"The 20-year-old demon forward Adriano, do you have any old iron to fight for the order? Pull the group now."
An operation like this really appeared in Serie A nearly 20 years ago, and more than once. Of course, when Inter Milan and Parma talk about Ade’s "singling together", the operation is much more complicated than in the celebrity group.
In the past ten years, FIFA, UEFA and national football associations and league companies have been working together. Many parties hope to gradually purify the operation by promoting various reform measures based on the current environment and future trends of football. The football market is slightly chaotic and filled with a series of opaque black box operations.
The multi-party co-ownership of the players and the resulting problems are also one of the focal points that the above-mentioned major institutions hope to improve. When it comes to this topic, the "Serie A Pinduoduo" era is naturally one of the event centers that cannot be avoided.
Ownership itself is a relatively basic legal concept, and it is not complicated to use in the football market. It is expressed in an easy-to-understand way: the buyer’s club and the seller’s club negotiate the transaction of specific players, and the two parties reach an agreement The transfer fee is collected and delivered, and the players are transferred in the form of similar assets, and then they can register the players to fight for the buyer.
However, in the real football market, the parties involved in many operations in the past are not limited to the buyer/seller club and the player themselves (the agent is included in the player team). There may be multiple institutions or individuals on both sides of the buyer/seller. participate. As one of the leagues that have long stood at the apex of world football, "Serie A Pinduoduo" has the highest popularity, but it is not as controversial as Portugal and Latin America.
Among the players from Latin America, there are countless cases where third-party companies/individuals have partial ownership of them. Kaka, Tevez, Ze Roberto, Ramirez, etc., can even be said to be most well-known First-tier South American stars have more or less similar experiences, and Neymar and Falcao may be the two most typical cases of South American player transfers that occurred after 2010.
After moving from South America to European football, Neymar has gradually grown into the most appealing superstar in the world, but there are also a series of lawsuits that follow. According to legend, in the early years, he took over 40% of his ownership of DIS and Neymar for several years. In addition to DIS, he had another 5% of his ownership controlled by TEISA.
"Tiger" Falcao's two consecutive transfers can be regarded as a business model for the successful profiteering of the agency players. When he moved to Atletico Madrid from Porto for 40 million euros, the DOYEN Group owned 55% of him, but did not choose to cash out.
Facts proved their vicious vision. Falcao, who was unstoppable at Atletico Madrid, was subsequently purchased by Monaco for a higher value of 60 million. At this time, DOYEN saw the right time to make a move. After two years of dormancy, he netted 11 million euros.
The joint ownership model of Serie A is different from that of South America. Although its operation mode cannot be said to be exactly the same, it is similar to Pinduoduo to some extent. Its essence is to share costs through a model similar to "Pingduoduo". The risk is also shared.
There are countless well-known players who have been part of the operating model of Serie A’s shared ownership, including Astori, Giovenco, Boateng, Jorginho, Berardi, Immobile and even now Juventus. Gellini was once jointly owned by the two clubs, and the most famous example is Adriano, which was once shared by Inter Milan and Parma.
We can directly use the example of Adriano to explain some of the details of the joint ownership. The transfer fee and other relevant data are all referenced by German transfer.
In the summer of 2002, Adriano's contract with Inter Milan was at least two years away, which met one of the necessary conditions for a half-ownership transaction. At this time, Parma was interested, Inter Milan sold half of his ownership to Parma for 14.5 million euros, and gave Adriano the registration rights for the next two seasons to Parma, the Brazilian can play for the latter.
Theoretically speaking, if Inter Milan and Palmada agree at this time, Ade can continue to play for Inter; or the two sides can also reach an agreement to rent Ade to a third club without his ownership, but these two options are not at the time. Parma is meaningless, they desperately need the help of this striker.
After two seasons, Adrienne rose to fame and became a top Serie A striker. Inter Milan bought back half of Parma's ownership for 23.4 million euros, and Adriano became a 100% Inter player. Generally speaking, the two clubs will only agree to let this player play for at most two seasons in the club that bought his 50% ownership, and then they need to negotiate how to decide his final ownership after the end of the second season.
In this case, Inter Milan is very optimistic about Ade’s intention to repurchase. Once the two parties fail to reach an agreement in negotiation, they will finally enter an "open envelope" link, or in a way that we can understand better, it can be said to be "Blind shooting", this will be discussed later.
2014 can be called the end of the "multi-party shared ownership" system. On May 28, 2014, the Italian Football Association announced that it will abolish the special contract form of "shared ownership" at the next transfer window (due to a sudden incident, the contract that was in execution at the time can still be executed for one year);
Later, on September 27, 2014, the FIFA official website announced that it would prohibit third parties from participating in player transfers and ownership matters in the future, and this ban was officially announced in April 2015.
From time to time, FIFA and UEFA, who stand on opposite sides, fought side by side on this incident. Both sides have long hated this system.
In 2013, UEFA President Platini, who was invited to participate in the “Global Football Forum” in Dubai, said: “Some people think that third-party ownership makes players money slaves. I don’t want to go too far, I just want to say that this approach is easy to play in the club. Incorrect relationships with speculators interfere with the fairness of football and provide a breeding ground for money laundering."
The spearhead of these remarks was more directed at the trend of "third-party ownership" led by South American football, but in the end it also indirectly caused the era of "Serie A Pinduoduo" to die together.
The logic of "existence is reasonable" is often criticized and hooligans, but at least "shared ownership" can prevail for many years, and it must have its advantages that are hard to deny.
The "shared ownership" model has some similarities with the popular rent-and-buy model, but there are obvious differences. In most cases, this type of transaction is dominated by big clubs, selling half of the ownership of their players to small and medium clubs at relatively low prices.
If it is just a loan without a buyout clause, it is only a short-term mercenary for small and medium clubs. Although it may be able to provide more immediate combat power than the current lineup, there will be some concerns about how to use it;
And if it is a lease with a buyout clause, big clubs may worry about losing the initiative after the lease expires. At this time, the "shared ownership" model appears to be relatively compromised. Both parties have 50% ownership, and both parties can make an offer to buy the other half. If the two sides fail to reach an agreement after the first season, they can automatically delay one season.
After the second season, if there are still no results, then it will enter the “opening the envelope” mentioned above, that is, the “blind shooting” link. The two sides submit their bid to the football association without knowing the other party’s bid. For the remaining half-ownership price, the highest price will be awarded; assuming that there is an extreme coincidence of the same price, then the player's current registered team will get him.
Although generally speaking, people feel that after entering the “blind shooting” stage, the richer clubs will still have an advantage. This is an objective fact that cannot be denied, but at least the program gives small and medium clubs the opportunity to try. Suddenly the sparrow becomes a phoenix, and there are local tyrants here? What if a big club mispredicted the situation of "blind shooting" by being too optimistic, so that the small and medium clubs took advantage?
Even if big clubs raise their quotations in order to ensure success in the "blind shooting", at least small and medium clubs will have the opportunity to obtain transfer fees higher than the market price, which can be regarded as a kind of compensation.
At the competitive level, because small and medium-sized clubs have more chances to acquire this player permanently than simply on loan, they will be more daring to use them in the league, and even build a team around them as the core. Parma is a typical example. Whether it is Adriano or Giovinco, it is precisely because the "shared ownership" system gives them a sense of security and a sense of security that they will dare to reuse these semi-finished young people who still need time and ball rights to experience.
Similarly, for big clubs, such as Adriano and Giovinco's clubs Juventus and Inter Milan, they are not short of money, but the current lineup does not give these potential newcomers room to grow. . With this model, they can safely hand over the newcomer to each other for one to two years of training, and they don’t have to worry that the last bamboo basket will be empty-the worst is to pay more for the "blind shooting", and in case When I was buying a newcomer, I didn’t look at it. Couldn’t someone help to share it?
同样，对于阿德里亚诺（Adriano）和乔维柯（Giovinco）的尤文图斯（Juventus）和国际米兰（International Milan）等大型俱乐部来说，他们也不乏钱财，但是目前的阵容并没有给这些潜在的新移民提供增长的空间。 。使用这种模型，他们可以安全地将新来者彼此进行一到两年的培训，而且他们不必担心最后一个竹篮将是空的，最糟糕的是为“盲目射击”付出更多。 ”，以防万一我在购买新移民时没有留意。有人帮忙分享吗？
The "shared ownership" model also has its drawbacks. In short, when the player is involved in the next transfer, there are more participants, which creates potential obstacles to the transfer.
In 2012, Juventus sold half of the previous Serie B Golden Boot Immobile transfer fee to Genoa for 4 million euros, and the player himself will also go to Genoa to play. However, Immobile did not show his ability to win the Golden Boots in Turin and compete with Lewand in the European Golden Boots this season. He played 33 times and only scored in 2019 minutes of league appearance The 5-ball performance is somewhat disappointing.
2012年，尤文图斯将先前Serie B Golden Boot Immobile转会费的一半出售给了热那亚，为400万欧元，球员本人也将去热那亚踢球。但是，Immobile并没有表现出他本赛季在都灵赢得金靴奖和与勒万德竞争的欧洲金靴奖的能力。他出场33次，仅在2019年联赛出场时间就得分.5球表现有些令人失望。
But Immobile is not short of a home. Juventus bought back half of the ownership from Genoa a season later, and sold the half to Turin. As mentioned in the previous paragraph, he was shining and hot in Turin and was taken in by the Bundesliga powerhouse Dortmund. At this time, the hidden dangers of the "Pinduoduo" model are exposed.
Since Juventus and Turin each own 50% of their ownership, Dortmund had a headache for a time when they did not directly negotiate how to deal with the ownership issue, and did not know who to talk to. And there are differences between Juventus and Turin on the transfer fee. Juventus, the bigwig Juventus, naturally thinks that it should be sold more expensive, or 25 million euros, while Turin, which holds the other half of the ownership, has less demanding requirements, 18 million euros. Is satisfied. Of course, whether it is 25 million euros or 18 million euros, the final income of the two companies will naturally be half.
Fortunately, in the end, Dortmund successfully won Immobile for around 19 million euros. Regardless of the future development, it was undoubtedly an opportunity that Immobile could go to the Hornet at that time. , If the transfer fee is delayed due to the participation of more parties, and the ownership issue cannot be resolved, you may regret it for life.
This risk is also one of the key factors in Serie A's final decision to abolish this type of contract. They are the only ones that may exist in mainstream leagues and allow players to be owned by more than one party. If they do not agree with other leagues on this issue, There may be more such incidents in the future. This time Immobile successfully transferred, the next "Immobile" may not be so lucky.
On the other hand, the “blind shooting” system sometimes brings some oolong incidents that could have been avoided. In 2011, Inter Milan and Bologna conducted a “blind auction” on the ownership of Viviano. According to the regulations, Inter Milan only needs to fill in the intention to buy back Viviano. They fill in 4.1 million euros, while Bologna As Viviano played for the team at the time, you need to fill in both the other half of the ownership quote and the full ownership column.
另一方面，“盲目射击”系统有时会带来一些可以避免的乌龙事件。 2011年，国际米兰和博洛尼亚就Viviano的所有权进行了“盲拍卖”。根据规定，国际米兰只需要填写回购Viviano的意向即可。他们花了410万欧元，而博洛尼亚（Bologna As Viviano）当时为车队效力，您需要填写所有权报价的另一半和完整所有权栏。
Bologna experienced Pedrelli’s expected bid for half of his ownership was 4.7 million euros, so he should fill in the two figures of 4.7 million and 9.4 million, but he didn’t know why he only filled in the figure of 4.7 million and made a serious mistake. . From this, the Serie A league determined that Pedrelli’s 4.7 million offer was for the total value, so his offer for half of the ownership was only 2.35 million euros, which was lower than Inter’s 4.1 million. The Italian international who played well at the time was extremely low. Price leave the team.
In the final analysis, Bologna’s re-emergence was caused by manager Pedrili’s own mistakes. The dumping system seems to be somewhat unsuitable, but if Serie A does not adopt this system like other leagues, it will indeed not happen A ridiculous accident.
Now that "third-party ownership" and "co-ownership" have been officially banned for many years, this does not mean that the football market is completely "pure" as expected by UEFA and FIFA.
In 2016, the Alledes disaster came out of the mouth, and many behind-the-scenes were also made public. A reporter from the "Daily Telegraph" pretended to be a businessman and got in touch with him in an vain attempt to fish, but he did not expect Allardys to be so foolish.
The two negotiated on the issue of the ban on "third-party ownership". Alledes talked and laughed, saying that he had a way to circumvent outside supervision and solve the problem. This is just the part he said. No one knows what the specific operation is like.
In contrast, the issue of Serie A "co-ownership" seems to be simpler than "third-party ownership". From the perspective of capital, the significance of forcibly exploiting loopholes does not seem to be so great. Returning to the normal state of the European environment will eventually It is generally accepted by Serie A clubs. With the help of various regulations and provisions, the order of world football is also moving forward towards the vision envisaged by FIFA and UEFA.