Player ownership under the microscope
On Thursday morning, the 20 Premier League clubs will meet to debate third-party ownership of players. The freshly-drafted V20 rules have been drawn up to ensure that never again will the Premier League face the situation that emerged when back in the summer of 2006.
The rules, while debated on Thursday, will not be formally adopted until the summer meeting at the end of the season.
But that time lapse does not really matter.
In a sense the has already agreed that third-party deals such as those of Tevez and Mascherano will not be signed.
Indeed even before the last there was an agreement by clubs not to sign players who may have such third-party agreements.
The result has been that it has affected the sort of players clubs can buy.
I am told some clubs, including , missed out on certain players they were looking at because the clubs they played for did not own the players economic rights.
By making third-party agreements unacceptable in this fashion, the Premier League is reinforcing this country's reputation as a football island.
The fact is such third-party agreements (where a player's economic interests are owned not by the club but by a consortium of investors) is very common in and not unknown on the continent.
Such agreements emerged in South America because although the continent is rich in footballers, the clubs are poor and the leagues poorly run, so outside investors are attracted.
Indeed it was this that brought Tevez and to this country.
However, while the Premier League may feel it has put the ghost of third-party ownership behind it, it cannot roll back the Tevez affair.
There may still be a sting in the Tevez tale depending on how the court case brought by against West Ham, for allegedly violating agreements with him, turns out. The Hammers are contesting the claim.
The case relates to alleged unpaid bills for Tevez's one-year stay at Upton Park. The Premier League feels confident that as long as West Ham continue to insist that they tore up their third-party agreement, the action that allowed them to play Tevez last season, there is nothing to worry about.
However, if the judgement should go against it might provide much needed ammunition for . They have long come to terms with relegation but they are still seeking compensation for the Premiers League's failure to stop West Ham playing Tevez and a arbitration panel is due to hear the case soon.
There may be no more third-party signings in the Premiership any more. But the first singing that started it all is by no means over.
Mihir Bose's blog is no longer being updated. You can read recent entries about Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú Sport's coverage and insights into the latest issues on the 
Comments
An interesting post Mihir. Just one observation.
You say "the Premier League is reinforcing this country's reputation as a football island."
This sounds like you think it is a bad thing. To promote a more open approach to player ownership must surely be a good thing. In this one thing at least, it looks the the PL have it right.
I think Mihir's 'football island' quote actually highlights a criticism of the PL. It is the PL that are deciding to restrict the rules on player ownnership, not open them up (as you suggest Darryl).
I see it this way. Allowing third party ownership will probably benefit smaller PL clubs. The big boys can afford to buy their players outright, while the likes of West Ham could only get the best players in a kind of 'shop window' deal.
The same goes for the proposal to play games overseas, in some ways. The big clubs already have global profiles, while the smaller clubs don't. The big clubs would be happy to increase their profile, but the smaller clubs are hoping to get any kind of recognition at all. This is why the likes of David Gold are in favour.
However, this does not mean I support either third party ownership or overseas games. Both have their good points, but not many. There are much easier ways to help smaller clubs (within and outside the PL) that do not depend on disrupting the integrity of the competition.
If your club owns a player, the fans want to know that decisions about that player are in the hands of your own Board, and hopefully the manager, not some unconnected corporation. It's not the most important thing in the world, but neither is football itself. Just play it fairly and in a straightforward way, and we'll all be happy.
I think you have highlighted some interesting points, however, I believe by having the PL not allow any players with 3rd Party connections to play in the PL at all, may limit the flow of talent coming into the country.
Mascherano and Tevez are two examples of supreme talent that benefit their teams. I haven't seen many players be so consistant with their tackles than Mascherano, and the way Tevez plays not only compliments the way Rooney and Ronaldo play, but enhances.
Why can't 3rd Party deals be looked at as 'loans'? We see players go on loan from one club to another all the time. These deals not only benefit both clubs that are involved, but also the players themselves as their talents develop with exposure to first team football.
I think that instead of banning 3rd Party ownership over players completely, they should have introduced tougher regulations so that the players who deserve to play in the PL can come through.