By Albatross
January 13 2006

Mike Newell's attack on agents and allegations of offers of bungs is currently one of the hottest football stories. The agents may be trying to fight a rearguard action, but fans everywhere are hoping that Newell's meetings with the FA will lead to a change for the better. Newell was hardly a popular figure at Pools, with for various reasons a lingering dislike of him to this day - but on the subject of bungs and agents he's struck a chord with HUFC fans as much as any others. However much the agents and the bodies representing them would like to pretend otherwise, Newell is mainly vocalising the views that many fans have held for a long time - and they are hoping that by speaking out, he will be the catalyst for a radical rethink of the role of agents in the modern game.

The problem for Newell may be that the written evidence that the FA is almost certain to demand to back up any allegations is likely to be thin on the ground. Most agents are shrewd enough that if such an offer is made it's almost certain to be verbal, with nothing written down - in that situation it turns into a case of his word against theirs, and the feeling is that the FA is more likely to shoot the messenger rather than rock the boat.

Even leaving aside the issue of whether bungs are offered and accepted, Newell's view of agents is one that fans at many clubs will support. The whole issue of agency is one that tends to provoke anger, and while the protestations of their self-regulating body that the vast majority are responsible people doing the best for their clients may be true, there are others that are pulling their whole profession down, leading to a view in many quarters that the typical agent is little more than a parasite.

Part of the problem is that there are too many cases where a player's agent is perceived to create trouble where there is no need. Ironically, sometimes it doesn't seem to benefit a player on the pitch either; look at Nicolas Anelka. While he is no doubt now rich beyond the dreams of avarice, his playing career is one that hardly fits someone that looked set to be one of the top strikers in Europe; he left Arsenal for Real Madrid but was on his way back to France less than a year later, before joining Liverpool on loan, Manchester City, and now Fenerbahce. At the time of writing he has not reached the 30 cap mark for France despite that early promise. I'd argue that all the big money moves haven't done much for him as a player; his fellow French international Thierry Henry meanwhile is an Arsenal Legend, regarded as one of the best players in the World, and is generally regarded much more positively than Anelka, who in this country is often seen more as a football mercenary rather than an outstanding player.

Closer to home, the situation last season with Michael Nelson did little to enamour agents to HUFC fans. The person talking to the press wasn't the player, it was his agent; and what he said reflected badly on his profession. The problem was apparently that Pools weren't sticking to a verbal agreement to renegotiate a contract, and that Nelson could get much better wages elsewhere. For a start it raised the question of how anyone negotiating a contract on behalf of a player would accept a verbal assurance that without witnesses would have no legal standing - as Sam Goldwyn said, "A verbal contract isn't worth the paper it's written on." Second, it also revealed one of the central points that Newell criticised agents for - Pools apparently refused to pay the agent's fees. Why should a club pay someone for representing the other party in a transfer deal? After all, if you were buying a house you wouldn't expect to pay the Estate Agent when the vendor has already done so.

It also highlighted the fact that massive conflicts of interest are possible, and somehow allowed. Nelson's agent also represented several club managers; how then, when one of them made a bid for the player, could the agent be acting for a party on each side without a conflict? It's also possible to level a charge at some agents that they can potentially benefit more from canvassing for a move for their client than from him staying put - the buying club may pay the agent a fee, his client could get a bigger contract, and he presumably takes his slice of it.

Are agents necessary? For some players undoubtedly. The top stars will all have their agents, and with boot deals, endorsements, increasingly now image rights and myriad other proposals put to them it makes sense to have someone to shield out the bad ideas and get a good deal for the right opportunities. However, once you get beyond the players with star billing - and in particular into the lower reaches of the Football League - I think it's harder to justify. Yes it's probably useful to have someone to do the negotiatiating when a new contract is offered or a transfer is proposed - but surely some sort of flat-fee situation with the PFA representing the player would work better and be less controversial. Here's hoping that Newell's brave stand isn't in vain.