Why release clause transfers are good
Vložit
- čas přidán 15. 08. 2022
- Try The Athletic for FREE for 30 days: theathletic.com/tifofootball
Release clauses, sometimes confused with market values, are a device that can be beneficial to a player, a selling club and a buying club if used wisely.
As Seb Stafford-Bloor explains, release clauses come in many forms, both good and bad. Illustrated by Marco Bevilacqua.
Follow Tifo Football:
Twitter: / tifofootball_
Facebook: / tifofootball
Instagram: / tifofootball_
Listen to the Tifo Football podcast:
The Athletic UK: bit.ly/TifoPodChannel
Apple Podcasts: bit.ly/TifoFootPod
Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/06QIGhq...
Watch more Tifo Football: Tactics Explained: • Tactics Explained | Ti...
Finances & Laws: • Finances & Laws | Tifo...
Tifo Football Podcast: • Tifo Football Podcast
Most Recent Videos: • Most Recent Videos | T...
1 Popular Videos: • Popular Videos | Tifo ...
About Tifo Football:
Tifo loves football. We create In-depth tactical, historical and geopolitical breakdowns of the beautiful game.
We know there’s an appetite for thoughtful, intelligent content. For stuff that makes the complicated simple.
We provide analysis on the Premier League, Champions League, La Liga, Serie A, Bundesliga, World Cup and more.
Our podcasts interview some of the game’s leading figures. And our editorial covers football with depth and insight.
Founded in 2017 and became a part of The Athletic in 2020. For business inquiries, reach out to tifo@theathletic.com.
Music sourced from epidemicsound.com
Additional footage sourced from freestockfootagearchive.com
#ReleaseClause #Transfers #ErlingHaaland - Sport
There are cases like Arsenal paying the release clause for Partey at the last day of transfer window (to the surprise of Atletico as they claimed), so not every club is prepared to find a replacement beforehand or right afterwards.
The answer there is to add conditions to the clause where it's only valid for part of the window, but I imagine that's not possible in Spain.
Atletico could have avoided that by negotiating earlier in the window.
They stuck to their demand of the full transfer fee and left themselves in a vulnerable position.
Not that it made any difference as they won the league that year…
They did sign Kondogbia later on in september, dont remember exacly but I think it was a la liga rule, where if you lose a player to a release clause activation, you have a certain period to find the replacement, even outside transfer window, replacement has to come fron la liga though
@@dejomrsic6093 Don't think it need to be a release clause, since barca too signed Braithwaite in feb because of injuries
@@shubhamupadhyay844 I just looked it up and youre right, thats so interesting, what weird rules la liga has
If I ever moved to a smaller club I would want a release clause. Clubs are holding players for ransom. Pricing them out of moves. That's why they are all running down their contracts.
How dare a "smaller" club not get bullied by a "big" team.
Or clubs simply want to hold on to valuable assets as opposed to selling them to larger rivals, preventing their ability to try and climb up the table and compete?
If players don't want to be 'held hostage by smaller clubs' then don't sign longer contracts. It is only fair if a so called smaller club which took pains to discover a player and groom and develop them wants them to honour their contracts or atleast get a fair compensation.
I get what you’re saying but they’re not being “held ransom”, they’re still being paid and they can negotiate a shorter contract if they’d like to avoid that from happening
@@Yorkshireman5 How dare an ambitious player want to take the next step to progress his career by moving to a bigger & better club competing regularly at the highest level for trophies
Another benefit of release clauses is that it might convince the player to sign in the first place. Dortmund might not have gotten Haaland in the first place if weren't for that release clause.
Certain clubs, like Leicester, Lyon, and Dortmund, who often buy younger prospect players for cheap, have little to gain from release clauses for these players. Take for example the release clause of N’Golo Kante, where Chelsea swooped in and purchased him for around £30m. Values of young or breakout players can fluctuate wildly, leaving release clauses harmful as opposed to helpful for the club.
Release clause is illegal in France, so not Lyon
Yeh but now look at Leicester refusing to sell fofana for 75mil, creating the exact situation this video says would be avoided if they had a release clause. When they put a £30m release clause on Kante, they never thought that would realistically be reached, I don’t think anyone, including the people at leicester, ever could have comprehended how good that team would be and well some of the players performed.
Well you could argue that some of these clubs wouldn't have gotten their hands on that player in the first place.. haaland for example wouldn't have gone to dortmund if he didn't know he could move to a bigger club in the future without much drama
would you rather they ran down their contracts and just left for free or the club would eventually have to sell him a year to the end of his contract just to get something for him, usually less than their value
You could also argue though that Dortmund would probably have never gotten a Player like haaland if they didnt agree to a Release clause.
They still made net Profit from him after having had him at the Club for 2 seasons and having payed his wages.
You often see people mock the 100m spent on Grealish but the fact it was a release clause gives it new context. City have bottomless pits of money but time is something they don't have during a window so paying 100m to just get it over and done was probably deemed worth it for them.
The Demba Ba situation was an annoying one for my team Newcastle. He picked us over West Ham because we paid his agent more money and gave him an 8m release clause. He smashed in a load of goals and then buggered off to Chelsea, can't blame him and we wouldn't have got him without giving him the release clause so all is fair in love and war.
Naaah Grealish deal it is still overpriced as fuc*. He is a very good player but far from being a star, there were so many more players that were the same or above his level, but I think the fact he is from UK had an impact.
@@alexandrekim3839 obviously overpriced in one sense but when you consider money doesn't really matter to City it's no biggie. Big teams need British players and he is one of the best English mids out there. Daft money but City have a lot of daft money.
@@dddgtsd Yeah but my point is the release clause dont really matter at the end. I am sure even him being an idol at Aston Villa, they would had sold to City at that price(since Grealish wanted to go to city) even lower like 70-80M. The only thing City really did saved was some days of negotiation and some headache.
Newcastle fan talking about bottomless pit of money...mmm interesting.
@@zaza-ik5ws do you have a point? City have huge revenue (some of it questionably created over the years) and can raise funds through selling top players so they have a lot of money to spend even with FFP. Newcastle don't currently have this luxury, not that it's relevant.
Imagine if Kane had a release clause, he’d be leading the line for either City or United. 😅
Kane must be thanking his lucky stars he didn't have one and end up at United then
@@Cheddarhead7 not necessarily, he could simply just reject the team if he doesnt want to play there
You look at Declan Rice, he's not a 100 mill player but West Han want 150 mil, a joke.😂😂😂
Kane in a 360 deal 🤣
I wonder if his brother is still his manager
The financial certainty of knowing exactly how much profit you’ll make on an investment and when you’ll make that profit surely helps teams like Dortmund too, and that means they’re comfortable rejecting more money for offers before their release clause becomes active (see Sancho). Works for them too, maybe Haaland’s was set a bit low but someone like Bellingham having a supposed €100m release clause probably seems about right and nets them €75m profit (minus the sell on fee that goes to Birmingham)
if the release clause is a realistic number (e.g. Upamecano's 42.5mil) it's also a direct negotiation strategy with the player - if your prospective new employers aren't willing to pay this realistic figure, then they don't really value you much anyway, so why don't you just stay here until someone else does?
Great video on a interesting subject. Another benefit is that minor clubs can get talented footballers who need a stepping stone and therefore held the club forward, while the player know it's possible to move up the ladder.
The problem with release clause is that a poor club has less chances of keeping talent despite having a good project. The most infamous case was Rivaldo from Deportivo to Barça. The last day that you could inscribe players for Champions League, Barça snatched him, leaving Deportivo (title contenders back then) without his best player and in the same situation that Barça was left after the Neymar transfer to PSG, with all other clubs asking insane amounts, but Deportivo had even less time to scout (2 weeks i believe) and even if they got a quality replacement for Rivaldo, they couldn't use him in Europe
Well, as the video points out, you can put specific clauses to avoid that type of situation, like, it can only be activated during the first week of the transfer market, given enough time to find a replacement.
What the release clause really stops is forcing players to stay in clubs that they no longer want to be part of.
@@paoloprianiaceves9475 but is it possible in Spain, where all players need to have a release clause? I suppose it could drop in value for a certain period?
dude, Neymar for 220 million was unrealistic at the time they made the contract, and even after was quite high for 99% of clubs and just generally. The fact that barcelona couldn't find a replacement from that money is their fault. Some teams cost less in total. I remember Ac milan sold Shevchenko to chelsea 43 million euro, at his prime, he didnt perform that well but the way he played the previous year, it was something phenomenal. then Kaka for 65 million euro. Great player, i think he played well for real too, despite those injuries was quite decent.
Okay, it was early, but money doesnt change value in Europe that fast, compared to the US the Euro held value and even gained value. But breaking records each year justifies more high value transfers, and more popularity to football. Even so, Italian clubs cant catch up to that level and have to compensate with team synergy and rigorous scouting and good decision making. Other leagues spend even less, and have to make do so teams like Real and Barca complaining is seriously fokd up.
@@paoloprianiaceves9475 I don't know if you can do that in Spain, because they are leagly obligated to put a release clause, and usualy, when talking terms, if a club wants to put an astronomic release clause, footballers will compensate by negociating shorter contracts (so they can leave on a free before) or ask for equally disproportionate fees.
Back then, Rivaldo's release clause was a ludicrous 24 million. To put it in context, the previous season, Newcastle paid 18 million for Shearer. After the Anelka transfer, 20+ million signings were more common, but before the 2000, that was unheard of.
Nowadays in Spain, big clubs just put insane release clauses, making them completely useless (I know of more than a dozen players with release clauses over 500 million).
@@laszlobandi6456 I'm a Deportivo fan, I don't excuse Barça. They signed two, potentialy great players in Dembele and Coutinho, but the first one is Injury prone and the second didn't perform.
What I was trying to say was that, as was the case for Barça, other clubs knew Deportivo had a ton of cash, so they asked insane transfer fees (mostly release clauses). Deportivo, didn't buy in those two week and bid their time. They moved in the winter market and signed a promising Uruguay striker that ultimately failed (not Pandiani, Sebastian "Loco" Abreu).
Also, Deportivo fans were really bitter, not only because we lost our best player to a title contender rival, but also because at the start of the window, Djalminha had arrived and we were drooling over the prospect of recreating the Palmeiras Magic Square (Rivaldo, Renaldo, Flavio and Djalminha), but Rivaldo left the same window Djalminha arrived. Also Renaldo was a flop.
helps the buying clubs too. clubs like Leicester and West Ham have a habit of doubling the actual value of players (Maguire, Chilwell, Fofana, Rice etc)
Premier league players are insanely overpriced. All of these English players aren't that good (see England's national team poor performances), yet they are valued as if they are the best. That only works for the internal market of the premier league, because the teams have a lot of money
@@eduardovc4527 yeah, because they are "premier league proven" and so it means they will work in England, because many people just don't work there, or so the narrative goes. And, of course, you need to charge a few extra dozens of millions for homegrown players, because you need them for registration rules. Someone like Rice would definitely cost much less if he was not English and playing elsewhere.
But yeah, that's a curious topic in of itself tbh, English pundits and others seem to think England is special and that outside exports are sometimes just fundamentally not fit to compete in English football. I think that's why Prem players also get higher price tags, because other Prem clubs could even meet them.
@@maciejbala477 yea, those are some very good remarks on an interesting topic indeed.
I just don't swallow the whole "this player wouldn't be good in the premier league" story, because some people say that about some very good or top players who play elsewhere (for example, I saw someone saying Casemiro from real madrid wouldn't be a good player in the PL), and I think that is not entirely logical, because these good players are just inherently good
@@eduardovc4527 different leagues have very different fundamental philosophies most recently lewandowski the most prolific striker in the world made a statement about the ugly defending of rayo vallecano in his first la liga match and how that never happened in the bundesliga.
@@bigbubbull yes, I agree. Premier league teams are more organized. What I said is that a good player is a good player anywhere. There is absolutely no way kalvin phillips is better than casemiro for example, but he is much more valued
Great content as usual! You guys explore topics I didn't even know I wanted to know.
Another knowledge filled video from the enigma of football journalism.
Thanks Tifo
Clubs can probably put another clause like "The release clause can only be activated X days before the window closes", so as to have sufficient time to find replacements.
Calling Dortmund a lesser club than Manchester United is insulting.
Once upon a time yes, but definetly not for the last 5 years.
Money
They are still a stepping stone club. Man United aren’t there yet.
@@007Fusiion Man United are more a step down club right now
As a club yes, in terms of revenue, global following, brand value, history, achievements
As a team… well there’s certainly a case to make against United in the last 2 years
more about money and playing in a better league i guess? man utd can still turn it around and get into ucl contention, reminds me of when Arsenal were in a relegation scrap recently and now completely turned it around. Don't MU have the highest wage bill in the prem, anyway? And yeah, i guess also sentimental value for people who grew up dreaming of playing for them. Sporting level wise they're not much different, but it's not just about this.
Best way to kick off my morning with a Tifo video.
Clubs like Ajax and Dortmund deserves some respect for producing the generational talents frequently ❤️
Benefica and Monaco
I feel like it's no that they produce a lot, but that they are incredible stepping stones for upcoming talents that need some experience. Similar to what PSV was for R9.
Dortmund do a better job of scouting talent than producing.
What generational talent has Dortmund produced?
@@harrismazari5484 haaland
My favourite video yet! Which the premier would bring this in!
Thank you Seb for an informative video.
Another good example of Release Clauses is it helps generate funds for small clubs
Eduardo Camavinga was scouted by Real Madrid...after the non arrival of Mbappe,they wanted to pursue Camavinga.....he had one year of the contract left....Madrid had one thought of buying him next year but it was Camavinga, his agents and Club Rennes who thought about leaving a year early in the contract so that the selling club Rennes could be in profit....
Perez had no hesitation in paying 30 million and few bonus....
What does this have to do with release clauses? They are illegal in France
I always wondered how transparent release clauses are. Can a club make an inquiry about the release clause of any player at any time?
Players agent would leak them behind the scenes if the player wanted to leave. The thing is after activating the clause the buying team needs to get the player to agree still so usually a release clause is activated after a deal between the player and buying is made, I imagine as part of these discussions the player himself can tell the buying club his release clause.
Now if the player was acting in good faith like Haaland then the club expects it and prepares for it and it’s a good deal for everyone but in the scenario.
Do you remember when Demba Ba was banging them in for my team Newcastle? Harry Redknapp said in a press conference that he wasn't interested in signing him but 'we all know about his release clause' - no coincidence that a week or so later Chelsea actives the clause. Just goes to show that it's not always common knowledge and some clubs will know about them and some won't. Just shows how much research and conversation has to go on behind the scenes to know about other players situations. I think if you enquire with a club they will have to tell you about a miniminful fee release clause but I imagine clubs use all the tricks to hide the clauses and keep them quiet (unless we're talking about La Liga).
I presume it's based on the club, player and league
As long as the player is under contract, the decision is ultimately up to them. If 10 teams meet the release clause fee, the player can still choose to stay
Yes the data is easily available to any interested club worth the hassle. The agent knows it and they talk to clubs when they want a player to move.
Release clauses are a double edged sword. On one hand it helps clubs generate funds to improve the club structure and on the other hand once it expires or a player has less than a year left clubs don't have to pay the release clause to sign a player that they want. In Spain release clauses are mandatory. In England, Germany and Italy some clubs uses release clauses however in France, release clauses are outlawed. In other words, banned.
That's why going to play on France is dumb.
And in Portugal, without a release clause, players would be able to leave for basically nothing, at any time they wanted to do so. It protects the club, not the player. Lawyers are actually split on whether release clauses are legal to begin with, it has never been tested in court.
Oh, and its the players that can trigger the release clause, not interested clubs and the money has to come from an account in the player's name. In practice that means the interested cub has to wire the money to the player, who will pay income tax on the amount, that in turn meaning release clauses in Portugal are in reality about 50% more than the quoted amount
It's interesting to see how the club finances work in FIFA in regards to the transferring of players. In order to remain on top of the competition it looks like you need to have years of roster construction planned ahead even if you are one of the massive clubs.
in fm, i hate to start from smaller team in laliga. The wonderkid will wanted smaller release clause and before the season end, they were gone.
hows managing fm in la liga? pros?
The release clauses seem to me a good thing just as long as they are reasonable, Haaland used his decision to choose Dortmund to get them to agree to a very low price. On the other hand Grealish's price was ott, I doubt anyone but man city would have even gone near such a fee.
I think we could say it is most definitely a good thing if:
- It only applied for buying clubs whose own players all had release clauses (to stop imbalances).
- It needed a 4 week notice period to allow selling clubs time to recruit a new squad member.
- The amount could be no more than 10% higher than the highest clause previously activated for a player of that position (to stop tokenism).
It seems unfair that City could trigger Haalands clause easily enough, but if Dortmund could never do the reverse if the player wanted to go back
The balance of players choosing teams and teams choosing players is shifting. I personally don't have an opinion either way. Players should have rights but a good team isn't made up of mercenaries, soooo....
Haaland could add a clause saying that if he wants to return to Dortmund, the amount is different. It's not like the release clauses are made from the same mould.
I love how he said "clearly a level below other interested parties, amongst them Man United" 😂
Release clauses can really help set a value I'd imagine.
If Man City offered 80 mil for Grealish and he had no release clause and Man City played hardball I think Grealish would probably have left for that amount of money
I hadn't really thought about it like this tbh. I focused on the 1bn clauses in Spain that may as well not exist cause they are so high.
In Spain it's a little different. The release fee is how much it costs for the player to buy out their own contract and essentially make themselves a free agent. The player then recoups the release fee from their signing bonus.
Yes great vid
My favorite channel by far. Always smarter after watching.
I know I am late but I have some questions about all of this:
- What happens if a player, who still on contract, just stops playing? Is the club contractually obligated to pay the remainder of his fees?
In the case of Neymar and Barcelona, if he wanted to leave then surely the value of the clause wouldn’t matter.
In the case of the billion dollar clauses at RM/Barca, aren’t the clubs effectively imprisoning the players within? Sure if the players really wanted to stay at the club then even a 10 million dollar release clause would mean nothing?
Transfer clauses can be a good thing when they're not abused but like with haaland BvB got 1/3 of the value he's worth but Mino Riola knew that when demanding the price because it would increase wage demands and sign on bonuses/fees when Man City activated it or like the 1billion clauses in Spain making it useless and defunct
True but I think you're being incredibly optimistic about clubs replacing those leaving on release clauses. If EVERYONE had a release clause yes they could be proactive about one leaving and replace them if the clause is activated. But they're not, and negotiations can take forever so in reality it's just leaving themselves wide open to have a huge hole on their team that they can never replace in a season no matter how much they pre plan for it.
Can two teams compete to activate a player's release clause?
Or is it a first come first served??
great work 💪👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏😍
It’s odd that the release clause isn’t determined by the wage and the length of contract.
well it can be. As suggested in the video, it can be tied to various other elements (such as Haaland's being only active after 2 years), and could be renegotiated as part of a renewal (which would be how a players wage would be changed)
@@stephenpalmer9375 true, but you would imagine making it a fixed rule would benefit players (higher wages) and make transfers more transparent, remove the agent parasites to a certain extent. In fact that’s probably why it’ll never happen.
this would imply player values are completely linear, would be absurd
Was wondering, what would happen if multiple clubs activate the release clause of a player? Would it then depend on the player where they want to go or the selling club or both?
it depends solely on the player who’s release clause is being activated. just like in any transfer, the player has the final say as to where they want to move
The selling club are obligated to accept both offers so it's up to the player.
@@ivanchacon8804 Got it, thanks!
@@marwanzaki Yup, makes sense
+ just because a release clause is activated doesn’t mean the player must be sold. Several Russian clubs activated Messi’s clause over the years with the player not wanting to leave
What happend to Enzo is also a bad example of how release clauses can be exploited. They told the player they would activate the release clause to get him hyped on the transfer and then they lowballed Benfica. That created a very tense enviroment between the club and the player since it was public his urge to sign for Chelsea and he even started missing out on training and stopped following some of the Benfica rules.
Lol, in Portugal that's not how release clauses work to begin with. Its the player triggering them and paying, not interested clubs.
I agree, release clauses are great for clubs and players, but dortmund set it way too low with Haaland. I can’t imagine a reason why City, or any other Club of that size, would not have paid 75-85 million for him.
That was the market rate for haaland. He wouldn't have gone to Dortmund in the first place without the release clause. Acting like Dortmund lost from having a great player for a few years the selling for a comfortable profit. Haaland and Bellingham weren't unknown players when they came to Dortmund they could have went anywhere else.
Release clauses or even transfers should be based on a rating score ( all by data) based on the players last year(s) long side other players in that position. Also to note, Kevin De Bruyne when resigning a new contract with Man city didn't have, nor go in with an agent, instead he went in with a laptop and data based on his performance with his playing history on the team + what other players making more than him results ( goals / assists / balls played forward and tons of other 'moneyball' data statistics... Essentially, the man city higher ups saw the value he brings to the success of their team and paid what he was asking.
🤡
One other part - a release clause has to be paid in full, rather than installment plans over time. This does give selling clubs some leeway to get more - Man City doesn't want to pay 60mn up front for Haaland, okay we'll take 20 up front and 60 in installments.
Nice music,where can get athletic team
whats the lofi song at the beginning called?
no disrespect to the other narrators on this channel but you sir is why i come here lol
Clubs should have to pay a % of their release clause each year into the national football'ing association to help support grassroots football. That way a crazy billion dollar 💵 release clause costs $200k each year let's say!
Tifo is like a university/manual for football fans😊
Is it like football manager where you pay the full amount in cash to meet the release clause.or can you meet the release clause With a mixture of cash up front and payments spread over years?
i heard they can pay installment
Depends on the specific terms and the country. In Portugal its players themselves who trigger and pay release clauses, not interested clubs. They also need to be paid upfront, in full, by the player himself
What if the bigger club doesn’t want to pay the clause? It can force a club to loose a player on the last day or be forced to sell it for less. Release clauses are good for bigger teams and players but to the majority of the clubs and fans its just a bummer
That bit on the Foden transfer, I'm suddenly having "Moneyball" flashbacks. XD
Foden?
Not all players in La Liga have release clauses at all. Athletic Club have made it clear some of theirs do not, like Unai Núñez and Unai Simón.
The fact said players haven't left by any transfer suggests a pair of outcomes, one is that the release clause is infinite and can't be defined on paper. The other is that these players actually have a 0 release clause, but no interest in playing elsewhere without being released by Athletic Club (ex. Alex Remiro or recent returning player Gorka Guruzeta who went to nearby Amorebieta, scored 13 goals then returned to Bilbao).
Well take partey there Arsenal went and buy him last hours of the transfer window because A Madrid didt want to lower there valuation and could not replace him.
It offcourse depend on the clubs to like Ajax are selling players if the right price is met (without release clease)
It is altso different from top club and sub top clubs how they operate.
You guys should do a video on the Arsenal, Suarez fiasco
The nature of release clauses in the context of La Liga, where they're compelled to give every player registered a release clause, then comes into question - whether it's treated as a means to plan for the future generations before the present ones end, or treated as a formality, like with exaggerated release clauses as a show of intent that the club does not actually want to sell the player unless they are offered a fee that suits their needs when proposed.
The situation in La Liga is complex. Different clubs treat the release clauses differently. Real Madrid treats them as a formality. They put 1 billion euro or 500 million 700 millions euro for their players. However, some clubs are treated the clauses seriously and put a reasonable price on it.
@@catchnkill I commented above that as silly as some of them seem, it's more an indication of how happy the players are to play for those clubs. Benzema will likely want to stay at Real and compete at the top level so he is happy to let them slap a big release clause on him. I imagine all clubs would do this if players would agree to it but if you're not one of the big 2 or 3 then I doubt you have the leverage to get players to agree to the unrealistic release clauses.
What you describe is precisely how release clauses are interpreted in Portugal. As a means for clubs to hold on to players and decode when and for how much to sell them, not to in any way protect players
Lots of Burnley players have been signed to clubs that are still in the Premier league, so is it likely there were relagation triggered release clauses for those players at Burnley?
Possibly but usually the most talented players in a relegated team will request a move bc they are too good for the league they are being relegated to
Now this is content.
Does anyone know why La Liga make their teams including release clause?
When a team can set them at ridiculous prices (Benzema, €1 Billion) then they become redundant anyway.
Its not la liga in general
Spain has a law which protects rights
well, is not only the team that agreed with the release clause. the player also can have words on how much they release clause
I imagine it's similar to the Bosman ruling, to give the players some power to not be trapped by clubs. The reason Benzema has a ridiculous one is because he agreed to it...beause he is at he best club in the world and is very happy and comfortable there. So he is less concerned about being trapped in the contract. We have to remember the players have to agree to these 'ridiculous' ones that the top clubs set.
this is fundamental knowledge, not only in football, but its very present in football manager aswell.
well i guess its football lol, just a realistic simulation of it...
Name of the background song?
Several scenarios not adresse. Last minut activations or forcing clubs to sign in release clauses with contract extentions. "Lose me free or lose me cheap".
i have a question is it possible to negotiate a deal and avoid paying the release clause? like for example if psg decided that neymar wasnt worth the 220 mil release clause could theyve just negotiated with barca a 150 mil deal?
Yes, this video mentioned that Benzema has a release clause of one billion euro, Real Madrid did that because they want to force the interested clubs to negotiate with them.
Of course. In deals with Portuguese clubs no one ever paid for a release clause. In Portugal, the clauses have to be triggered and paid by players themselves, meaning an interested club would have to wire the money to the player, which then would wire it to the club he plays for. Oh, and the player pays about 50% income tax on that money it rece8ved, meaning the interested club would need in turn to cover that tax
Some release clauses may seem stupid after the fact but clubs are not that stupid to set a low release clause for their players when the contracts are signed. The players (or the market) just overperformed beyond expectations!
Enjoyed the video, just thought I could add something. @4:09 you used spring instead of the actual month. Please note that the time of spring varies depending on which hemisphere you live in. Just like when it's winter there, it's actually summer for those living in the southern hemisphere. For me ( someone living in the southern hemisphere) we don't have spring until around September. So saying Konate was going to leave in May, but the club started scouting in spring, sounds late to me. Sounds like you are saying they started scouting months after he left, around September to be precise. It's good that you provided a visual timeline, but it was kinda confusing for a second. Awesome video though 👌
I think it's a real benefit to the player as the video pointed out! If Harry Kane had one he would not be a Spurs player today...
I still remember the Arsenal bid of 40mil + 1 (forgot the currency) for Suarez. That was funny lol
They believed that a 40 million release clause existed. But it didn't.
I still don't find the humor in that bid. They were told the release clause was 40 million so they matched it.
@@cupertinoish because apparently it didn’t actually exist
Don't forget that Haaland left Salzburg for only 20m EUR because of a release clause as well, otherwise Salzburg would probably have been able to ask 40m or even more for him. Haaland does not sign a contract without a realistic release clause present, he would not join that club otherwise. I don't know if he has one in his ManCity contract as well, but that was a requirement when he signed for Salzburg and later on Dortmund as well.
Heard there is one specifically for Madrid
@@shashankjayaram he just cancelled it
It would be really nice to find all the people making fun of Wenger for his bid on Suarez. At the time I felt like I was speaking Martian while trying to explain why the offer wasn't about Arsenal being cheap but in fact the offer they needed to make to activate the clause. Just because he didn't agree personal terms with Arsenal didn't mean the offer was the culprit. Crazy that it lived on as a meme for nearly a decade
Has there ever been a release clause activated on the final days of a transfer window? That’s the one way I can see a release clause being detrimental if the buying club activates it giving the selling club little to no time to find replacements
Thomas Partey had his release clause triggered on deadline day if I remember correctly.
Trying to get into FIFA 18. I'm here to get a tutorial on release clauses
And then is Benfica's case. Our former president puts astronomic releases clauses in our players swearing that the players only leave on that fee. Off course almost every single player was sold for less than the release clause and made him looked pathetic.
Sometimes were clubs crazy enough to pay it and that's the case of João Félix who never worth 125M.
It's quite usually with other presidents too here in Portugal.
The release clauses in Portugal are just posturing to begin with, to fool around with foreign clubs. Leaving aside the fact that most lawyers thing release clauses are illegal to begin with, to actually trigger it, it has to be the Plyer doing so and paying for it. That means a 50% or so income tax assuming the player has to get that money as income from the interested club.
João Felix did NOT leave for the release clause. That would've meant Atletico wiring him 180 million and him writing 120 to Benfica and paying the remainder in taxes. That did no happen and in fact out of the 120 million of the deal Benfica got only 106 as, since it was a deal and not the trigger of the actual release clause, it had to pay intermediaries
If selling club and the certain player can come to an agreement with the amount of release clause then i don't see any problem.
Release clause is like black and white
Watching this after the Kane transfer was confirmed makes 5:55 so funny. 😅
Do sell on clause
You don’t even discuss the point that release clauses can be a negotiation tactic for clubs to reduce wage demands. It’s common in Germany for players to have this. The player knows if they perform they can get a better move and therefore sacrifice lower wages to have a lower release clause.
i always wondered why only barcelona uses release clause
Please Make a video about Elon & United.
It doesn't stop transfer sagas and back and forths at all. Players can still be a wantaway if the buying club isn't willing to meet the release clause - they aren't a MINIMUM price after all, they are a 'buy now, skip negotiations' price.
If a release clause it set at say 80million, but the player is in all fairness worth about 40million - the buying club ISN'T going to pay the release clause, but they can still really want the player, the player can still really want to leave, and selling club can still really want them to stay.
So you'd still have the whole saga as if the release clause didn't exist.
They are literally never good ON THE WHOLE for selling clubs - yes there are aspects that are good and LESSEN the downsides of there being one, but it's still a terrible thing to agree to as a club (unless it is so ridiculously high it may as well not exist).
If a player is worth LESS than the release clause - it doesn't matter, it may as well not exist, no buying club will pay it, so they just put in normal transfer offers and rely upon the selling club being willing to sell or the player/players agent forcing a move away.
If a player is worth MORE than the release clause - self evidently a bad thing, as they are forced to sell a player for less than they could otherwise had gotten (and who they may have wanted to keep)
If a player is worth about the SAME as the release clause - if the club are fine with selling the player, it may as well not exist, as that's what you'd get anyway (though it could make the sale go quicker), but if the club DOESN'T want to sell, than again, bad thing, as they are forced to sell a player that they want to keep (though at least it's not as bad as above as at least they are getting a fair value AT THE TIME - after all player value may go up or down in a year).
Honestly the ONLY reason a club should ever agree to a release clause (that isn't so ridiculously high it may as well not exist) is if they literally couldn't get the player otherwise.
i.e. Dortmund may have been forced to sell Haaland for MUCH less than he was worth but at least they had him for two years and made a profit. If they said no he would have just gone elsewhere. It wasn't something that was good for them or that they wanted, but they HAD to take it to get him.
1:40 not so sure about that 😅
Could FIFA make release clauses mandatory? Set them at, for instance, 2 or 3 times the total value of the contract signed.
No. Release clauses are illegal in some countries
imo these are only good if it is mandatory for both teams. which means a club cannot sell the player for cheaper than the clause.
so a club isn't forced to sell for under value
But that takes away some freedom from the club and can create a scenario that is worse for all parties surely. Say Kante's contract said he couldn't be sold for less than 30m, but he didn't do as well as expected and Leicester wanted rid of him and no one would buy him for 30m...I'm not sure you idea works in practise if I'm understanding it correctly.
When Arsenal offered 40.000.001 for Suarez, was that not a release clause? Because Liverpool rejected it immediately.
It was believed he had a release clause of £40m in his contract so Wenger bid £40m and £1 to test the waters and activate it, but the clause never existed so Liverpool just rejected it
@@adamsayer11 Wenger thought he did something 💀
Lovely video but this was not the case with Barca when Neymar left for PSG
I have no idea how you made a video about release clauses without mentioning the Neymar release clause saga
Are transfer fees - taxable? Does a club pay corporate income tax on a transfer fee they receive for a player?
the profit is, transfer fee is just revenue and in most cases it's just a credited payable account and not even cash flow
In Portugal yes and its the player who pays the tax since he's also the one triggering the clause and paying it, not interested clubs
Can't you have a release clause for certain clubs i.e clubs that play CL football?
Yeah I've seen that stipulation before, I guess you can have whatever type of release clause you agree to. A specific club, a specific country. I've seen players that have a clause that says they can go to their boyhood club if an offer comes in for example.
I don’t get it. Without release clauses how can a player like not play anymore if they don’t want to, essentially a release clause is the only way to terminate a contract? Are contracts not based in years, like in other sports?
The downsize of having release clauses (that is not mentioned in this video) is selling clubs not being able to include sell-on clauses in the sale.
Sell-on clauses are strongly beneficial to selling clubs, and can amount to much bigger sums of money than the money they would be getting initially instead of such clauses.
Can they not include a sell on clause as part of the release clause though?
@@dddgtsd not to my knowledge... if it is, the selling clubs would get the best of all worlds
@@Kimera794 I'm not sure why they wouldn't be able to though. A release clause can be whatever the club and the player agree it to be surely? Maybe not in La Liga but if say Arsenal sign Isak and he says I want a release clause of 50m and Arsenal then say ok, but we want 10% sell on fee of that sale then I don't see why that would be a problem unless Isak thinks that will put off any potential buyers. I don't think the selling club is getting the best of all worlds they're just getting what they would negotiate later down the line. There are also rules in some leagues where clubs who have developed players automatically get a sell on fee (well especially the club who's academy developed the player).
@@dddgtsd as you mentioned, the pulling power shifts heavily towards the selling clubs if that was possible to happen.
Also, it would be very difficult to integrate them into contracts, as the value of sell-on clauses would be very hard to estimate, so clubs would rather stay away from them even if it would be in their interest.
As for solidarity payments, the regulations are imposed by FAs and FIFA depending on the type of transfer (domestic, within nations concerned by non-foreign agreements, international, etc.)
I remember Wenger tried to activate Luis Suarez clause for 40M+1 pound 😂 but I dont understand how the transfer didn't go 🤔
That was confusing, but IIRC Liverpool said "40 million £ are the minimum amount for us to notify Suarez and not a release clause". some said that if Arsenal had offered 41 Millions instead of 40 millions +1 pounds, Liverpool might've want to release him(well, they said that the 1 Pounds feels insulting for Liverpool)
Release clauses are the best thing ever in FIFA. Whatever your budget, you can always go shopping. Especially in Spain!
Ironically, it is the poster boy of the release clause, Neymar, that caused havoc at Barcelona, though that's really just Bartomeu.
This is how the move of Neymar went... PSG didnt buy him from Barcelona... Neymar bought off his own contract Tifo. Neymar received 300mil from a Qatar fund and he bought off his own contract and after that he joined PSG for free... 222mil for buying of his own contract and the rest for signing bonus and agent fees... Why do you guys think PSG was allowed to get Mbappe too? Because they didnt pay a dime (officially) for Neymar.
This isn't true. The €222m they paid for Neymar still counted as transfer expenditure. They were able to get Mbappe too because he was brought in on a loan with an obligation to buy, meaning them paying the €180m transfer fee was delayed by a year and therefore both transfers affected two separate financial years.
@@marwanzaki The loan deal was something ridiculous too, it was a conditional transfer fee, because if it were a mandatory one, the fee would've been counted against the same year. PSG put a non-relegation clause into the loan, so as long as they didn't get relegated that season, they'd buy Mbappé the next season. A ridiculous work-around.
@@marwanzaki Ehm... No. PSG didnt pay anything for Neymar. Neymar bought off his own contract... Just look at the FFP documents about this. Neymar is offically a free transfer. The money came from a Qatar fund not from PSG.
@@marwanzaki Did you receive my links?
@@tim3440 Link please?
It's also good for the player. Because Manchester City has bought him for such a low price his wage demands can be much higher. Haaland is already the 2nd highester earner in City, with 425k/week.
Leipzig has some amazing scouts
I think the ultimate point is, why do we care about the selling clubs? This should be a standard because people should have the right to maximise their opportunities, in any career.
Yeah I'm seeing a lot of arguments about the lowly selling club and how it's unfair and I do get this, if they have invested in that player and developed him. But in any other industry people can move jobs freely.
Lol, no. In Portugal for example, release clauses protect clubs. Without them, due to constitutional right to work provisions, players would be able to leave basically at any time and without paying anything
FIFA Career mode: " the players release clause has been met"
Me: ok il do some scouting then
FIFA career mode: " he's already left the same day I told you about it.
lol i mean the video said rb leipzig had already signed upamecano and konate’s replacements before their release clauses were activated
It is sad, to me how there are "selling clubs". Clubs whose whole existence is to nurture and then sell players for infinity and beyond since there is no hope for competition in their respective league until the lucky stars align. At that point, I would very much rather have a super league if it means the competitiveness of football as a whole goes up a notch.
'Lovely friendly nice bank' that somehow seems more sinister than just calling them 'bank of evil'.
So Liverpool shafted us on Suarez, when wenger triggered his release clause?
ok, but right at the top you mentioned they were obligatory in La Liga - and it's clearly being abused there.. making all the points you make somewhat redundant? At least for the top players?
And on top of that, if a player in La Liga wants to terminate their contract, they must pay their own release clause.
how is it being abused?? clubs and players agree on release clauses. clubs don’t just slap 500M on someone they don’t want to leave.
Release clauses in Spain are high to avoid clubs from "stealing" their players. When Ronaldo was at Madrid, his release clause was high, but he was about to leave after negotiationing between him and the club.
Release clauses are good only for the rich clubs. For a club like Borussia Dortmund, it means they are not able to keep any player in order to win something, hence Bayern won everything for 10 years. Release clauses make all clubs feeder clubs to oil tankers and american/russian oligarchs for cheap. Ask City oil tanker how much is Haaland now? Will they sell him for 200 mil consider they bought him for 60 a few months ago? I don't think so.
True but the alternative is those players don't pick Dortmund (other second tier teams that develop youth) and go elsewhere or just sign a much shorter contract meaning they leave on a free to go to Bayern after two years. Yes there's a risk there as they won't have a long term safe contract but when you're someone like Haaland you'll be quite confident that someone will take you after two years.