James Shaw | Contributing Writer
I read on Sky Sports last week that Diafra Sakho was set to be offered a new bumper five year contract worth £10 million, by West Ham. It struck a chord with me. It seemed an excessive reward to dole out in return for a man doing his job. It comes in the same week that the chairman of the Chelsea Supporters Association explained the lack of atmosphere at matches due to the most vocal contingent of fans (18-30) being unable to attend matches due to the rising cost of tickets, a consequence of the increase in players’ salaries. Sakho signed a four year deal for the club in August, just 3 months ago. As part of the deal, Sakho, like any player, is required to give his all in terms of performances for the team. Like any new signing, their acquisition is a calculated risk, they may not adapt to the manager’s philosophy or to the rigours of the league, or in the case of Sakho, they may hit the ground running and take the league by storm. In the former situation, the club must honour their contract, and pay them regardless of their failure to perform. The club may try to offload them on loan but ultimately, if they can’t find a suitor, they must honour the contract and pay the player, as seen in the case of Manchester United’s Anderson. Having failed to live up to expectations, he was sent on loan to Fiorentina and again not finding form, he is now rotting in the reserves, all the while picking up his pay check from Manchester United without so much as kicking a ball in live action.
For West Ham, the risk they took on Sakho has yielded dividends thus far, then again it’s only 3 months into a 4 year deal. In light of his recent performances, wanting to dissuade bids from bigger teams, they now appear to be offering Sakho improved terms. However, this attitude assumes mediocrity as the norm. As part of the deal Sakho signed in August, it would have assumed him giving his utmost for the club, if he feels that his performances are superior to that of a West Ham player, he may look for a transfer but he made a commitment to the club for four years and as such, must honour that and work for that agreed wage. Otherwise, it’s as if it’s a surprise to the club that he’s playing well, it would be to assume that the new signing was going to be a flop and on the off chance that he’s turned out well, they must scramble to offer new terms. Where’s the stability in signing a well-considered contract and playing to that whether you’re in or out of form.
While no player wants to be stuck at a mid-tier side when they have aspirations of a move to a more elite outfit, this is the risk a player must factor into their decision-making when agreeing the length of their contract.
Nowadays, we witness many five year deals that are rarely seen out. It’s the culture of the transfer market, the days of one club players and club stalwarts have long since faded. In the short career of a professional footballer, five years is a significant period of a career and clearly players should not enter into such deals lightly, particularly if they harbour ambitions of a move to a bigger club in a few years’ time.
The real beneficiaries are the players’ agents, who receive a percentage of any transfer fees that their client is sold for. The reason clubs agree to offer new deals to performing players is because it makes them more likely to stay at the club, but in the case that the player is sold, they will get a much bigger fee for him should he be tied to a long term deal. As a result, these improved contracts result in inflating the player’s value. A prime example was Luis Suarez, who already tied to a long term deal at Liverpool, signed a lucrative four year extension last December, only to sign for Barcelona in the summer. As regards honouring the length of such deals, this becomes notional and the coup for all parties is in raising the player’s value – Barcelona paid Liverpool a reported £75 million for Suarez, more than treble the fee he cost Liverpool. While I am not against paying players high wages, I am for fairness, and so if players sign contract extensions with an eye to plumping their value for a future move then I have no sympathy for the player if the club decides they don’t want to sell. They must honour the deal they’ve entered into. Furthermore, if a player is hankering for a move but has some years left on his original modest deal, he too must respect the clubs wishes if they opt not to sell him. This is reciprocal with the risk that clubs take in signing a player if he turns out to be a bad fit, they will still have to pay out his contract. Let’s balance the power.
