FA must tread carefully over England players’ rights
Last week’s dispute in Denmark shows what could go wrong with a move to restructure the squad’s commercial deals
By the time England’s players meet again there will, in all likelihood, be a new regime in place to replace one that 12 years ago was established by a group of footballers who knew the value of their own intellectual property rights as well as any who has worn the Three Lions.
That was the then senior group led by David Beckham, and including Wayne Rooney, Gary Neville, Rio Ferdinand, Frank Lampard, Steven Gerrard, John Terry and David James who established the process by which England players are paid for their service. That being their cut of the commercial deals the Football Association strikes with its various partners and sponsors, an agreement run by the agency 1966 Entertainment, although all that is about to end.
The FA is seeking to reach a settlement with 1966 Entertainment over its contract to take the whole players’ pool operation in-house. It means that instead of a third party dealing with up to 40 players, their agents, as well as various FA commercial partners, the FA will take
Leading agent: Gareth Southgate is also represented by 1966’s Terry Byrne on that role itself – and the consequences will be intriguing.
The FA hopes to announce a new lead commercial partner after the Vauxhall deal expired following the World Cup finals and the belief is that the good vibes from Russia 2018 will deliver a big return. Control of the commercial process is important but that also means reaching a deal with the players as to how the earnings are to be divided in this new era.
The players’ slice is worth collectively anywhere between £4million and £6million annually, paid on a sliding scale according to appearances on behalf of sponsors and their place in the squad. A player becomes a member of that pool simply by being named in the
squad and during that time 1966 Entertainment, itself run by Terry Byrne, Beckham’s agent when he left Real Madrid for LA Galaxy, have organised the whole show.
There has always been tension with rival agents unhappy about 1966’s close working relationships with their clients – simply because it is that kind of world where the poaching of players is remorseless.
But it would be fair to say there have been some triumphs too. The England Footballers’ Foundation, set up in 2008, is funded by the players’ donation of their match fees, as well as their time, which has raised more than £5million for charities.
Generally the whole awkward business of England players and what they are paid to represent their country has run smoothly. The players’ match fee donation has taken care of the publicrelations side and largely mollified those who think the players should play for free.
The FA says otherwise and that it carried out a review of the 1966 arrange- ment last year. It said it was “concerned” at “a lack of understanding, transparency and potential conflict between representation agreements”.
It says the players’ committee at the time no longer reflected the current day squad. The FA adds that it has funded legal support to investigate the players’ agreement with 1966 Entertainment.
As things stand, the FA thinks it will reach an agreement with 1966 and says that all commercial tie-ups with the players have continued uninterrupted. Certainly as the FA prepares to embark upon a new era, it cannot afford to get its new arrangement with the players wrong. It was only a last-minute deal between the Danish football association (DBU) last week that meant the Denmark team did not field a side of lower league and futsal players against Wales in the Nations League as they had done in their friendly with Slovakia.
Of course, that was an extreme breakdown between the Danish players’ union Spillerforeningen (SPF) and the DBU over image rights and players’ commercial deals, but you mess with the status quo at your own peril.
What comes in place of the old system will be critical, and as things stand there is no agreement on how it will all work, despite the FA’S optimism.
The stakeholders are diverse, the agents all have an opinion and without their and the players’ cooperation, there will be no deal. It is an interesting side-note that among the clients Byrne represents is Gareth Southgate, meaning the FA will continue to have to negotiate with 1966 Entertainment on their manager’s new contract. There is no suggestion that Southgate has ever intervened in the FA’S determined efforts to take the players’ pool contract from his own representatives but it shows just how determined the FA was to take the operation in-house that it has ploughed on.
As for the players, it is a long way from the standoff that existed between the likes of Christian Eriksen and Kasper Schmeichel and the DBU although whatever comes in its place will have to work. Both sides are acutely aware that a row between the England players and the FA over money would be disastrous for their public image but first they will have to agree on a new system of sharing out the FA’S commercial deals.
There are some who feel that the players should represent their