Slightly different rules there, when you loan a play you still own them and say you play against that team you can stipulate they can not play against you as you are the parent club. Selling with a buy back although keep you in position to have the player back akin to a loan, you lose all control of the player and they can play against you, i feel this will result in a lot more international sales like we have seen with german clubs coming in for english youth
Excessive loaning has been plaguing Greek football for the past 20-30 years... The 3-4 biggest club have established a client relationship with smaller clubs. The small clubs being financially unstable have no choice but to borrow players from the big clubs and in return their performance "varies" depending on what club they play against.
In portugal we have benfica and porto doing the same. These are players that are very good at their small clubs but don't have any chance to ever play for these big teams but they agree to go cause they pay better. So yh i am glad these will end.
I remember researching Chelsea's loan army for a video, and my God...it seems like a whole different industry of making money through loaning players (not just Chelsea, but many others, including Juventus). It would be interesting how the loaning clubs sell their vision to these players to join them, on how they sell the "hope" to make it to the first team. I find it a fascinating subject ⚽⚽⚽⚽⚽⚽⚽⚽
It is very interesting for sure. There are some players who leave and don’t want to be apart of the loan army but many choose to stay cause of the money and also the ability to train on a high level and receive opportunities with plenty of clubs due to the name of Chelsea football club and their wide reach in football. That’s how I saw it so I opposed these new rules. But this video for the most part changed my mind.
Loopholes with this ruling are... • Selling players to sister clubs in other countries and leagues, then they could buy the player back (eg. Man City to NYC FC or RB Leipzig to RB Salzburg) • Putting Buyback clause in the sale of the players • Putting higher percentages of sell-on clauses with departing players
This is what I was thinking watching this, I recently read a piece on City loanees nearly 60% of all their players on loan are loaned to the clubs within the City football group. So when this rule is implemented they'll sell them for a small fee with a buy-back clause so in reality this doesn't change much it only strengthens the teams with the same ownership
My question exactly. Did City see this coming and just build and international 'minor league' system? In the United States, Major League Baseball teams typically have a AAA, AA, multiple A and 'rookie' teams where they can grow players and keep their contracts intact.
@@LarryOchieng27 do have a link for that article? Sounds interesting. @Kenneth: I remember one city group official saying that their model was inspired by the red bull model. (it was on a athletic podcast, probably the business podcast)
But at the very least the transfers would be in their own chain and they wont be able to act as a feeder club and gain huge income. Also I guess FIFA prefers buy-back clause rather than loans which is understandable, I dont really have strong opinions on those
With all of those points, it sounds like it could function closer to what North America does with it's minor league affiliate teams in MLB and NHL. Except the team you send the other player to doesn't have to be the one your team has a piece of the pie of. This really could do good for the sport overall.
This video made me think, informed me much more and changed my mind a lot almost completely. The only thing that still bothers me is how does this affect smaller clubs in the second third, fourth tier and so on? There are many of those clubs that rely on the quality of loan players from bigger clubs. Although with the clarification on young academy players not being apart of that 6 limit, that does make it less worrying cause that’s the one thing I love the loan system for. It gives youth players time and a taste or introduction into senior football.
Less talent being stocked up theoretically means more talent spread around at the smaller clubs before they're poached. Talent will still be there, just not all stacked in bigger clubs
@@schutang true true, but sometimes with smaller clubs the quality is of the same level. Even within their academies and such, but tbf doesn’t really matter cause talent is talent and hard work is hard work so it’ll be fair regardless. I agree with this loaning limit and rule changes
"the framework applies only to international loans, but domestic associations will be expected to adopt...", yeah, considering the sheer magnitude of player loaning in Serie A that this video made us privy to, I don't foresee the Italians paying this much mind. Its clearly an indispensable part of the collective business model there.
@@uomouomouomouomo Having no money but somehow still producing a decent level of entertaining football and a bevy of high quality domestic players who win things or go deep in tournaments at international level. Serie A is not boring and excruciatingly slow-paced any more in terms of football and hasn't been for a while now. Given how financially handicapped they are, it's actually a pretty solid achievement.
@@paulie-g Im not sure this is related to how much money the clubs have to do business. A lot of their higher end talent is of an older generation and do little to develop their players of their own nationality and even spend on foreign players who are cheaper at youth level. The Serie A also has the benefit of Italian players not wanting to leave Italy. There are only a handful of actually skilled young players poised to be of significance on the world stage at the moment, compared to a number of other countries at least. I would attribute a lot of their success to style and coaching. As a regular Serie A watcher, Italian, blah blah, their achievement so far is great but their youth and individual development has been atrocious compared to other leagues if I’m being realistic
@@uomouomouomouomo @Paul G Both of y'all are right. This isn't mutually exclusive. They're an utter shitshow from a financial management/revenue growth POV. They also have excellent player skill and tactical development, the insularity of the Italian football culture notwithstanding.
@@uomouomouomouomo I'll defer to you then, since I sadly don't have time to watch as much footy as I used to and don't follow Serie A regularly. Intuitively, you are right that the most exciting part of Italian footy at the moment is the tactical innovation rather than individual playing talent. I'd still say that given how little money there is in Serie A, they've done well with the product on the pitch and, had I more time, I'd certainly enjoy following it more closely.
@@dantespina7398 lol. I'm a Chelsea fan but I can't be dealing with that loan army on FM. I always manage them a couple of years into a save once the AI has thinned it out, melts my brain just looking at it.
@@dantespina7398 I used to do things like these: 1. having great youth facilities I loaned out many of the youngsters to lower division 2. signed youngsters from abroad on Bosman or cheap pays, then loaned them out for at least 2-3 years 3. when these players were ready I promoted them, only to be sold 1-2 years later cos bigger clubs offered me lots of money, at that time I had already signed more players. so yeah usually my reserves squad was empty, they put u19 boys in it
@@RizalBatheki I do basically the exact same thing. Also with Non-EU regristration rules, just sending them to Spain for two years so they become European, farming nationalities. Then selling them after that if they aren't good enough to make the first team when they are like 22. Like 55 out on loan in a season, I assume most wouldn't be exempt
This could also lead to more clubs adopting the City Gruop or Red Bull aproach, not having loan armies but having supplementary teams abroad to discover and develop young talent, so they will have an advantage over other teams, or use the Buy Back clauses that Real Madrid so often use in the case of bigger clubs with the resources to basically pay for another club a fee to develop a player
When i played football manager id do exactly this. You'd always make a profit when you have a good scouting team and then just use the best players as they develop.
Will be interesting to see how this impacts on the futures of young goalkeepers. At Chelsea there was a wonderkid GK called Delac who was there for 10 years but never played as he was never able to get a work permit so the club kept loaning him out, hoping he would one day qualify. Of course GKs peak much older and there are far fewer squad spaces available, so we could see a glut of young GK talent in lower leagues
@@stephenpalmer9375 This tends to happen most with Brazillian players, which is why often you will see Brazilian players being brought by Prem clubs and then loaned to Portuguese sides.
There will still be ways to undermine this, but I appreciate steps been made to limit the extent of this to not just stop the bigger clubs hoarding players, but also clubs signing Way more players than they can realistically afford to keep (Looking at you, early 2010's Parma). I can see clubs sending prospects & dead-weight out on free transfers with negligible buy-back clauses & subsidised wages becoming a new norm until that loophole gets tightened up in the following years
this would also lead to more club group acquisitions soon enough expect Chelsea Liverpool United Spurs etc to get more feeder / group based clubs to help the main team out
Chelsea started it, Atalanta perfected it. I think no loan long than 2 years is not good. When Chelsea loaned Courtois and Christensen to Atletico Madrid and borussia monchengladbach for 3 years, it really helped their development. And after the loan ended they went straight into the Chelsea squad and Courtois immediately became the first choice goalkeeper
This just means in that case that Courtois would be one of their 6 loanees they prioritise and they would renew every year (Christenssen would be an exemption since he was trained at the club younger).
You say Chelsea started it but Italy had that weird co-owning idea for ages, until it was abolished in 2015. One club buys the player but the selling club keeps 50% of the rights to the player. This still exists in Argentina, Chile and Uruguay.
Would clubs (in theory) be able to "sell" a player on a free, perhaps still contributing to their wage at the new club, but simply have a stupidly low buy-back clause on it? Hopefully the legislation would cover things like this, but I'd imagine clubs will be looking for & finding loopholes pretty quickly.
You cant patch up all the loopholes. Thats just not possible. But just seeing that they actually do kinda care about fixing the issue is a step in the right direction
Now big teams will “sell” their players with option to take back. City will sell all the players to the city group clubs and loan out from those clubs.
Right on point with City, but which good footballer will agree to play for Girona or (chuckles) NY City FC, when he could properly play in other EPL side with all the benefits?
@@A-Grat-A yeah I agree, but mostly players with lower reputation are loaned out. If I was a 23 year-old championship level player, I’d accept going Girona or NYC and then to be loaned out.
when I played FM14 this was my key to success. I had to have a great academy system first and when I did, I loaned out so many of the youngsters. I also bought and signed free transfers to be sent out for at least 3 years. When these players were ready or had improved, I promoted them to first team and sold some others. Usually after 1-2 seasons bigger clubs came to me and bought them. Then I signed more players and repeated. Sometimes I kept players loaned out for much longer like 5-6 years, even topped at 10 years lol I just renewed his contract and I sent him to many clubs that he became a polyglot with speaking 8 languages lol
Would love a video on what on earth is going on with loans in Serie A... I swear that Italian football is basically one big accountancy scam these days.
Having a club limit of 33 signed players would also go a long way to helping the problems these rules are trying to solve. Obviously my suggestion is just for the professional first team so U-23 etc. sides wouldn’t count but yeah 33 players maximum on the first team roster would be great. Most clubs only use 22 players regularly anyways. It would be really risky to loan out more than a few of a 33 man roster.
I fear this reform could destroy italian serie B and serie C, where a lot of teams have little to no money and the league provides meager revenue and quite often they became loan farms
I think it will discourage bigger clubs from buying so many in the first place, leaving more talents on the free agent market or simply clubs will terminate their contracts early to dispose of them which again will result in more free agents for smaller clubs to pick up
@ur couzin by limiting the number of clubs that can bid for their services, especially the bigger clubs that can pay more in salary, the rule will depress wages for players. It's a tradeoff for competitive balance, but at the expense of players, not clubs.
@@alhollywood6486 Player wages are already way too inflated, especially in the premier league, so if this deinflates their wages, that can only be a good thing
You don't get how one club retaining the contract on at least 64 players more than their registered league squad is unfair to other teams? How clubs with the financial clout and reputation to attract the better players being able to simply sign as many as they want, thereby dictating which other teams are allowed access to those players' talents is unfair to other teams? Really?
@@KindredBrujah TBH, no. Those players arent in a vault somewhere missing their carrers. *Usually* they are playing at middle or smalls teams that otherwise would have never been able to afford them. Ergo, big teams also spread the talent. These arent fooballers passing their whole contracts at the bench without doing nothing for years. I mean, if a few guys never made to the team that originally signed them, is kinda ridiculous to be "traumatized" for that. It is not like footballers are tied to teams anymore, this is not the late 80's. They can always demand liberation and go somewhere else if they dont like it. Moreover if players are active. The only players i see stuck at teams, are those who lowered their level and nobody wants them because of that.
@@rexcolt9742 I wasn't talking about players, I was talking about other teams. Of course the players want to stay at the big club if they think there's a chance they can eventually get into the first team. These big clubs are absolutely preying on that to keep these guys on contract. However, in a system where this sort of loan army is not possible, those players will likely go to other teams in the same division (if they're good enough), maybe not earn quite as much, but still plenty, but will have a chance to be truly part of a different organisation. It also means, again if the players are good, that the league itself will be more competitive. As it is right now, the bigger clubs have all the power to refuse to loan these players to teams in their own division they might perceive as a threat, at least somewhat neutering them in the process.
@@KindredBrujah Players are still loaned to other teams. They arent vaulted. Other teams also have access to those footballers. Many times, talent that would be stuck for a longer period in their native leagues, are bought and brought to teams that wouldnt have the money to buy them in first place.
While the main benefit is reducing the hoovering up of young talent, an added benefit will hopefully be that, say in the case of Drinkwater: Chelsea would have been far more incentivised to sell him permanently and pay part of his wages than keep loaning him out (esp as he never really looked like appreciating in value since they bought him)
Tbf Chelsea's problem with Drinkwater is not a lack of wanting to sell him, but rather a lack of buyers wanting to buy him. If anything this means that bigger clubs will be forced to cut their losses and maybe smaller teams can pick these sort of players on loan. Especially since these players would have to cut their salary requirements in order to be picked up by a club.
@@joshbrown2217 I feel like we've both come to the same conclusion? That Chelsea would have been wanting to sell him earlier, and therefore had more incentive to cover more of his wages to make that sale happen, rather than have him rot in reserves while they send development players out on loan
As a principle chelsea tend to not like “cutting their losses” but drink water is in a particularly niche situation. His value is bottom drawer simply because of his character/actions and the fact that he never will live up to being sold for about 40M. They were sending him on loan to lesser teams while covering his wage simply for drink water + loan club to get a mutual understanding of “this is good for me”. He won’t cough up those wages though, and why break a contract when you don’t need to in his case. Generally, though, you’re right. With younger players like van ginkel, for example, they actively look for buying solutions and the player agrees. Younger players are always more likely to hold value
Difference being that it leaves the choice of whether to go back or not with the player, unlike today where they have to go back to where they are contracted.
Buying clubs would never accept that, the buy back will always have to be higher, at the very least they'd demand a fee that would cover the cost of the players wages for the length of the contract.
@@alanz3497 Or it turns into the Eibar scheme of sign a fringe La Liga guy from Madrid or Barca for a couple million and fling him back 10 games later for 10 million after proving he belongs.
Surely this just helps multi club networks as City or Leipzig could just "sell" a player to Troyes/Girona/Salzburg and include a buy back for the same amount
@@Hakwbebsu26 to me it's ridiculous. I work for Sports Interactive gaming and we have a lot of licenses to deal with. City is the biggest headache because they don't keep everything 100% visible. They do a lot of under the table deals and are expanding like crazy.
This seems easy to get around in cases of clubs with associated clubs like the City Group. Surely you would simply buy players for a ridiculously cheap price such as €1 and buy them back for the same price or use sponsors to give the money back instantaneously
Thank goodness fifa for once did something right in ending this nefarious practice of buying youth players then loaning them out for seasons on end whilst being on contract with the parent club until their contract runs out and they basically spend half a decade of their career doing nothing substantial
@@atiqueteimporta12345 they’re exceptions to the norm. I’m talking about the players who wasted their careers being on contract at the big clubs just to never play a single game for said clubs and then ending up not panning out
Literally, nothing will change for Chelsea, they already abide by these new rules. Don't get it confused, players choose to re-sign, if someone like Izzy Brown wanted to leave earlier for a trash tier EFL team he could. These players are determined to prove themselves and make it to the first team, don't blame Chelsea for that.
@@BladeCentralHD By my count Chelsea currently have 22 players out on loan. According to these rules, 8 would be exemptions for being U21 and 3 years at the club. There are 14 other players, including multimillion pound signings like Batshuayi, Rahman, Bakayoko, Drinkwater, Kenedy and Emerson. Isn't that a bit more than 8 that the regulations will allow to go out on loan?
Will this also affect loans with mandatory/optional future fees? I think a club like Stoke signing a fringe PL player with the option to buy is a huge advantage for both sides and should be encouraged. The loaning side can appraise the player and experiment with them, while taking on some or all of the cost from the loaning side, who will either get the fee at the end or a more happy player who might have their confidence back. It wouldn't make sense to use one of your six loans on a player who is definitely going to join; at that point a full transfer makes sense. But that eliminates things like partial wage contribution that allow smaller clubs to meet FFP and prepare for the arrival of the player and their wages.
Bet almost every Premier league team have atleast 1 player from Chelsea academy. They monopolised the youth talent more than a decade now. Anyone know who Islam Feruz is?
And on top of that there is also a practice in leagues like Serie A, where two clubs will own one player in a 50-50% and they can always just go back and forth and buy a majority percentage ownership. So it's like a hybrid of purchasing and loaning the very same player.
Any thoughts or information on how purchase options/obligations attached to loans can affect these new regulations? Loans seem to be used more as a way of delaying payments these days (Spurs fan here, so Romero and Kulusevski come to mind). I would understand if these fall into the same category as non-exempt loans, but I believe that they serve a different purpose so could warrant a further examination.
I think the loan rule will push potential young(under 24-25yo) players to lower league, who will hardly ever make it to the top and make the price of those who make it to the top very very high.
in the mad days of co-ownership in serie a you would see clubs like udinese, parma, genoa effectively loan out 70 players a season on average, in the case of udinese they brought granada and watford and basically supplied both sides with a whole new starting 11.
I think that this will actually increase player hoarding because large clubs will still want to grab young talent and they will do this when they are younger so I think youth teams will grow among the top leagues as clubs try to buy them soon enough so that they can be loaned out without counting towards the total and then they will just sell them on when they reach 21. This change will lead to larger hoarding of youth but less hoarding of older players which could decrease the large gap between clubs it could prevent clubs like Birmingham City from getting another Jude Bellingham as he would have been lured away when he was much younger so that a bigger club could send him out on loan in a few years.
Fifa could add a player registration cap for each club across their over 16 age groups. Combined with the loan restriction it would prevent the farm club systems from building up. If a club is limited to say 65 registrations across all age groups there would be a limit to how many slots they will prospect on 16 year olds. Conversely smaller clubs or large clubs in smaller countries could benefit from this from being able to access more promising talent to develop and sell.
I was beginning to worry about *Chelsea's* business model, where loans are concerned, until 1:51 exemptions came up. *So basically 'tis business as usual for my FC* 😊 EDIT: 2:58 Okay, maybe not😬
It wouldn’t necessarily benefit them, but it will definitely lessen the effects of the new regulations, but not by much. I’m pretty sure that governing bodies won’t look favorably upon teams selling players to a sister team for way below their actual value in order to skirt the rules.
@@Ren_1090 what are they going to do exactly?? All City has to do is say they wanted the player off the books and the buying team was the only one interested.
@@Smidgzmo ehhh there’s already investigations ongoing about inflating transfer prices going on in Italy, specifically with Juventus being highlighted, so I’d imagine investigations into the opposite wouldn’t be out of the question.
I think they could've done without the ban on 2 yr loans. I think those are beneficial to young players since it would give their careers some stability as they don't have to move to another club the following season.
I like these proposals, and i certainly look forward to them being implemented domestically in the next few years. It will encourage young players to remain at their 2nd or 3rd division clubs for longer, albeit at 2nd and 3rd division wages. However the £2k a week they might get at a Championship or League 1 club in England is hardly poverty wages. I see a lot of talk about 'buy-back' clauses on here but are people forgetting that the player has to agree to return to the senior club? If the chances of regular first team football remain slim maybe they'll take their chance at a mid to lower premier league club that can guarantee regular game time?
Wasn't there some rule change about 20 years ago that made the big clubs cut down their squad sizes? That's why Bolton got Okocha, Djorkaeff, etc. this sounds like it could have similar impact on the big clubs. But it sounds brutal for the lower leagues.
Is there anything stopping permanent loans with buy backs. So selling for £10m with a buyback clause for £12m and meeting it after one season (essentially a loan with a £2m fee)
Man City allready has a work around in place with Sandler to Feyenoord. He is sold under a complex construction where there is no transfer fee payed + a buy back option. Therefore, will this solve the problems??
2 changes I want to see. 1. Scrap Jan transfer window. Whatever club a player is at on Sept 1st, he is going to be there until June 1st the following year. 2. Limit squad numbers to 30. In all honesty, who actually plays 30 different players?
It's always made me wonder why young players even agree to go to these big clubs. Sure, as a 17-18 year old, it might seem cool to sign for one of the big teams like Chelsea or Man City, but unless you're an absolute wonderkid, surely you must know that you're realistically never going to get near the first team. Instead you're just gonna get swallowed up by their gargantuan youth systems, get farmed out on loan continuously to numerous different teams, you'll never spend long enough anywhere to settle in or find any sort of groove or consistency, so you never really improve much or reach any potential you might have had. Then suddenly you find yourself at the age of 23-24, you've become a journeyman who's played for 8 or 9 different clubs and never hit your potential, and now you're surplus to requirements at your 'parent' club and get released. You see it happen so often in todays game.
I've not fully thought this through yet, but could a limit on the total number of players any one club can have under contract make any difference? (At each level/age group) If you can only register 25 (?) players for the Premier league season, why allow for any more? Let's say that under 23s don't count, but you could have a limit of them also. Therefore, a premier league club could in fact have a maximum of 50 players available to play in the season, albeit half of them are under 23. This might mean that more higher quality players are available to the less wealthy clubs AND potentially increase overall playing time for the youngsters as injuries/suspensions force them onto the pitch...
The biggest loophole is the domestic market. I can tell you because I have a squad of 512 players in Football Manager and I apply strictly these FIFA rules for the international market (I like realism). I make more than £300M per year in loan fees. Another legal strategy I use is to buy European players with 15-17 years. After 3 years they are club-trained and can be loaned without limits for substantial profit for 2-3 years till there are 22. The only interesting rule is the max of 3 loans in each direction between two clubs which is aimed at City and RedBull group farms. These new loan regulations are a cosmetic fix, if FIFA wanted to solve the problem they would impose a hard limit for both domestic and international markets with no exceptions for club-trained players and/or age. An alternative to address signing 15-18 EU players is to place a limit per year on such signings as the Premier League has done. These are the only realistic ways to prevent me becoming filthy rich with player trafficking in Football Manager or the elite clubs in real to continue being so.
I think its time to bring in a draft system for each respective league. Ie team finishing bottom gets to pick a youth player from the team who finished 1st.
Team finishing bottom relegates to the lower tier, as it should. Otherwise we would be encouraging "coasting" and we know from the US sports that it's a bad thing for the entertainment and the integrity of the sport.
What about clubs buying other clubs or opening b teams? Doesn’t this promote opening a new club? Buying a different club in the same or different country and have them develop players and send some players on loan.
I didn't hear a word about how this affects the players, you know, actual people. These loaned players are making better wages, but who cares, right? It's "unfair".
I would argue having a more stable playing career is a good thing for the players. And besides, often the club that loans the player pays their full wage. If they're willing to pay the full wage on a loan deal, then they'd probably also be willing to pay close to those figures if they actually owned the player.
Leagues one and two only survive due to the loan market. Want to win promotion? Get a couple of great young loan strikers from premier league clubs. But it does lead to January windows where clubs lose 5 'season long' players back to parent clubs and have to replace them with half a team on loan for the rest of the season.
@@titofernandez1500 the smaller clubs will be managed by the big clubs so no worries about finances, not everyone can be sent to the fielders club. This will bring more competition in smaller leagues and if the players develop well, they'll be sold at a profit to the main club. Roman is trying to buy a small club in Brazil for this reason to reduce CFC loan army.
Just a small correction, if you don't mind: "and theoretically promotes a more even spread of talent across the game IN EUROPE" (2:46). Latin-american and african clubs will still have their very young talents leaving their countries to play in Europe.
Are you able to bypass this new rule by selling a player for free for a season to a club who has agreed to sell him back at the end of the season for free, or put in a €0 buy back fee.
My one worry is big clubs have the financial power for much larger scouting networks, so I fear players from developing nations won't get as much chance; I HATE loan armies and love development but admittedly have this concern.
perfect way to get by: put buy back clauses into contracts that the buy back clauses are cheaper than the original fee, and clubs can now decide whenever they want to trigger the clause🤓
@@risvymahi3118 u get semi good player in your team on cheap, yes. Or they just go to relegation zone. If u look only true competitive league is Premiership. Spain has 3 teams (Athletico, Real, Barcą) France (PSG) Germany (BVB Bayern)....
@@risvymahi3118 u can buy team now for less than 1M£ in third Polish league. Sell players to this team for zero to none money and buy back for one pound. Also some cities are giving money to teams to stay (Volleyball teams in Poland gets a 0,3M just to stay, halls for free, just to play in this city)
Could you name the 12 CITY players who do meet the criteria of exemptions? Do you have a source? Did you consider the fact that many of those players are out of contract coming summer or on an 'obligation to buy loan' contracts, so ideally you should not count them, as the rule comes to place only from the next season?
Overall I think this really is a step in the right direction, but I dont fully understand the need for a 1 year maximum. First of all clubs already will be less likely to do them, cause they will limit next years max to 5 loans and secondly I dont feel they would harm the loan market
Hey Tifo, I would really like you guys to take on the topic of the difference in wages between men's and women's football. I feel this is not touched upon by anyone except female players or supporters and usually men undermine the importance of the topic. I hope you shine a light on a glaring social issue that translates to all sports and that doesn't seem to have a solution soon, cheers.
A negative impact can be to motivate hiring of even younger players from abroad (specially South America), so the youth player can fit in the exemptions. Casemiro, e.g., wouldn't fit on the exemption and would develop himself on Porto before being integrated on Real Madrid. Many good players without European experience would have to go through the ranks of smaller leagues and just arrive at the big clubs older, after being tested.
I think it will help the players to have some consistancy. Rather than player for 5 separate teams in 5 years, playing under 5 different systems. It would help player growth.
Fringe players would now have to settle for less salary going forward as they would no longer be on larger club's book. Not sure if they would be happy about that.
This literally won't change anything though. Big clubs are building multi-club networks and therefore the players in question will just go to the "feeder clubs" in the network before being deemed worthy enough to come to the groups "lead club." Or buy back clauses will become rife as someone else has mentioned, an easy way to basically loan without loaning.
It might slightly curb the behavior of big clubs but it won’t last, they’ll just figure out a workaround or realize that they don’t actually need to hoard so many players, either way nothing will fundamentally change. This is not gonna do anything to close the gap between rich clubs and other clubs
Manchester City has 2 players I can think of (Ferran Torres to Barca and Sandler to Feyenoord) where they have the first right to buy back the player if they match the same bid as another club. If there are no restrictions on these 'sales', this will be the future loaning players out
I see a lot of out of favor senior players just getting bought out of their contacts, like Arsenal did with Ozil, Auba, Kolasinac, Mhkitaryian, Mustafi, Sokratis
What about the sides that have two teams like Barca and baca b and every big Spanish club ? They can go around the rule by hoarding more than other teams ?
It would be nice if these reforms were for u23 players to accommodate the MLS system in the States where they are drafted out of college. This would allow the young players to spend some years as development players as well as go the full 4 years of post secondary education.
loans have effectively destroyed a lot of talents in multiple levels across the board a certainty of future is an added motivation for a player , further proven with the examples of salah and kdb choosing not to be like van ginkel and getting to explore another club Chelsea has played a huge part in destruction , rather unwittingly or otherwise , some otherwise massive talents , something which they are trying to change recently but the rules are definitely going to make.things better and for the clubs and the players imo
I like the idea I think once it gets implemented they need to improve on a couple of the technicalities of it but they're still give more clubs a chance to get talented young players and bring them through but this video says where you have all the big clubs buying the most talented young players and just hoarding them and sending them on loan 20 times
Great piece. I foresee loans being replaced by buy back clauses.
That's clever! Transfer for 100k with a buy back clause of 100k lol
@@TommyDJr45 buying club wont accept that ...
At least this will force teams to pay all of a player's wages. Deals like Ramsey to Rangers can't happen.
@@risvymahi3118 100k + bit for being a part of the system.
Slightly different rules there, when you loan a play you still own them and say you play against that team you can stipulate they can not play against you as you are the parent club. Selling with a buy back although keep you in position to have the player back akin to a loan, you lose all control of the player and they can play against you, i feel this will result in a lot more international sales like we have seen with german clubs coming in for english youth
Excessive loaning has been plaguing Greek football for the past 20-30 years... The 3-4 biggest club have established a client relationship with smaller clubs. The small clubs being financially unstable have no choice but to borrow players from the big clubs and in return their performance "varies" depending on what club they play against.
"Too much Malakia!"
-Gattuso
@@FirebrickFoxx that line has achieved cult status in Greece. We love Rino.
@@donvitocorleone7067 “I don’t touch my players” Gattuso
In portugal we have benfica and porto doing the same. These are players that are very good at their small clubs but don't have any chance to ever play for these big teams but they agree to go cause they pay better. So yh i am glad these will end.
I remember researching Chelsea's loan army for a video, and my God...it seems like a whole different industry of making money through loaning players (not just Chelsea, but many others, including Juventus). It would be interesting how the loaning clubs sell their vision to these players to join them, on how they sell the "hope" to make it to the first team. I find it a fascinating subject ⚽⚽⚽⚽⚽⚽⚽⚽
Indeed. Just as many other thing in football, it was an uncharted territory that needed more regulations
It is very interesting for sure. There are some players who leave and don’t want to be apart of the loan army but many choose to stay cause of the money and also the ability to train on a high level and receive opportunities with plenty of clubs due to the name of Chelsea football club and their wide reach in football. That’s how I saw it so I opposed these new rules. But this video for the most part changed my mind.
@@P99-v6y yep...Valid point, my friend :)
Fascinating, but also a bit unsettling... 😅
@@pierfrancescocosta6336 hahaha...yeah indeed :))
Loopholes with this ruling are...
• Selling players to sister clubs in other countries and leagues, then they could buy the player back (eg. Man City to NYC FC or RB Leipzig to RB Salzburg)
• Putting Buyback clause in the sale of the players
• Putting higher percentages of sell-on clauses with departing players
This is what I was thinking watching this, I recently read a piece on City loanees nearly 60% of all their players on loan are loaned to the clubs within the City football group. So when this rule is implemented they'll sell them for a small fee with a buy-back clause so in reality this doesn't change much it only strengthens the teams with the same ownership
My question exactly. Did City see this coming and just build and international 'minor league' system? In the United States, Major League Baseball teams typically have a AAA, AA, multiple A and 'rookie' teams where they can grow players and keep their contracts intact.
@@LarryOchieng27 do have a link for that article? Sounds interesting.
@Kenneth: I remember one city group official saying that their model was inspired by the red bull model. (it was on a athletic podcast, probably the business podcast)
But at the very least the transfers would be in their own chain and they wont be able to act as a feeder club and gain huge income. Also I guess FIFA prefers buy-back clause rather than loans which is understandable, I dont really have strong opinions on those
With all of those points, it sounds like it could function closer to what North America does with it's minor league affiliate teams in MLB and NHL. Except the team you send the other player to doesn't have to be the one your team has a piece of the pie of. This really could do good for the sport overall.
This video made me think, informed me much more and changed my mind a lot almost completely. The only thing that still bothers me is how does this affect smaller clubs in the second third, fourth tier and so on? There are many of those clubs that rely on the quality of loan players from bigger clubs. Although with the clarification on young academy players not being apart of that 6 limit, that does make it less worrying cause that’s the one thing I love the loan system for. It gives youth players time and a taste or introduction into senior football.
Less talent being stocked up theoretically means more talent spread around at the smaller clubs before they're poached. Talent will still be there, just not all stacked in bigger clubs
@@schutang true true, but sometimes with smaller clubs the quality is of the same level. Even within their academies and such, but tbf doesn’t really matter cause talent is talent and hard work is hard work so it’ll be fair regardless. I agree with this loaning limit and rule changes
Less talents will leave small clubs early, because they would be afraid to be benched (as new club wouldn't be able to loan them out).
True
more talent available can also potentially lower the transfer market pricetags of players, as supply increases
"the framework applies only to international loans, but domestic associations will be expected to adopt...", yeah, considering the sheer magnitude of player loaning in Serie A that this video made us privy to, I don't foresee the Italians paying this much mind. Its clearly an indispensable part of the collective business model there.
The collective business model being having no money
@@uomouomouomouomo Having no money but somehow still producing a decent level of entertaining football and a bevy of high quality domestic players who win things or go deep in tournaments at international level. Serie A is not boring and excruciatingly slow-paced any more in terms of football and hasn't been for a while now. Given how financially handicapped they are, it's actually a pretty solid achievement.
@@paulie-g Im not sure this is related to how much money the clubs have to do business. A lot of their higher end talent is of an older generation and do little to develop their players of their own nationality and even spend on foreign players who are cheaper at youth level. The Serie A also has the benefit of Italian players not wanting to leave Italy.
There are only a handful of actually skilled young players poised to be of significance on the world stage at the moment, compared to a number of other countries at least. I would attribute a lot of their success to style and coaching.
As a regular Serie A watcher, Italian, blah blah, their achievement so far is great but their youth and individual development has been atrocious compared to other leagues if I’m being realistic
@@uomouomouomouomo @Paul G Both of y'all are right. This isn't mutually exclusive. They're an utter shitshow from a financial management/revenue growth POV. They also have excellent player skill and tactical development, the insularity of the Italian football culture notwithstanding.
@@uomouomouomouomo I'll defer to you then, since I sadly don't have time to watch as much footy as I used to and don't follow Serie A regularly. Intuitively, you are right that the most exciting part of Italian footy at the moment is the tactical innovation rather than individual playing talent. I'd still say that given how little money there is in Serie A, they've done well with the product on the pitch and, had I more time, I'd certainly enjoy following it more closely.
Great Football Manager saves ruined now, cheers!
Just made it much easier to be Chelsea. Now doing their pre-season properly won't last 3 or 4 hours lol
@@HHHBFResurrected you're saying I won't have to spend a week thinning my squad to meet regristration requirements
@@dantespina7398 lol. I'm a Chelsea fan but I can't be dealing with that loan army on FM. I always manage them a couple of years into a save once the AI has thinned it out, melts my brain just looking at it.
@@dantespina7398 I used to do things like these:
1. having great youth facilities I loaned out many of the youngsters to lower division
2. signed youngsters from abroad on Bosman or cheap pays, then loaned them out for at least 2-3 years
3. when these players were ready I promoted them, only to be sold 1-2 years later cos bigger clubs offered me lots of money, at that time I had already signed more players.
so yeah usually my reserves squad was empty, they put u19 boys in it
@@RizalBatheki I do basically the exact same thing. Also with Non-EU regristration rules, just sending them to Spain for two years so they become European, farming nationalities. Then selling them after that if they aren't good enough to make the first team when they are like 22. Like 55 out on loan in a season, I assume most wouldn't be exempt
This could also lead to more clubs adopting the City Gruop or Red Bull aproach, not having loan armies but having supplementary teams abroad to discover and develop young talent, so they will have an advantage over other teams, or use the Buy Back clauses that Real Madrid so often use in the case of bigger clubs with the resources to basically pay for another club a fee to develop a player
When i played football manager id do exactly this. You'd always make a profit when you have a good scouting team and then just use the best players as they develop.
Me too. Buy out of Brazil for 700k and sell - after a bunch of 500k loans - for about 10 to 15m.
Will be interesting to see how this impacts on the futures of young goalkeepers. At Chelsea there was a wonderkid GK called Delac who was there for 10 years but never played as he was never able to get a work permit so the club kept loaning him out, hoping he would one day qualify.
Of course GKs peak much older and there are far fewer squad spaces available, so we could see a glut of young GK talent in lower leagues
It's possible to not qualify for work permit? 30k 💷 per year, it's minimum pay. Or he travel with family?
@@mateuszzimon8216 in the UK there are quite strong requirements on getting a work permit - he would have to be a current(ish) international for one.
@@stephenpalmer9375 This tends to happen most with Brazillian players, which is why often you will see Brazilian players being brought by Prem clubs and then loaned to Portuguese sides.
@@joshbrown2217 absolutely, and of course Spanish and Portuguese clubs in general have a very much more open door policy to their former colonies
How it used to be, you’d pick up players from smaller clubs before the top 4 had stock piled them.
There will still be ways to undermine this, but I appreciate steps been made to limit the extent of this to not just stop the bigger clubs hoarding players, but also clubs signing Way more players than they can realistically afford to keep (Looking at you, early 2010's Parma). I can see clubs sending prospects & dead-weight out on free transfers with negligible buy-back clauses & subsidised wages becoming a new norm until that loophole gets tightened up in the following years
this would also lead to more club group acquisitions soon enough
expect Chelsea Liverpool United Spurs etc to get more feeder / group based clubs to help the main team out
Good direction. Anything that can stop this ridiculous inflation on the market and unfair competition between big clubs and the rest of the league.
I was totally taken aback by the number of players Sassuolo and Genoa have put on loan 😂
Yeah, I was thinking where’s their playing squad.
Tifo always deliver A class animation/illustration guys, but this one stands out, big up to Alice and the rest of the aesthetics team at tifo
Chelsea started it, Atalanta perfected it.
I think no loan long than 2 years is not good. When Chelsea loaned Courtois and Christensen to Atletico Madrid and borussia monchengladbach for 3 years, it really helped their development. And after the loan ended they went straight into the Chelsea squad and Courtois immediately became the first choice goalkeeper
Nothing stops the clubs renewing the loan each year. Just means teams have to be more savvy with their loans
This just means in that case that Courtois would be one of their 6 loanees they prioritise and they would renew every year (Christenssen would be an exemption since he was trained at the club younger).
@@schutang depends when he joined Chelsea, and I'm not sure years spent on loan count as being club trained
You say Chelsea started it but Italy had that weird co-owning idea for ages, until it was abolished in 2015. One club buys the player but the selling club keeps 50% of the rights to the player. This still exists in Argentina, Chile and Uruguay.
@@bri1085 He joined when he was 15 and got loaned out when he was 18. That would count as the 36 months
I like this video of yours and I consider your content as the most thorough, concise and best on every aspect..
hats off 🎩
Would clubs (in theory) be able to "sell" a player on a free, perhaps still contributing to their wage at the new club, but simply have a stupidly low buy-back clause on it? Hopefully the legislation would cover things like this, but I'd imagine clubs will be looking for & finding loopholes pretty quickly.
You cant patch up all the loopholes. Thats just not possible. But just seeing that they actually do kinda care about fixing the issue is a step in the right direction
Now big teams will “sell” their players with option to take back. City will sell all the players to the city group clubs and loan out from those clubs.
Right on point with City, but which good footballer will agree to play for Girona or (chuckles) NY City FC, when he could properly play in other EPL side with all the benefits?
@@A-Grat-A yeah I agree, but mostly players with lower reputation are loaned out. If I was a 23 year-old championship level player, I’d accept going Girona or NYC and then to be loaned out.
Exactly. Very little will change. This encourages feeder clubs and would actually harm the majority of the smaller clubs if you think about it.
when I played FM14 this was my key to success. I had to have a great academy system first and when I did, I loaned out so many of the youngsters. I also bought and signed free transfers to be sent out for at least 3 years. When these players were ready or had improved, I promoted them to first team and sold some others. Usually after 1-2 seasons bigger clubs came to me and bought them. Then I signed more players and repeated.
Sometimes I kept players loaned out for much longer like 5-6 years, even topped at 10 years lol I just renewed his contract and I sent him to many clubs that he became a polyglot with speaking 8 languages lol
Would love a video on what on earth is going on with loans in Serie A... I swear that Italian football is basically one big accountancy scam these days.
Having a club limit of 33 signed players would also go a long way to helping the problems these rules are trying to solve. Obviously my suggestion is just for the professional first team so U-23 etc. sides wouldn’t count but yeah 33 players maximum on the first team roster would be great. Most clubs only use 22 players regularly anyways. It would be really risky to loan out more than a few of a 33 man roster.
instead of 22 year olds being on loan, they will now be stuck in the U23 team. Brilliant.
I fear this reform could destroy italian serie B and serie C, where a lot of teams have little to no money and the league provides meager revenue and quite often they became loan farms
I think it will discourage bigger clubs from buying so many in the first place, leaving more talents on the free agent market or simply clubs will terminate their contracts early to dispose of them which again will result in more free agents for smaller clubs to pick up
It will most likely help serie b and c clubs as the can invest the money in the academy.
@@LuBeDaddY12 they have no money, every year 4/5 clubs default
It's not good , players need to grow and they're not going to get those chances with this thing
Exactly! Even in Serie A many teams rely on various loans. This seems like it will destroy Italian football to a degree
Think this is a great scheme to stop the big clubs storing talent.
And atalanta
It also means players will make less, which is the real point.
@ur couzin by limiting the number of clubs that can bid for their services, especially the bigger clubs that can pay more in salary, the rule will depress wages for players. It's a tradeoff for competitive balance, but at the expense of players, not clubs.
@@alhollywood6486 Player wages are already way too inflated, especially in the premier league, so if this deinflates their wages, that can only be a good thing
@@croco3671 It’s not your business how much money someone else makes
I still dont get how *this* is unfair...
You don't get how one club retaining the contract on at least 64 players more than their registered league squad is unfair to other teams? How clubs with the financial clout and reputation to attract the better players being able to simply sign as many as they want, thereby dictating which other teams are allowed access to those players' talents is unfair to other teams? Really?
Its unfair for player...
Their 'safety net' as loaner get restricted
@@KindredBrujah
TBH, no.
Those players arent in a vault somewhere missing their carrers.
*Usually* they are playing at middle or smalls teams that otherwise would have never been able to afford them.
Ergo, big teams also spread the talent.
These arent fooballers passing their whole contracts at the bench without doing nothing for years.
I mean, if a few guys never made to the team that originally signed them, is kinda ridiculous to be "traumatized" for that.
It is not like footballers are tied to teams anymore, this is not the late 80's. They can always demand liberation and go somewhere else if they dont like it.
Moreover if players are active.
The only players i see stuck at teams, are those who lowered their level and nobody wants them because of that.
@@rexcolt9742 I wasn't talking about players, I was talking about other teams. Of course the players want to stay at the big club if they think there's a chance they can eventually get into the first team. These big clubs are absolutely preying on that to keep these guys on contract.
However, in a system where this sort of loan army is not possible, those players will likely go to other teams in the same division (if they're good enough), maybe not earn quite as much, but still plenty, but will have a chance to be truly part of a different organisation. It also means, again if the players are good, that the league itself will be more competitive. As it is right now, the bigger clubs have all the power to refuse to loan these players to teams in their own division they might perceive as a threat, at least somewhat neutering them in the process.
@@KindredBrujah
Players are still loaned to other teams. They arent vaulted.
Other teams also have access to those footballers.
Many times, talent that would be stuck for a longer period in their native leagues, are bought and brought to teams that wouldnt have the money to buy them in first place.
While the main benefit is reducing the hoovering up of young talent, an added benefit will hopefully be that, say in the case of Drinkwater: Chelsea would have been far more incentivised to sell him permanently and pay part of his wages than keep loaning him out (esp as he never really looked like appreciating in value since they bought him)
Tbf Chelsea's problem with Drinkwater is not a lack of wanting to sell him, but rather a lack of buyers wanting to buy him. If anything this means that bigger clubs will be forced to cut their losses and maybe smaller teams can pick these sort of players on loan. Especially since these players would have to cut their salary requirements in order to be picked up by a club.
@@joshbrown2217 I feel like we've both come to the same conclusion? That Chelsea would have been wanting to sell him earlier, and therefore had more incentive to cover more of his wages to make that sale happen, rather than have him rot in reserves while they send development players out on loan
@@joshbrown2217
Well, just like the stock market, if you hold the bag (stock) for too long... you know the rest.
As a principle chelsea tend to not like “cutting their losses” but drink water is in a particularly niche situation. His value is bottom drawer simply because of his character/actions and the fact that he never will live up to being sold for about 40M. They were sending him on loan to lesser teams while covering his wage simply for drink water + loan club to get a mutual understanding of “this is good for me”. He won’t cough up those wages though, and why break a contract when you don’t need to in his case.
Generally, though, you’re right. With younger players like van ginkel, for example, they actively look for buying solutions and the player agrees. Younger players are always more likely to hold value
2 million transfer with 2 million buy back clause sounds like an example of a workaround
Difference being that it leaves the choice of whether to go back or not with the player, unlike today where they have to go back to where they are contracted.
Buying clubs would never accept that, the buy back will always have to be higher, at the very least they'd demand a fee that would cover the cost of the players wages for the length of the contract.
Buy back clauses are gonna become very popular 😅
Exactly. Basically a loan in another guise.
@@alanz3497 Or it turns into the Eibar scheme of sign a fringe La Liga guy from Madrid or Barca for a couple million and fling him back 10 games later for 10 million after proving he belongs.
there will be more buy back clauses and more systems like red bull and city project to move players as transfer but within same umbrella
Surely this just helps multi club networks as City or Leipzig could just "sell" a player to Troyes/Girona/Salzburg and include a buy back for the same amount
The problem is Girona's a Segunda Division side and the English foreign signing rule/La Liga EU rules get into the way.
City can still loan players between the city group of clubs
They will "sell" their player to "other clubs" who apparently have city in their name and will by these rules
Which shouldn't be an issue at all considering they are their affliates
@@malikbrathwaite3708 agreed it isn’t an issue. City kind of broken football with their system
@@Hakwbebsu26 to me it's ridiculous. I work for Sports Interactive gaming and we have a lot of licenses to deal with. City is the biggest headache because they don't keep everything 100% visible. They do a lot of under the table deals and are expanding like crazy.
Of course Barcelona, Bayern, Real Madrid etc. All have B teams, do loaning players from these clubs count toward the total club loan list or na?
Bayern have c, d, e, f..... too
Bayern C - Dortmund
Bayern D - Leipzig
Bayern E - Hoffenheim
I wasn't aware of this, thanks!
This is crazy. I was just thinking about this recently
This seems easy to get around in cases of clubs with associated clubs like the City Group. Surely you would simply buy players for a ridiculously cheap price such as €1 and buy them back for the same price or use sponsors to give the money back instantaneously
Thank goodness fifa for once did something right in ending this nefarious practice of buying youth players then loaning them out for seasons on end whilst being on contract with the parent club until their contract runs out and they basically spend half a decade of their career doing nothing substantial
Ask that to courthois or Christensen
@@atiqueteimporta12345 they’re exceptions to the norm. I’m talking about the players who wasted their careers being on contract at the big clubs just to never play a single game for said clubs and then ending up not panning out
Literally, nothing will change for Chelsea, they already abide by these new rules. Don't get it confused, players choose to re-sign, if someone like Izzy Brown wanted to leave earlier for a trash tier EFL team he could. These players are determined to prove themselves and make it to the first team, don't blame Chelsea for that.
@@BladeCentralHD By my count Chelsea currently have 22 players out on loan. According to these rules, 8 would be exemptions for being U21 and 3 years at the club.
There are 14 other players, including multimillion pound signings like Batshuayi, Rahman, Bakayoko, Drinkwater, Kenedy and Emerson. Isn't that a bit more than 8 that the regulations will allow to go out on loan?
It screws the players. They sign with big clubs because they offer the best wages. But of course, no one cares about the players.
We need an in depth video on the EPPP
Will this also affect loans with mandatory/optional future fees? I think a club like Stoke signing a fringe PL player with the option to buy is a huge advantage for both sides and should be encouraged. The loaning side can appraise the player and experiment with them, while taking on some or all of the cost from the loaning side, who will either get the fee at the end or a more happy player who might have their confidence back. It wouldn't make sense to use one of your six loans on a player who is definitely going to join; at that point a full transfer makes sense. But that eliminates things like partial wage contribution that allow smaller clubs to meet FFP and prepare for the arrival of the player and their wages.
truly catastrophic news for my Football Manager saves
Bet almost every Premier league team have atleast 1 player from Chelsea academy.
They monopolised the youth talent more than a decade now. Anyone know who Islam Feruz is?
Did you watch the video. Chelsea aren't even the worst PL offender at the moment.
And the funny thing is sometimes those academy players perform better than the 50 million big name signings we make
When I first heard about this change I was against it but this video explains it in detail and made me change my mind.
Xavi future plans doing quite well in this case. I'm also sure the Redbull system will continue functioning well within these new regulations.
Great piece
And on top of that there is also a practice in leagues like Serie A, where two clubs will own one player in a 50-50% and they can always just go back and forth and buy a majority percentage ownership. So it's like a hybrid of purchasing and loaning the very same player.
They banned co ownership years ago
Any thoughts or information on how purchase options/obligations attached to loans can affect these new regulations? Loans seem to be used more as a way of delaying payments these days (Spurs fan here, so Romero and Kulusevski come to mind). I would understand if these fall into the same category as non-exempt loans, but I believe that they serve a different purpose so could warrant a further examination.
What about teams from small leagues who have a restriction on foreign players and loan foreigns?
Bravo chaps! Excellent explainer video
I think the loan rule will push potential young(under 24-25yo) players to lower league, who will hardly ever make it to the top and make the price of those who make it to the top very very high.
in the mad days of co-ownership in serie a you would see clubs like udinese, parma, genoa effectively loan out 70 players a season on average, in the case of udinese they brought granada and watford and basically supplied both sides with a whole new starting 11.
I think that this will actually increase player hoarding because large clubs will still want to grab young talent and they will do this when they are younger so I think youth teams will grow among the top leagues as clubs try to buy them soon enough so that they can be loaned out without counting towards the total and then they will just sell them on when they reach 21. This change will lead to larger hoarding of youth but less hoarding of older players which could decrease the large gap between clubs it could prevent clubs like Birmingham City from getting another Jude Bellingham as he would have been lured away when he was much younger so that a bigger club could send him out on loan in a few years.
Fifa could add a player registration cap for each club across their over 16 age groups. Combined with the loan restriction it would prevent the farm club systems from building up. If a club is limited to say 65 registrations across all age groups there would be a limit to how many slots they will prospect on 16 year olds. Conversely smaller clubs or large clubs in smaller countries could benefit from this from being able to access more promising talent to develop and sell.
I was beginning to worry about *Chelsea's* business model, where loans are concerned, until 1:51 exemptions came up. *So basically 'tis business as usual for my FC* 😊
EDIT: 2:58 Okay, maybe not😬
Eh. We'd just have to sell the guys like drinkwater or just let the contract run down
Wouldn't this benefit clubs with sister teams? eg mancity and the RB clubs
It wouldn’t necessarily benefit them, but it will definitely lessen the effects of the new regulations, but not by much.
I’m pretty sure that governing bodies won’t look favorably upon teams selling players to a sister team for way below their actual value in order to skirt the rules.
Yes it would
@@Ren_1090 what are they going to do exactly?? All City has to do is say they wanted the player off the books and the buying team was the only one interested.
@@Smidgzmo ehhh there’s already investigations ongoing about inflating transfer prices going on in Italy, specifically with Juventus being highlighted, so I’d imagine investigations into the opposite wouldn’t be out of the question.
Brilliant video 👏🏻
I think they could've done without the ban on 2 yr loans. I think those are beneficial to young players since it would give their careers some stability as they don't have to move to another club the following season.
Just renew the 12 month loan after the first one ends?
I like these proposals, and i certainly look forward to them being implemented domestically in the next few years. It will encourage young players to remain at their 2nd or 3rd division clubs for longer, albeit at 2nd and 3rd division wages. However the £2k a week they might get at a Championship or League 1 club in England is hardly poverty wages.
I see a lot of talk about 'buy-back' clauses on here but are people forgetting that the player has to agree to return to the senior club? If the chances of regular first team football remain slim maybe they'll take their chance at a mid to lower premier league club that can guarantee regular game time?
This rule seems to have been very well thought out
Would like to see Tifo video on how 22' World Cup will affect football calendar!
Wasn't there some rule change about 20 years ago that made the big clubs cut down their squad sizes? That's why Bolton got Okocha, Djorkaeff, etc. this sounds like it could have similar impact on the big clubs. But it sounds brutal for the lower leagues.
Is there anything stopping permanent loans with buy backs. So selling for £10m with a buyback clause for £12m and meeting it after one season (essentially a loan with a £2m fee)
Man City allready has a work around in place with Sandler to Feyenoord. He is sold under a complex construction where there is no transfer fee payed + a buy back option. Therefore, will this solve the problems??
this is great news; for a more competitive league(s) across Europe.
2 changes I want to see.
1. Scrap Jan transfer window.
Whatever club a player is at on Sept 1st, he is going to be there until June 1st the following year.
2. Limit squad numbers to 30.
In all honesty, who actually plays 30 different players?
Everytime I see city in the thumbnail I always thinking that broke the rules like always
It's always made me wonder why young players even agree to go to these big clubs. Sure, as a 17-18 year old, it might seem cool to sign for one of the big teams like Chelsea or Man City, but unless you're an absolute wonderkid, surely you must know that you're realistically never going to get near the first team.
Instead you're just gonna get swallowed up by their gargantuan youth systems, get farmed out on loan continuously to numerous different teams, you'll never spend long enough anywhere to settle in or find any sort of groove or consistency, so you never really improve much or reach any potential you might have had. Then suddenly you find yourself at the age of 23-24, you've become a journeyman who's played for 8 or 9 different clubs and never hit your potential, and now you're surplus to requirements at your 'parent' club and get released.
You see it happen so often in todays game.
I've not fully thought this through yet, but could a limit on the total number of players any one club can have under contract make any difference?
(At each level/age group)
If you can only register 25 (?) players for the Premier league season, why allow for any more? Let's say that under 23s don't count, but you could have a limit of them also. Therefore, a premier league club could in fact have a maximum of 50 players available to play in the season, albeit half of them are under 23.
This might mean that more higher quality players are available to the less wealthy clubs AND potentially increase overall playing time for the youngsters as injuries/suspensions force them onto the pitch...
The biggest loophole is the domestic market. I can tell you because I have a squad of 512 players in Football Manager and I apply strictly these FIFA rules for the international market (I like realism). I make more than £300M per year in loan fees. Another legal strategy I use is to buy European players with 15-17 years. After 3 years they are club-trained and can be loaned without limits for substantial profit for 2-3 years till there are 22.
The only interesting rule is the max of 3 loans in each direction between two clubs which is aimed at City and RedBull group farms.
These new loan regulations are a cosmetic fix, if FIFA wanted to solve the problem they would impose a hard limit for both domestic and international markets with no exceptions for club-trained players and/or age. An alternative to address signing 15-18 EU players is to place a limit per year on such signings as the Premier League has done. These are the only realistic ways to prevent me becoming filthy rich with player trafficking in Football Manager or the elite clubs in real to continue being so.
I think its time to bring in a draft system for each respective league. Ie team finishing bottom gets to pick a youth player from the team who finished 1st.
Team finishing bottom relegates to the lower tier, as it should.
Otherwise we would be encouraging "coasting" and we know from the US sports that it's a bad thing for the entertainment and the integrity of the sport.
What about clubs buying other clubs or opening b teams? Doesn’t this promote opening a new club? Buying a different club in the same or different country and have them develop players and send some players on loan.
I didn't hear a word about how this affects the players, you know, actual people. These loaned players are making better wages, but who cares, right? It's "unfair".
I would argue having a more stable playing career is a good thing for the players. And besides, often the club that loans the player pays their full wage. If they're willing to pay the full wage on a loan deal, then they'd probably also be willing to pay close to those figures if they actually owned the player.
Leagues one and two only survive due to the loan market. Want to win promotion? Get a couple of great young loan strikers from premier league clubs. But it does lead to January windows where clubs lose 5 'season long' players back to parent clubs and have to replace them with half a team on loan for the rest of the season.
fm over reality uh
You probably play too much FM. In real life premier League clubs would rarely loan their player to a league two team for five consecutive seasons.
This is a good change. More permanent moves and less hoarding of players.
lol, the clubs will just send their players to their feeder clubs and everything will be the same. This will eventually hurt the smaller clubs.
@@titofernandez1500 the smaller clubs will be managed by the big clubs so no worries about finances, not everyone can be sent to the fielders club. This will bring more competition in smaller leagues and if the players develop well, they'll be sold at a profit to the main club. Roman is trying to buy a small club in Brazil for this reason to reduce CFC loan army.
@@saraha2250 aren't that basically American system with MLB and Minor League
This will change how I play football manager, I'm guilty of holding to players saying "just in case they become good next season"
Just a small correction, if you don't mind: "and theoretically promotes a more even spread of talent across the game IN EUROPE" (2:46).
Latin-american and african clubs will still have their very young talents leaving their countries to play in Europe.
Are you able to bypass this new rule by selling a player for free for a season to a club who has agreed to sell him back at the end of the season for free, or put in a €0 buy back fee.
Bruh
So how long are we giving it before clubs find loopholes?
Newly promoted clubs won't like this for sure
My one worry is big clubs have the financial power for much larger scouting networks, so I fear players from developing nations won't get as much chance; I HATE loan armies and love development but admittedly have this concern.
perfect way to get by: put buy back clauses into contracts that the buy back clauses are cheaper than the original fee, and clubs can now decide whenever they want to trigger the clause🤓
You think buying clubs will accept that??? 🤷
@@risvymahi3118 u get semi good player in your team on cheap, yes. Or they just go to relegation zone. If u look only true competitive league is Premiership. Spain has 3 teams (Athletico, Real, Barcą) France (PSG) Germany (BVB Bayern)....
@@mateuszzimon8216 other teams are not fools.... you'll see in time....
@@risvymahi3118 u can buy team now for less than 1M£ in third Polish league. Sell players to this team for zero to none money and buy back for one pound.
Also some cities are giving money to teams to stay (Volleyball teams in Poland gets a 0,3M just to stay, halls for free, just to play in this city)
@@mateuszzimon8216 bro if they send players to partner club thats other story.... im talking about separate clubs...not partner clubs.....
Could you name the 12 CITY players who do meet the criteria of exemptions? Do you have a source? Did you consider the fact that many of those players are out of contract coming summer or on an 'obligation to buy loan' contracts, so ideally you should not count them, as the rule comes to place only from the next season?
what is to stop clubs from selling with a buy back option?
Hm I don't know, can't Clubs just work with buyback clauses to effectively loan a player out and get them back still.
Overall I think this really is a step in the right direction, but I dont fully understand the need for a 1 year maximum. First of all clubs already will be less likely to do them, cause they will limit next years max to 5 loans and secondly I dont feel they would harm the loan market
Hey Tifo, I would really like you guys to take on the topic of the difference in wages between men's and women's football. I feel this is not touched upon by anyone except female players or supporters and usually men undermine the importance of the topic. I hope you shine a light on a glaring social issue that translates to all sports and that doesn't seem to have a solution soon, cheers.
A negative impact can be to motivate hiring of even younger players from abroad (specially South America), so the youth player can fit in the exemptions. Casemiro, e.g., wouldn't fit on the exemption and would develop himself on Porto before being integrated on Real Madrid. Many good players without European experience would have to go through the ranks of smaller leagues and just arrive at the big clubs older, after being tested.
I think it will help the players to have some consistancy. Rather than player for 5 separate teams in 5 years, playing under 5 different systems. It would help player growth.
Don't talk mess about ZLATAN!
Why would any team have 40+ players in loan? I don’t understand
maybe if they have so many good youth players but they can just play for the reserve sides
It can be countered by owners buying few clubs and spread these players around like Redbull
Honestly, the guy who does the Voice overs for these Tifo videos needs to introduce my mixtape 🔥
Fringe players would now have to settle for less salary going forward as they would no longer be on larger club's book. Not sure if they would be happy about that.
This literally won't change anything though. Big clubs are building multi-club networks and therefore the players in question will just go to the "feeder clubs" in the network before being deemed worthy enough to come to the groups "lead club." Or buy back clauses will become rife as someone else has mentioned, an easy way to basically loan without loaning.
It might slightly curb the behavior of big clubs but it won’t last, they’ll just figure out a workaround or realize that they don’t actually need to hoard so many players, either way nothing will fundamentally change. This is not gonna do anything to close the gap between rich clubs and other clubs
Manchester City has 2 players I can think of (Ferran Torres to Barca and Sandler to Feyenoord) where they have the first right to buy back the player if they match the same bid as another club.
If there are no restrictions on these 'sales', this will be the future loaning players out
Is this going to push down players' wages?
Good video 😊
I see a lot of out of favor senior players just getting bought out of their contacts, like Arsenal did with Ozil, Auba, Kolasinac, Mhkitaryian, Mustafi, Sokratis
What about the sides that have two teams like Barca and baca b and every big Spanish club ?
They can go around the rule by hoarding more than other teams ?
It would be nice if these reforms were for u23 players to accommodate the MLS system in the States where they are drafted out of college. This would allow the young players to spend some years as development players as well as go the full 4 years of post secondary education.
loans have effectively destroyed a lot of talents in multiple levels across the board
a certainty of future is an added motivation for a player , further proven with the examples of salah and kdb choosing not to be like van ginkel and getting to explore another club
Chelsea has played a huge part in destruction , rather unwittingly or otherwise , some otherwise massive talents , something which they are trying to change recently
but the rules are definitely going to make.things better and for the clubs and the players imo
I like the idea I think once it gets implemented they need to improve on a couple of the technicalities of it but they're still give more clubs a chance to get talented young players and bring them through but this video says where you have all the big clubs buying the most talented young players and just hoarding them and sending them on loan 20 times