- May 25, 2008
- 4,959
- 4,736
As I understand it part of the issue is that because of the mandatory agreement with the Premier league the Premier League itself can call on any and all of a club's players to carry out some Premier league promotions and various PR activities, this being the case they don't want to have to ask the third party for permission to use the player, refusal of which could cause difficulty with sponsors who may request a particular player and this is why they insist on the clubs owning the image rights.
For this service the Premier League pay the club at a certain rate and won't countenance paying a third party at an unspecified rate in which case they would still pay the club the going rate but the club would have to settle up with the third party at whatever rate they demand The club can't refuse the PL request but will have to pay the third party which means the club has no control over their outgoings. I can't guarantee this is the exact situation but it is certainly the gyst of it and there may be other issues as well.
appreciate the explanation
this image rights issue gets down to the player's greed in my opinion, it wasn't necessary and its just another avenue for revenue raising on behalf of the player, now its come back to bite him on the arse as he's locked in now and it prevented his transfer when all parties had reached an agreement
he can't have it both ways