Keeping geese in your homestead has several benefits:
🪿 Security: Geese are excellent watchdogs and can alert you to strangers or unusual activity.
🌿 Natural lawn mowers: They graze on grass and weeds, helping keep the compound tidy.
🥚 Eggs: Geese provide large, nutritious eggs for home use or sale.
🍖 Meat: They can provide quality meat when mature.
🐣 Breeding: A good breeding pair can produce goslings for sale and grow your flock.
💰 Extra income: Selling goslings, mature geese, or breeding pairs can be profitable.
🏡 Beautiful addition: Geese make a homestead lively and attractive.
Geese are useful for security, grazing, food, breeding, and income, a great addition to a homestead.
Peller’s Wedding Guests: Foreign Espionage And African Entertainment
When influencers and "foreign guests" collide, as is the case here, we are not watching a wedding but a social engineering operation
It is very clear here that the rise of our internet sensations is often engineered. When foreign money starts flowing into our digital spaces, it is time to start asking who is really behind the screen and what they’re buying with those "gifts." It’s time for Africans to stop being spectators to our own subversion.
This is Kosofe Bus-Stop, Mile 12.
See another iron condemn @n1m@l. How can we as a people be this destructive? What exactly is wrong with us?
They will leave their states in drove, come to Lagos and be vandalising public facilities, what's wrong with people!!!!!!!!!!
@Onsogbu@HighChiefOkoro@Mr_JAGs@Riddwane@tokunbo_wahab@jidesanwoolu
Yesterday, I promised to tell you guys about the ruling that MAY change the Football Agency Industry. And I will.
But I want to give you guys a background first so you can get the context of the issues involved.
In August 2016, Paul Pogba moved from Juventus to Manchester United for a world record fee of €105 million. One agent, Mino Raiola, represented all three parties in that transaction simultaneously. He represented Pogba the player, Manchester United the buying club, and Juventus, the selling club.
Football Leaks documents later reported that Raiola earned approximately €49 million from that single deal. €27 million from Juventus, €19.4 million from Manchester United, and a further €2.6 million from United paid on Pogba's behalf.
That is not the main issue but I believe it is the world FIFA's Football Agent Regulations were designed to end.
I hope I have not lost you.
Now you may ask- What exactly was the FFAR trying to fix?
FIFA approved the Football Agent Regulations in December 2022 and brought them into force on 9 January 2023.
Before then, what had existed was the FIFA Regulations on working with Intermediaries(RWWI). The RWWI had been in existence since 2015 and the main thing it did was to deregulate the Football Agency Industry. Anyone could become an Agent (or intermediary as they then were) as all they had to do was register with their National Association.
However, as at 2022, the system became highly unregulated and opaque, with FIFA estimating that roughly 70-75% of global transfers were completed by individuals who weren't formally licensed agents.
So FIFA had issues with
1) Multiple Representation- where an intermediary could represent more than one party in a transaction, thereby breeding room for conflicts of interests.
2) A lack of salary cap as some Agents were charging as much as 40-45% of players' salaries cos there was no regulation prohibiting it.
3) Lack of Identification as there was no unified standardized way of knowing who was and was not an Agent.
And so on.
Just stay with me please.
FIFA then introduced the FFAR to deal with these issues.
Article 12 of the FFAR introduced the multiple representation prohibition, the rule that says an agent cannot simultaneously represent more than one party in the same transaction. Under Article 12, what Raiola did in the Pogba deal is no longer permitted. Now, you have to pick your client and represent them. The rule has slight exceptions tho but this is not about that.
Article 15 introduced the service fee cap, the provision that limits an agent representing a player to a maximum of 3% of that player's annual salary if the salary is above $200,000, or 5% if below that threshold.
For a buying club, the cap is 3% of the transfer fee. For a selling club, 10% of the transfer fee.
In dual representation cases, which I stated earlier that FIFA permits under very specific conditions, the maximum doubles.
On paper, this sounds reasonable. In practice, on a €50 million transfer with a player earning €3 million a year, the agent representing the player earns a maximum of €90,000. The agent on the selling club side earns a maximum of €5 million. The disparity between those two numbers tells you exactly why player agents pushed back so hard.
That is not even the biggest deal with the rule in my opinion. The biggest deal is that generally speaking, Agents rarely complete deals alone. They usually work wioth at least one other Agent. Sometimes, even two. It is even worse that most of the football transactions that happen are worth less than 1m Euros. So if three Agents come together to rep a player on a 1m Euro deal, based on the 3% rule, they earn €30,000 together and €10,000 each. That may be the only deal they complete in that window!
And that is assuming that the deal is worth up to a million. A lot are worth less than that. In fact, the vast majority are.
Article 16 introduced the client pays rule, which states that only the party an agent actually represents can pay their fees. So if you represent the player, only the player or his club can pay you on his behalf. Not both clubs. Not the selling club as a side arrangement. Just your client.
Article 14(12)(a) introduced the pro rata payment rule, which ties agent fee payments to the duration of the contract they helped negotiate, paid in instalments over the life of that contract rather than in one lump sum upfront. This sounds quite fair.
And Article 19 introduced mandatory transparency provisions, requiring the FIFA Clearing House to publish sanctions imposed on agents and detailed data on every transaction involving an agent. The Agents kicked backed against this lol.
Of course there was pushback.
The pushback was immediate and it came from multiple directions at once. Agents took FIFA to court over some of these provisions of the FFAR.
In Germany, the District Court of Dortmund issued a preliminary injunction in May 2023 targeting the fee cap, the mandatory Clearing House, and the multiple representation rules. The Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf upheld that injunction in March 2024.
In England, four of the world's largest agencies, CAA Base, Wasserman, Stellar, and ARETÉ, commenced FA Rule K arbitration proceedings in June 2023 challenging the implementation of the FFAR through the FA's National Football Agent Regulations.
On 30 November 2023, the Tribunal, presided over by Lord Collins of Mapesbury, Christopher Vajda KC, and Lord Dyson, found that the fee cap and the pro rata payment rule would breach the UK Competition Act 1998 if implemented, and that they constituted a restriction of competition by both object and effect.
The client pays rule and the multiple representation prohibition were upheld as lawful in England and can be implemented.
By December 2023, the legal pressure across Europe had become so significant that FIFA suspended implementation of the key FFAR provisions for all transfers linked to the EU through Circular 1873 (https://t.co/3scsbuIV45), and then extended that suspension worldwide to prevent uneven application.
What this meant was that the Global Transfer system went back to being unregulated and Agents- and people pretending to be Agents went back to doing as they pleased.
But there was a judgment that was made yesterday. It may change the whole thing. That's where we are at now.
The cases that made it to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) were RRC Sports v FIFA, ROGON v German Football Association, and Tondela v Autoridade da Concorrencia. The core question was whether the FFAR violates Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the provisions that prohibit cartels and abuse of dominant position. They Claimants alleged that FIFA had abused its use of dominant position in perpetuating some of the provisions of this regulation.
The court confirmed that the licensing requirement, the service fee cap, the multiple representation prohibition, the client pays rule, and the pro rata payment rule can all be justified in principle.
But the court simultaneously declined to rule definitively on whether specific provisions breach competition law, passing that question back to national courts to assess on a case by case basis.
Two provisions were found to restrict competition by effect. Article 14(12)(a), the pro rata rule that strips an agent of fees already earned if a player moves to a new club even when that agent had no involvement in the new transfer, was ruled harmful to competition on its face.
And on Article 19, two GDPR provisions were struck down: the public disclosure of sanctions imposed on agents, and the publication of detailed transaction data involving agents. That second one matters more than it sounds.
Because if not, every deal made wold have been published in a FIFA Clearing House report showing exactly how much you earned, who your client was, and what the full transaction involved, your commercial relationships and your client list would have effectively been public information. The court said that crosses a line under European data protection law.
So where do things actually stand?
The fee caps remain suspended in England following the Rule K Tribunal ruling. They remain suspended across most of Europe pending national court decisions that the ECJ has now effectively sent back down the chain.
FIFA has until 1 January 2027, when the new transfer system enters into force, to reach a consensual agreement with agent representatives. They have confirmed they are inviting agents to a meeting in the coming weeks.
The summer transfer window is open right now. There is no binding global fee cap in operation. Multiple representation, while prohibited in principle under the FFAR, is being contested and is not uniformly enforced. And the transparency provisions that would have given the public full visibility of what agents earn in every deal have been partially dismantled by a GDPR ruling.
Now what do I think?
I am not exactly sure of what to expect. But I know the service fee cap will surely end up being more than 5%. It should end up around 10. and the mandatory licensing requirements and the prohibition on multiple representation will continue.
There will be more definitely. But I think these will be the most evident changes.
My name is Ajoje and I am a FIFA Licensed Agent and International Sports Lawyer. I talk about the Law and Business of Football, a lot. Repost and Follow me if you want to read more posts like this.