League, Liverpool have significantly higher agent fee expenses relative to their total transfer income and expenses compared with the other Premier League clubs. 

Putting the agent fee expenses relative to the total transfer sales and additions gives us an interesting view into which clubs negotiate sales and additions with agents taking the highest percentage fee. 

Liverpool top the chart with just under 15 per cent, which is equivalent to them having paid just shy of €140 million to agents in the last four years. The gap between Liverpool and the rest of the Premier League clubs is quite wide.

One interesting thing is that Chelsea have transfer sales and additions that are €505 million/65 per cent higher than Liverpool, but Liverpool have spent €10 million more on agent fees, which is caused by their much higher agent fee percentage. 

At the lower end we find Everton and Arsenal, which could be an indicator of them being the best negotiators. 

Everton had higher player sales and additions than Liverpool in the period, but only spent half the amount of money on agent fees, which shows through as their much lower agent fee percentage spending relative to total transfer sales and additions.

The table above indicates that four clubs had a negative total EBIT in the period, but three out of the four clubs would have had a positive EBIT had they not paid any agent fees. 

Everton are the only club that would still have a negative EBIT with no agent fees. 

The clubs with a positive EBIT before taking agent fees into account would in total have had a 61 per cent higher EBIT if agent fees were fully mitigated. 

The total EBIT numbers indicate that agent fees have had a big impact on the profitability of the clubs in recent years. 

It is highly unlikely that clubs can mitigate agent fees completely, but reducing it would have a substantial positive effect on the financial profitability numbers of the clubs - something the table above shows clearly.