AC Milan’s story of the summer looks to be their pursuit of Joshua Zirkzee. Frustratingly, though, as most tales do, there is a foe in the way, in this case, Kia Joorabchian and his commission demands. Today, Felice Raimondo spoke about the situation and shed light on the possibilities of the commission.
As much as Milan may have led the race, just because you have does not make a deal complete, and if football worked in such a way, it is impossible to suggest how different things could be. However, the Rossoneri are running a real risk of losing a race at the final stages, but it is not their fault, so to speak.
Instead, the finger can be pointed at Joorabchian, who has demanded a €15 million commission to be paid for the transfer to occur. Which the Diavolo are against, and Giorgio Furlani is trying to lower this whilst also concocting other plans, as we reported exclusively last night.
Ahead of the mercato’s opening and the activation of the release clause, Raimondo spoke about the commission regulations to Milan News.
Mr Raimondo, taking the Milan-Zirkzee issue as a starting point. Is it technically possible to ask for such a high percentage (37.5%) for a commission?
“It depends on whether the mandate was signed before 1 October 2023 (when the new ceilings set by FIFA come into force) and, if the mandate is later, whether FIFA has temporarily suspended the new rules worldwide pending the CJEU’s ruling. If such high fees are demanded, the answer is obviously to be found in one of the two previous hypotheses.”
Another question is who should pay the commission. Shouldn’t a player’s representative be paid by his client? Why should a club take on such significant charges?
“Commissions follow the mandate, so the agent is paid by the entity that entrusted him with the task (to represent, player-side, or to buy or sell, club-side). However, especially in the case of zero parameters or payments with rescission clauses, signing bonuses – improperly termed commissions – are often demanded, which the player, in agreement with his agent, can request from the purchasing club.
“Think of the recent Mbappe’s case. There are, then, other cases in which even the fee that should directly pay the player is paid by the club. In fact, after the conclusion of the contract with the club, the player can give his written consent authorising the club receiving the professional service to pay the sports agent directly on his behalf according to the terms and conditions set out in the mandate.”
From a budgetary point of view, do the commissions add up to the cost of the player? Is there amortisation for the €15m?
“Many clubs, such as AC Milan, amortise the commissions (and any other related costs, e.g. sell on fees) together with the cost of the player’s card. Let’s think of the case of Leao, whose historic cost in Milan’s balance sheet increased by 20 million after the Rossoneri re-contracted the sell-on fee with Lille (a solution linked to the fine that the boy had to pay solidly with the French club). Thanks to that operation, Milan will amortise the new residual cost of Leao until 2028.”
In the market narrative, the part of the ‘big bad wolf’ is being played at the moment by the agent who would actually obstruct the transfer. But is this legally possible? Or does the player in fact have to be aware of this fee and approve it?
“It is not possible for an agent to prevent the conclusion of a market negotiation. The player always has the final say and therefore endorses and tolerates the way in which he is represented. Otherwise, the fiduciary bond underlying the mandate would be broken and the mandate would be revoked.”
From 2025 we read that this will change with ceilings set for commissions. What will change in practice in club-agent-player relations?
“If the European Court of Justice deems the regulations established by FIFA to be legitimate, from 2025 the old proxies renewed by 1/10/23 will expire and, therefore, the new caps on commissions will be definitively applied. That is, 3% of the gross fee without bonus (fixed base only) in cases where the mandate is entrusted only to the player or only to the purchasing club; 6% of the gross fee without bonus (fixed base only) in cases where the mandate is entrusted to the player and also to the purchasing club; 10% of the value of the card in cases where the mandate is entrusted to the transferring club.”