An Agent's View: Has Power in Premier League Swung from Players to Clubs?

On transfer deadline day, Premier League clubs spent an unprecedented £210 million to push the total fees paid over the transfer window to £1.4 billion, a new spending record for a sixth successive summer.

Such numbers represent a 23 per cent rise on the previous year, with 14 of 20 Premier league clubs having broken their transfer records over this period.

That the league's net spend was £20 million down on last summer's record of £685 million was largely a result of a number of high-profile deals crumbling on deadline day.

In any transfer window, there are invariably winners and losers. But what has marked this particular one from almost all others is the sheer number of big-name players left disappointed on the morning of Sept. 1.

Philippe Coutinho, Virgil van Dijk, Alexis Sanchez, Riyad Mahrez and Diego Costa seem in states of flux after their pleas to leave their respective clubs fell on deaf ears.

Backed by gargantuan broadcast revenue streams, Premier League clubs are under no pressure to sell. This has led to debate over whether player power is on the wane, with a shift towards clubs being able to call the shots for the first time in years. To say the market favours the sellers would be the mother of all understatements.

We spoke to Manchester-based licensed FA agent intermediary Rob Shield to glean a candid insight on the state of the transfer market from a middleman's perspective.

With well over a decade's experience in the field, Shield has worked as an agent for both players and clubs throughout a varied career in the game. Few know both sides of the coin better than the straight-talking Mancunian.

Philippe Coutinho, Virgil van Dijk, Alexis Sanchez, Riyad Mahrez and Diego Costa all seemingly tried every trick in the book to force moves over the summer. None succeeded. As an agent, does this surprise you?

"Financially, clubs are now in a position to be able to say no. That's a fairly new phenomenon, even for the big boys. When a player courts a move away from a club, no longer do they have to wave the white flag as a matter of course. They can take a hit on the future worth of the player safe in the knowledge that they still have vast amounts of TV revenue to make up any shortfall.

"If said wantaway player eventually leaves for 20-50 per cent less down the line, so be it. Clubs are going through a unique period, when they can concentrate on the here and now. The landscape is definitely changing as it moves away from the old view that you can't keep an unhappy player. At the moment, it looks as though clubs are dipping their toe in the water to see how it plays out if they do just that."

On paper at least, it looks like a significant victory for clubs in a battle against "player power" they have seemingly been losing pretty much since the Bosman ruling came into effect in 1995. What's your take? Has the power shifted back to clubs?

"Power is shifting towards clubs, at least for now. Although what I'd add is we are far from the days when players were effectively manacled to their clubs as they once were. It's a readdressing of power, not an overthrowing of it. Astronomical buyout clauses in player contracts mean once they sign lengthy and lucrative deals, bar the odd extraordinary exception like Neymar, it is the clubs very much in control of how long a player stays for. As long as they keep doing it on the pitch, clubs could increasingly hold players for the duration of their contracts."

With the latest TV deal having made princes even of relative paupers throughout the Premier League, is it the case clubs simply don't have to sell anymore?

"Absolutely. Southampton is your prime example. For years they have sold their best players. Sadio Mane, [Morgan] Schneiderlin, [Luke] Shaw, [Adam] Lallana, [Dejan] Lovren and [Nathaniel] Clyne have all gone to the big four or five to keep boosting their coffers. Now with the Sky and BT money rolling in, they're already running out of places to store all their cash. Rather than begrudgingly accept it when a player wants to leave, they can have their say. They've clearly told Van Dijk he's staying put, and so they should. All the sulking and transfer requests in the world shouldn't bend their will if they genuinely believe he is worth more to them than £60 million.

"With revenue streams continuing to increase, why couldn't Southampton have a go for Champions League football? They're spending £15 million-plus on players, and that number is only going to increase. Treading water isn't going to be enough for them. Just ask Claude Puel. Even Bournemouth with tiny crowds (albeit softened by very rich backers) have spent serious money on players this season."

Ultimately, though, it's hard to see how Arsenal won't lose a fortune (at least £60 million on Sanchez) while the rest will have to deal with having to reintroduce unhappy players back into their dressing rooms. Is it worth the hassle? Is it viable in the long term for clubs to keep players to lengthy contracts?

"Arsenal is a separate case. They are in the middle of a transition. In layman's terms, that means they are in the crap and it's going to take a while for them to get out of it. A mix of [manager Arsene] Wenger delaying signing his deal, an inert board and a lack of Champions League football has killed their recruitment ability.

"The case of Thomas Lemar is a prime example. Lemar off Fame Academy wouldn't fancy Europa League football, let alone the lad from Monaco. In reality, Arsenal had no choice but to say no to City's bid for Sanchez. Yeah, they will lose £60 million in the summer should he not be gone in January for half of that, but TV money will mean they can write it off. That's not something they could have done five years ago, hence a stream of their best talent leaving.

"As Wenger has repeatedly reiterated, it's peanuts compared to what they'll lose if they fail to quality for the Champions League. It's not just about the money. In terms of future recruitment, how do you entice a player of Sanchez's ilk without Champions League football? You don't."

If you were the agent of any of the aforementioned players, what would your advice be? Do they listen to agents in any case?

"If I were the agent to any of that lot, I wouldn't be giving an interview like this. I would be sipping a nice cocktail on a Caribbean beach."

Will any of Coutinho, Van Dijk, Sanchez, Mahrez or Costa start next season at their respective clubs?

"I'm sure all the players will come back into their teams after a week or two of reintegration. They have good footballing reputations to keep intact. And in a World Cup year, they would be shooting themselves in the foot by remaining on unofficial strike for any amount of time.

"However, I do see Costa as being a different situation. He seems intent on never playing for Chelsea again and will almost certainly employ every trick in the book to get away by January. Will he suck it up and play ball until Christmas time? Maybe. Though whether Antonio Conte would pick him is another matter entirely. He'd as likely kill him as play him."

Costa's representatives have intimated they are looking into the legal situation with regard to their client. Can you see this having any mileage?

"No, because Chelsea's legal team will be much bigger and probably better. As a club, and owner, they have a lot of clout and influence. I read this morning they could be looking to get as much as £50 million back from Costa if he doesn't return sharpish, so he might be wise to pack up his towel and get on the first flight back to London. I'd always advise reconciliation in these circumstances, though Costa is unique. An absolute one-off, so you never quite know what he'll do next."

For every high-profile move that stalled, there were hundreds that went through just fine. Is it hasty to talk of a shift in power?

"How it plays out in the next few weeks for the likes of Coutinho, Sanchez et al. will give a good indication of whether a power shift has occurred. Should all of the wantaway players return to the fold and see out their contracts or sign new ones, then you could say it's been a good year for clubs. However, I expect all will have left by this time next year, if not in January. If that's the case, then it could be seen as a small win for clubs. If nothing else, it will make players think twice before throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I think the Costa outcome could be pivotal."

As a rule of thumb, are transfers usually difficult or straightforward to get over the line?

"These days, I'd say difficult. Probably more so for the clubs, in fairness. It's no longer a simple player-agent-club dynamic we're talking about when discussing how a transfer works. It's more player-club-player's family-agent for club-agent for player-who in turn has an agreement with another agent-who has a side deal with another agent scenario. It's far from black and white. There tends to be more shades of grey than your average bonkbuster."

A number of those we've mentioned submitted transfer requests. It seems like an antiquated term; what does it actually mean? Is there an actual physical list of players who are available for transfer? If so, are there names on there that might not be in the public domain?

"A transfer request is a player's last resort, as often he is waving goodbye to a loyalty bonus agreed in his contract for every season he is at the club. Sometimes, such a payment is paid and then the next day a player puts in a request. It's sly but legal. It used to be a point of no return, but this transfer window seems to have kyboshed that.

"There is a list that is circulated by clubs outlining which players are available for transfer, usually because they were signed by a previous gaffer and are no longer required. Only the player's 'team' usually release a transfer request to the press."

When you have a player agitating for a move, what are the processes you have to go through? When you speak to managers/chairmen about your players, as an agent, are you often seen as being the one driving the move?

"Providing the player has a club to move to, otherwise it's a nonstarter. An interested club and the player's agent will work out a strategy to see if they can engineer a move. Engineering a move is where you try to estimate what realistically a club would want in terms of a transfer fee and the most a prospective new club will pay. Wages for the player, should the move be green-lighted, should be more or less agreed in principal before the process is continued.

"Engineering a move is the polite term, the acceptable way of setting up a deal. Forcing a move is when the selling club puts too high a transfer fee on your player, with the prospective new club unwilling to pay it. It's then when the dark arts of the agent come into play."

Care to elaborate?

"Does a magician ever reveal his secrets?"

From personal experience, and wider knowledge of the industry, is it ever the case an agent pushes a player to move simply for financial gain?

"Financial gain for the agent? Ever more so now. There are over 1,000 agents/intermediaries these days in the UK alone. A lot of them are not qualified. A fair number just want to make a quick buck after they have gotten to know a local Premier League youngster in a nightclub. It could be seen as an agent simply trying to make a massive amount of money for very little work, but on the flip side, there are literally hundreds of agents ready and willing to do a deal for your player if you don't.

"So greed and insecurity often takes over with inexperienced agents. It's vital that you don't lose out and blow your chance by asking for a ridiculous agent fee (remember 5 per cent was the benchmark) and a similarly ridiculous salary. You take a chance and hope you don't kill the deal. It ultimately all depends on the club and their budget. If they aren't willing to play ball, and you've pushed a move for your player, you'd better have a Plan B in place."

As someone who knows how dressing rooms operate more than most, how forgiving are they with team-mates who have openly expressed a desire to leave? Arsenal's is said to have grown exasperated over the constant focus on Sanchez—is it likely they will overly care, or do they all know in reality they could just as easily be in the same situation?

"Team-mates generally are fine with it. They tend to have a lot of banter over who's potentially on the move. I know of some who have bought a shirt of the interested club for their team-mate. All players know the situation: Make as much money as you can while you can. The football world is dog-eat-dog, just as it is in most other industries. Football is the game of the people, but it's also a livelihood. And when at 30-35 you can no longer do the one thing you're good at, you'd better hope you've made enough not to be scraping round for your next gig in life."

Might it be the case players will be reluctant to sign long-term deals if they are held to them? Why do players sign such lengthy contracts when, in all likelihood, at some point they will want to break them?

"You would think so. It used to be the case that long-term contracts gave a player security. That's still very much the case in the lower leagues. Though I'm not sure whether a player at the very top end earning £6 million-plus per year should have too much to worry about."

Van Dijk signed a new six-year contract in May 2016. It's hard to feel too much sympathy now that he's desperate to leave barely more than a year on. Do you think from a professional perspective it was an error on his part to commit for so long?

"The player probably thought he was being cute when he signed. When he agreed to that deal he knew (well, thought he knew) Southampton were a selling club. Also, don't forget there's a paucity of decent centre-halves in the Premier League. It's a win-win situation for the player. Massive security with a six-year deal and also a huge hike in wages from not just his Celtic days but his previous contract at Southampton. He must have thought if he could get his performance levels consistently at their best, which in fairness he did, he'd be off to one of the big boys before too long. Best-laid plans and all that."

Was the current situation not always inevitable? Why not just insist on a get-out clause?

"In hindsight, he should have done. Maybe his representatives suggested it and couldn't come up with a figure. I don't think Southampton have used those clauses in the past. It's unlikely it never came up when the deal was being negotiated, but then as I say, the precedents out there suggest Southampton are a selling club."

Are we being too hard on players? Do clubs put pressure on players to sign longer contracts? What would be the financial implications, for example, if Van Dijk had said he'd only sign for two years? Would a club ever buy in these circumstances?

"No, they wouldn't. Clubs will say they have spent a lot of money so in return deserve a certain amount of loyalty/time at the club to get a return on their investment. Southampton paid around £13 million, £14 million for Van Dijk two years ago, which you can say now is a steal, but at the time it was a fairly risky buy for a club of their size.

"In hindsight, agreeing to a six-year deal seems a mistake on the player's part, even withstanding additional payments and scheduled loyalty bonuses to follow. With a standard three-year deal, he would by now have had just a year left to run on a 'decent' deal and would, in all likelihood, have been offered at a fee enticing to pretty much all of the Premier League's biggest clubs. Wait another six months, and he could have moved on a free transfer. His signing-on fee would have been a thing a beauty."

Can you ever envisage a future where short-term deals become the norm?

"I believe long deals will continue while clubs are willing to pay £60 million to £70 million-plus for players on a regular basis. It's all about guaranteeing as much as you possibly can on an investment. Maybe the transfer fees have hit the ceiling now. It will be very interesting to see how contract lengths will be affected, as they have definitely influenced the outcome of a number of failed moves this summer and on deadline day. Players are no mugs and know how the market works as well as most agents."

In American sport, clubs/franchises seem to have a lot more control. As stipulations in their deals, players often have to go wherever they are sent/sold to. Are players and their agents now too powerful for similar arrangements to be implemented in football?

"I can't see it happening. Too many people would lose out. Players, clubs, agents, owners and leagues across Europe would all look at the money being spent and be reluctant to rein it in. From a fans' perspective, of those clubs outside of the top six or seven, it would give them more of a chance to compete on a regular basis. So yeah—no chance."

With coverage of transfers now a 24/7 concern, fans are a lot more clued-up with regard to how a transfer works. When a story is clearly being leaked, they are quick to acknowledge it as such, so is it not the case that transparency might be better for everyone involved? Danny Rose was criticised for how open he was in outlining exactly what he wanted from Spurs, in terms of both finance and ambition. I found it quite refreshing. Would you ever advise a player to go so public, or do you tend to like to keep things in-house?

"You could say what Danny Rose did was refreshing—maybe admirable. Or you could say it was just a tactic to get a move now or a little further down the line. He's holding Spurs at gunpoint. He's effectively giving notice of his intentions, saying if they don't win the Premier League or Champions League this season or next, he'll be off. Not that Daniel Levy is a man to play Russian roulette with."

Sheffield United boss Chris Wilder gave Bleacher Report unprecedented access to film him on the final day of the transfer window. He said: "There's no straight dealing. It's like dealing with the mafia." FIFA's global licensing system for agents was ended on April 1, 2015. How much has that had an effect on how the game is run? Can you briefly explain what was required to obtain a licence before and your thoughts on deregulation? Has it become, as many feared, like the Wild West?

"Fair play to Chris Wilder. The video you've done with him is a really fair insight into what it's like. It's not a business for the faint-hearted. The number of agents has tripled in two years. You're probably looking at over 1,000, and that's just in England. Agents are under pressure to get the best, often unrealistic, deals done for their clients. Otherwise they risk losing them to the circling sharks wanting to pounce. Before deregs, you had to learn binders of information from FIFA, the FA and the Football League. It was a proper qualification where you had to sit examinations. This made you qualified to act on behalf of a player. You knew the rules.

"From those who took the test when I sat them, I was one of only two from over a hundred to pass. Now those exams don't exist. Effectively, those 98 or so who were considered not right, or at least not ready to be an agent by the governing agencies at the time, could all now be practicing in the profession. It doesn't seem right.

"Here's one classic example I heard recently: A player had played for his parent club in August but wasn't getting enough game time so agreed to a loan before the transfer window closed. The move to this club didn't work out as hoped, so come January, his agent/intermediary, as green as it gets, found him another club to go out on loan to. Apparently, he was really pleased with himself. Two moves in a season for his client—bingo! What he didn't realise was a player can only represent two teams in a single season. You can sign for a third but only play for two. It's a classic failure of not knowing the regulations. I've heard countless stories over the past few days of agents not knowing loans aren't allowed anymore in the Football League outside of the permitted two windows. There are going to be a lot of frustrated players kicking their heels between now and January."

In our day with Wilder, it's fair to say agents didn't come out of it looking like the heroes. As a profession, are you unfairly maligned?

"There are bad agents and good agents. It's like any other profession. We'll always be maligned because of the few bad eggs everyone remembers. I'd have to confess those bad eggs are becoming a bit more frequent these days. Not that I'm suggesting those Chris dealt with are—not at all. For every bad agent out for themselves, there are plenty of others helping clients in the lower leagues who are desperate for a club to pay what is a fairly standard living wage for many. Using your contacts book to find a new club for clients can be an exhausting business, but it's rewarding to see good young lads, and ladies, make an honest living doing what they love."

At the time of agent deregulation, the agent David Seligman told BBC Sport: "The obvious problem would be exploitation. If you're a 16- or 17-year-old lad and you've got two people trying to sign you, are you going to sign with the middle-age lawyer who knows the rules and regulations inside out and will negotiate a deal properly? Or are you going to sign with the guy who doesn't know the rules and regulations but will take you out clubbing, buy the watches and drive the nice cars?" Two years on, how close to the situation do you think that portrayal is?

"David is a good guy, and he was spot on with his observation. Let's not assume all players are like this, but it's safe to say players signed with Premier League clubs, often pampered by the academies and earning a few thousand [pounds] per month, are more inclined to think they've already made it and want the trappings to go with perceived success. To be fair, the clubs themselves have to take a fair portion of the blame with regard to the way players are spoiled. In fairness, though, if they don't, then another club almost certainly will. It's the same with agents. Striking a balance between offering sage advice and keeping a client is often tough.

"That's not to say everyone who has come into the game post the abolition of agent exams is flying blind in terms of knowing regulations. There's some really smart people I've met recently who are relatively new to the industry. I'd like to think I'm still young enough not to cry myself to sleep thinking about the golden age of football agents."

On the flip side to talk of clubs winning back a good deal of power, there's the case of the 17-year-old Jadon Sancho, who effectively held Manchester City to ransom by refusing to train in an attempt to force a move. He eventually went to Borussia Dortmund for £10 million, with City unwilling to countenance selling to another British club. What did you make of that? Can you see more English academy players moving abroad?

"Manchester City and Chelsea having silly amounts of young players on their books is not a secret. The issue is hardly any of them are going to play in the first team anytime soon. The lad Sancho has taken the bull by the horns and decided he wants to play top-flight football straight away. He didn't want a loan to a Football League club or a European team, only to return the following summer and have to do it all again and possibly again and then again.

"I do have some sympathy for these young players living the life of Bill Murray in Groundhog Day. And I have to applaud his reasons for moving. I can see a trickle of academy players going abroad, but it's unlikely to ever be a flood. Sancho has obvious talent, but many others aren't close to him in terms of ability or don't have the mentality to try overseas. Some can't even handle a move to a Football League team a dozen miles from their parent club."

In your time in the industry, have you seen a dramatic change in how kids are taking control of their own futures? Or more pertinently, perhaps, have agents cottoned on to their inherent value, whereas in the past until you had played first-team football you were effectively a nonentity?

"To be honest, I don't bother with kids anymore unless they show me they are desperate to make it. If they don't want to listen, their cloth ears are welcome to someone else. The time, energy, finance, probability of failure, not to mention the 'pride-swallowing siege' of dealing with youngsters who haven't kicked a ball in anger has made me reassess. I prefer to deal with players looking for advice from a qualified agent, as opposed to sorting out free tickets to the hottest new nightclub."

As a counterbalance, Ravel Morrison seemingly had the world at his feet at Manchester United and similarly agitated to move before joining West Ham United. He recently joined Mexican club Atlas on loan, having barely played over the past few seasons. It's great to see kids pushing for regular football, but is it sometimes a case of patience being a virtue?

"Ravel will never be happy or settled anywhere. And it really disappoints me to say that because he's a wonderful talent. I think he's blown every chance in the UK and Europe with his attitude on and off the pitch. It's maybe not quite last-chance saloon, but it's not far off. If it didn't stink of going pear-shaped, I'd applaud Ravel's adventurous nature and hope it works out. I think British players, young and old, have to seriously consider football overseas. And not just when it's a last resort.

"For whatever reason, English football is currently swamped by ready-made players brought in from overseas. Managers haven't the breathing space to work with homegrown talent, especially when there is so much money currently sloshing around to buy proven quality. These kids need to tool up if they want to make it big. They have to work hard for success, which unfortunately doesn't always come naturally for a lot of them.

"There was a good piece with Peter Crouch the other day, when he said a lot of young lads are spending more time posting snaps of themselves working out than actually working out. A lot would do well to listen to a guy who's never been fashionable but will probably be playing at a higher level of football at 40 than many just-as-talented academy lads ever get to."

Another issue is the number of players happy to sit on a fat wage and not bother going out on loan in pursuit of first-team football. Are you surprised so many players are happy to do a Winston Bogarde? Would Tottenham's Vincent Janssen, who reportedly could have gone to Brighton & Hove Albion, not have enjoyed a season of first-team football more than sitting on the bench at Spurs? Watford similarly had problems getting players to go out on loan. What would you advise your players who are not playing regularly to do: sit it out, or move on?

"All players (and agents) are different, but why would a player not want to go out on loan to a good club in the same league? It's Brighton—a lovely place. ... I would only tell a player to stay at a club when they are not playing if no club wanted him, he isn't good enough in reality to play for the new club that wants him or there's a good chance the manager (at either club) will get sacked. That can change everything."

Finally, if you could introduce one rule to make dealing with transfers easier for agents, players and clubs, what would it be?

"I'd circulate a list of every player with the name of his agent. Just a simple list is needed. Clubs would then only be able to deal with the agent on the list, and likewise a player would only be able to negotiate via his named representative. An end to the Wild West would be bliss."