Transfer fees and salary cap exempt foreigners in the A-League? Be careful what you wish for

Chief executive of Football Federation Australia James Johnson recently cited a need to re-evaluate the transfer fee system in the domestic game. At the same time, the newly independent A-League owners and the PFA appear determined to implement changes to the rules around marquee and foreign players; allowing clubs to sign up to five whose wages would sit outside the salary cap.

Both are long called for and would have instant and immense ramifications for the A-League.

Johnson’s comments around the transfer system stem from a desire to increase revenue streams for clubs currently bound by regulations that allow no internal A-League transfer fees. In 2019, Australian clubs took in a paltry A$1.9 million; well below the fees gathered by other heavy hitters in the Asian Confederation.

The amount ranks Australia 67th internationally, something that Johnson feels is unacceptable considering the men’s national team sits in 42nd place in the international rankings. Johnson wrote the book on transfer fees and regulations in his role at FIFA and as those changes filter through internationally, his view is that Australia does not have the option to change, but must change, should they wish to keep step with the rest of the globe.

Much of the discussion in the area of transfer fees lies in junior development, with many NPL clubs feeling they remain unrewarded for developing talent. Such talent is often poached by A-League clubs with no reward received for the financial and resource commitment made to the player and their youth structures.

Should the payment of transfer fees in such a situation become a reality, clubs that churn out junior talent will be rewarded with financial compensation. Those funds could be re-invested into the next crop of players and clubs that have traditionally been effective in producing young talent, only for others to swoop and pounce as they reach maturity, could develop a substantial and consistent revenue stream.

Clubs with vast nurseries in major capital cities will surely hold an advantage, however, the process of assigning true value to footballers and ensuring that clubs pay and receive the appropriate sum is a no-brainer when it comes to advancing the Australian game.

Potentially more ground breaking are the discussions between the A-League owners and the PFA in regards to marquee and foreign wages. Currently, each club is permitted two marquee men whose wages fall outside the salary cap.

Of the current eleven clubs, only Perth Glory, Melbourne Victory and Western United have two such marquees. Adelaide United, Brisbane Roar and Newcastle Jets have none whatsoever and the remaining five clubs all have one man on the books whose wages do not impinge on the A$3.2 million salary cap.

The argument for an opening of the purse strings that could see the 12 A-League clubs in 2020/2021 bring up to 60 marquee/foreign men from around the globe into the league is all about quality. The lure is a suggestion that clubs with the financial clout to attract better pedigree from overseas would effectively raise the standard of play across the league.

Moreover, the commercial ramifications of the introduction of big name international players has some salivating at the thought. Many will cite Alessandro Del Piero’s time at Sydney FC as the benchmark and the goal; where the domestic league garnered interest from many fans who had rarely, if ever, attended an A-League match.

Whilst the excitement of each and every A-League club acquiring up to five Del Pierro like players to ignite the competition is an attractive thought, the feasibility of such a boom in spending is questionable. With just 11 of the 22 current A-League marquee spots filled, one wonders how the club’s owners could dare engage in a spending spree that would see their wage bill increase exponentially.

Certainly, ticket sales and corporate interest would generate revenue in the medium term. However, with owners making consistent losses across the league, the chances of wholesale spending with little assurance of return appears low.

More important could be the ramifications of a more open market in terms of marquee and foreign wages, where the spending power of smaller clubs could well see them phased out of competitiveness quite briskly. The Central Coast Mariners function in a region of somewhere between 300,000 and 400,000 people. The club spent just A$2.88 million on wages for the 2019/20 season; the salary floor figure mandated by FFA.

Should Sydney FC, Melbourne City, Melbourne Victory and Perth Glory be afforded the license to acquire up to five foreigners outside the salary cap restrictions, one can only imagine the increased chasm between the playing talent in their squads compared to that of the Mariners.

Natural attrition would almost certainly take place; something that exists across the globe in world football as one team is relegated and another promoted. However, without a current and efficient system of promotion/relegation in the domestic game and a host of clubs with the facilities and finances ready to step into the top tier, the A-League could potentially lose now competitive teams well before the games growth permits an expanded competition of at least 16 teams; something we all hope to see.

Whilst Johnson’s desire to change the Australian transfer fee regulations and the proposed freeing up of the current buying power of the clubs when it comes to marquee/foreign wages sound exciting for the domestic game, there will be casualties.

The question that must be asked and considered carefully is whether the game can afford those causalities right now. The salary cap and the restriction on transfer fees were implemented to protect the A-League in its infancy.

Whether the competition is old enough for such measures to be lifted is, in my opinion, up for debate.

Previous ArticleNext Article

FIFA sparks widespread backlash with private investment proposal

In a shock announcement made on Tuesday this week, FIFA revealed plans to create a subsidiary known as FIFA Forward Enterprise (FFE) to manage commercial and event operations for major competitions, including the World Cup. FIFA promises to reinvest all benefits back into the game, but the plan is receiving widespread criticism from governing bodies and governments around the world.

 

“Unleashing” football’s commercial power

Following the huge financial success of this summer’s FIFA World Cup, FIFA President Gianni Infantino indicated plans to “unleash the commercial potential and opportunity” at FIFA’s disposal.

Indeed, it appears Infantino is wasting no time in capitalising on the tournament’s success, which generated AUD 21 billion (USD 15 billion) for FIFA.

An eye-watering number. A tournament record. And, apparently, still not enough.

Tuesday’s announcement made clear the intention to bring commercial rights under a new subsidiary, FIFA Forward Enterprise (FFE). This, according to FIFA, could generate AUD 6 billion (USD 4.2 billion) of initial capital with all net benefits going back into grassroots and infrastructure development for Member Associations (MA) through the FIFA Forward programme.

The money would be raised by selling minority stakes in FFE to private third-party investors, although FIFA has outlined that it will retain “sole control of FFE”.

The venture has a reported valuation of AUD 29 billion (USD 20 billion), prompting questions and backlash from around the world over who will actually benefit from the finances – and whether anyone should benefit at all.

 

What are critics saying?

On the surface, the principle of generating more money for MAs and investing into grassroots, coaching, women’s and youth football is a worthwhile ambition.

Currently, each MA receives AUD 11.5 million (USD 8 million) per year from FIFA Forward. FIFA affirms that, should the proposal go through, this funding would increase to AUD 29 million (USD 20 million) between 2027-2030.

However, several governing bodies, including UEFA, Concacaf and the English FA, are adamantly fighting the plans.

“This crosses a line that football’s governing institutions should never cross,” UEFA said via an official statement on social media.

“The soul and governance of football are not assets to trade especially with zero transparency as to who gains financially,” UEFA continued.

“None of us are the owners of football. It is not FIFA’s to sell.”

Concacaf also expressed deep concern over the reports, citing a distinct lack of warning and due process from FIFA prior to the announcement.

“We share the disappointment of many within our region and the game that this level of detail has been designed and shared publicly before any discussion with the relevant governance bodies and stakeholders has taken place,” Concacaf said via official statement.

“As leaders within football, we are custodians of the game. Collectively, FIFA, the Confederations and every Member Association have a responsibility to always act in the best interests of the sport.”

Further concerns also centre around the company set to lead the proposed investor group – Thrive Eternal. Founded by Joshua Kushner, the brother of US President Donald Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, Thrive Eternal’s role in the venture opens the door to potential conflicts of interests – and emboldens criticisms that Infantino’s relationship with the US President is compromising his leading role in football’s international governing body.

 

Football was never about the money

Investing into the game is vital to football’s sustained future, especially for nations without the financial power to fund it independent of football’s governing body.

Nobody will argue that supporting the entire football pyramid – from grassroots to professional, men’s and women’s, youth and para, playing and coaching – should benefit from the financial might of the sport’s elite.

And FIFA is promising such benefits for all – arriving in the form of tens of millions of dollars – and stemming from third-party investors intrigued by the commercial value of the beautiful game.

But this is exactly where the venture’s flaws start to appear.

Rhetoric about increasing football’s commercial power following the 2026 World Cup leads the governing body down a slippery slope to a sport which prioritises money over integrity, due process and the fans who uphold it week-in week-out.

Football – from its very first beginnings as a working class sport – was never about the money.

Although modern commercialisation has turned clubs into businesses and players into tradable assets, everyone within the pyramid is a custodian of the game.

The game is not a product to sell – especially by those entrusted to uphold its integrity.

 

What happens now?

FIFA stated its intentions to only proceed with the venture if it receives support from the majority of MAs. While many are already uniting in opposition to the proposal, there are national governing bodies who have vocalised their support, including the Czech FA.

UEFA, on the other hand, is set to hold an emergency meeting with its 55 members to discuss a potential boycott of future tournaments.

But with a deadline of September 19 for MAs to accept the proposal, and the promise of a payment worth AUD 57.5 million (USD 40 million) if they do, the next eight weeks will reveal the future of the game and the nature of its global governance.

FIFA’s plan, although laced with promises of investment, development and growth for all, has instead kicked off a contest to save the game’s soul – or change it forever.

Governance, guidelines and game integrity: Did the 2026 FIFA World Cup uphold all three?

The FIFA World Cup 2026 is now over. Aside from the action and drama on the pitch, it is how FIFA performed off it which will dictate its lasting legacy.

 

Money talks

Projections for this year’s tournament placed total revenue at an eye-watering figure of AUD 16 billion (USD 11 billion); in the end, the number reached AUD 21 billion (USD 15 billion).

The newly-introduced hydration breaks – much bemoaned by fans accustomed to a more traditional 45 minute half – generated further income. Fox Sports was expected to earn more than AUD 356 million (USD 250 million) from these breaks alone, taking global revenue upwards of AUD 1.4 billion (USD 1 billion).

Four minutes and 20 seconds per match, worth more than 1 billion dollars. For FIFA, therefore, time truly is money.

As the most profitable World Cup in history, it also raises further questions (and potential ideas) for how to continue the success. FIFA President, Gianni Infantino, is already considering ways to “unleash the commercial potential and opportunity that FIFA has” going forward.

“I think I can say that this FIFA World Cup here in particular has opened a lot of doors, a lot of opportunities, a lot of possibilities,” Infantino said.

“This will have an impact on what we can do all over the world, but the revenues and the financial economic success come only if the sporting side is right.”

Expanded participation – marking the first time a World Cup features 48 teams compared to the previous 32 – was a major factor in increasing revenue. More teams, more games, more sponsorship and advertising opportunities.

“There are discussions about whether we should increase more (from 48) to 64 (teams), but this will be debated and this will be discussed,” Infantino affirmed.

More revenue for FIFA should also mean its 211 Member Associations also benefit from further investment, although details regarding this remain unknown.

Record-breaking attendance

Going into the tournament, the issue surrounding ticket prices was widespread. Many fans accused the governing body of pricing fans out of the game they love – and the numbers justified it.

While tickets opened at AUD 85 (USD 60), the dynamic pricing led to resales worth tens of thousands of dollars. For the final between Spain and Argentina, fans seeking last-minute tickets needed closer to AUD 3 million (USD 2 million).

But despite the criticism aimed at the dynamic pricing system, FIFA’s resolve paid off. Attendances smashed previous records, with total attendance double the figure seen in Qatar 2022.

FIFA reported that 6,810,966 fans packed into stadiums across the 104 matches, reaching an average crowd of 65,490. With higher attendances also comes more revenue generated from hospitality within the stadium itself.

Clearly, the price of a ticket to the world’s biggest sporting tournament does not affect demand. If FIFA sets the price, people will pay.

Or rather, people who can afford these prices will.

 

Red card, rescinded

As USA and Bosnia & Herzegovina went toe-to-toe in their round-of-32 clash, few could have known the drama would continue far beyond the referee’s whistle after 90 minutes.

A red card for star-striker, Folarin Balogun, in the 64th minute prompted concerns among US fans not only for the remaining half-an-hour of play, but for the following round of the tournament: as per FIFA rules, a player who receives a red card automatically misses the subsequent match.

This was the case for Balogun, until external pressure entered the field. And for football’s global governing body, external pressure arrived in the form of the President of the United States of America.

The legality over the rescinded red card is irrelevant to the wider issue. People will dispute the various articles outlined in the FIFA Disciplinary Code, but the incident itself sets a problematic precedent for football’s global governing body: if FIFA compromises its rules and political neutrality for one nation, where does it draw the line in future tournaments?

The tournament’s integrity had already come under pressure before a match had kicked-off, following the first ever FIFA Peace Prize awarded to President Trump in December 2025. The rescinded red card ultimately added fuel to the fire.

 

A game of two halves

The FIFA World Cup 2026 was as entertaining on the pitch as it was controversial off it.

It featured some incredible individual performances from stars like Mbappe and Kane, as well as Cabo Verde’s Vozinha – the 40 year-old overnight sensation who became a tournament icon.

308 goals were scored, surpassing with flying colours the previous record of 172 in 2022. A goal-per-game ratio fo 2.96 was the highest in recorded history since 1970.

Celebrations like Norway’s ‘Viking Row’ took the world by storm, and several brands including Levi’s, Gillette and Under Armour (the latter being the tournament-winning boot sponsorship) enjoyed huge public attention online for their unique marketing approaches.

These are the stories which represent the World Cup at its very best and the side of football fans want to see: action-packed matches, world-class talent, inspirational underdog stories and moments which generate discussions between fans from all over the world.

Beyond the pitch, however, memories of this year’s tournament will be comprised of financial success marred by a failure to govern and uphold the game’s integrity throughout.

It is a disappointing contradiction, that the cost of the most entertaining and economically successful World Cup in history, is the growing concern whether we can believe in those delivering the game to us at all.

Most Popular Topics

Editor Picks

Send this to a friend