A hefty commission to conclude a contract can drug the market, but it is still a commission. A commission for a contract not to be concluded is another thing. The latter seems to refer to the complaint of the president of Salernitana, Danilo Iervolino, in an interview with the Gazzetta, when he tells the reasons for the divorce with the sporting director Walter Sabatini. An increase on Lassana Coulibaly’s salary of just two hundred thousand euros does not justify a commission five times higher, that is, one million euros. If that sum serves to make the player desist from offering himself to others, it is a price to avoid a feared damage that has little to do with the categories of private law, and too much resembles a criminal case. Prudence requires that judgment be suspended, which, if anything, will be up to other offices. However, whether it is a misunderstanding or not, this story demonstrates how sticky and intrasparent market relations are and how ambiguous the role of prosecutors is.
An economy openly exposed to subterfuge resembles a jungle, where the smartest win even before the strongest. Against which the same rules serve partially. Of course, a ceiling on commissions would be a barrier to forms of contractual autonomy that, with a euphemism, could be defined as atypical. But that would not be enough. The reclamation of the system requires a cultural and ethical step that only the protagonists can make. We must have the courage to say “No!”, Even if the price of a refusal involves damage or the renunciation of a market objective.
Football pays a huge price to the climate of mutual distrust that envelops it like a cloud. In which unlikely executives, intermediaries, factotums, and experts in various capacities thrive, who in any other economic sector would be sidelined in a few weeks. And that here instead continue to propose themselves, even before being, as the only custodians of the mysterious tools to carry out the enterprise of salvation, or to unravel a difficult negotiation. They have survived a football of precariousness and gambling, which is time to file. Their vaunted monopoly of relationships is equal to the blank delegation that, again, with too much generosity is granted to them and that, as skilled communicators, they dress in legend. Even with some indulgence from journalism.
Sport no longer needs these characters. For this reason, the denunciation of the young president from Grenada has the merit of breaking a habit of subordination already paid for at a high price. The reorganization of the system is above all a cultural challenge. It passes through a supportive rivalry between clubs, capable of developing robust skills and mirrored relationships. Based on trust and merit, not on yesteryear esotericism.