An Agent Regulation Reality Check :
What We Think We Know vs. What We Actually Know
7th August 2025
Working in the football industry, including the football agent sector, most of us develop a certain confidence in navigating the regulatory landscape. Through experience, we come to understand the basic DOs and DONTs; what constitutes a breach of the regulations, what activities are prohibited, and where the clear lines are drawn.
And for many of us who even know where those ‘shades of grey’ exist 
, we know not to stray into certain areas regarding blatant breaches of the regulations. It’s this practical familiarity of regulations that allows agents (licensed and unlicensed), clubs, football administrators and even regulators to operate with reasonable certainty about compliance.
Yet a recent case has highlighted just how easily these regulations can be misinterpreted not just by individuals, but across the entire spectrum of industry professionals, legal experts, and even the authorities themselves
A 'Straightforward' Case That Wasn't So Straightforward
A recent case (and subsequent appeal) made me question whether any of us (myself included) truly understand the seemingly most basic agent regulations as well as we think we do. The scenario seemed straightforward enough: a club had signed off on an agent related transaction and in doing so had spoken to an unlicensed agent (not to the club’s knowledge, I hasten to add) who was representing the player, about a player signing. The relevant FA regulation appeared as clear as it had done for many years in various guises, as it prohibits clubs from engaging or appointing someone who is not a registered/licensed football agent to perform football agent services.
To me, this looked like a textbook breach. So much so that I decided to test my interpretation with a poll, asking a simple question: “If the club signs off & speaks to the UNLICENSED agent about the signing, has the club breached the regulations?”
When the Majority'S Interpretation Means Nothing
The response was overwhelming – more than 90% of respondents agreed that yes, this constituted a breach. These weren’t just random people clicking buttons; the responses came from agents, legal professionals, and other industry participants who deal with these regulations regularly. The interpretation seemed obvious, even to some with legal backgrounds who you’d expect might spot potential ambiguities.
I shared this view entirely. More importantly, the FA clearly shared this view too; they brought charges against the club, and then appealed against the initial decision. Even more telling, the club initially admitted the charge, suggesting they too interpreted the regulation the same way as the FA, myself, and the overwhelming majority of poll respondents. This wasn’t a case of industry professionals misunderstanding complex legal language; it appeared to be a clear-cut application of a straightforward prohibition.
Yet both the original Regulatory Commission and the subsequent Appeal Board ruled that no breach had occurred.
The 'Battle' oVER One Word
The entire case seemingly hinged on the interpretation of a single word: “engage”, and more importantly, the absence of another (“with”). The FA argued that “engage” means to “engage with” or “have dealings with” therefore any interaction with an unlicensed agent performing football services would constitute a breach of the FA’s Agent Regulations. This interpretation aligns with how it seems most of us would naturally understand the word and the apparent intent behind the regulation.
The club’s legal team, however, argued that “engage” requires formally appointing or retaining someone to provide services on your behalf, not merely communicating with someone who might be acting for another party. Under this interpretation, simply speaking to an unlicensed agent wouldn’t constitute “engaging” them unless there was a formal arrangement. …………. the panel(s) seemingly sided with the narrower interpretation.
The FA's 'Interesting' Response
Now here’s where it gets interesting. The FA’s response was to amend their regulations, changing “engage or appoint” to “engage with or appoint” (promptly after the case), essentially recognising the original wording was unclear. Yet they still pursued their appeal against the original decision, fighting a case based on regulations they themselves had just now acknowledged were flawed.
In all honesty I would have probably done the same, given my stubborn nature and the fact that had you asked a cross-section of people in the street their interpretation (akin to the poll I have already mentioned) they would have likely interpreted it the same as the FA – rather than the convoluted way in which an old-school English language professor would have made their case.
The Uncomfortable Questions This Raises
This raises some uncomfortable questions about regulatory clarity. When from just one small poll more than 90% of industry professionals interpret a regulation one way, when a regulatory authority itself brings charges based on that interpretation and is so adamant in their interpretation they appeal, but independent panels rule the opposite way, we have a fundamental problem.
Consider what this means for those working in the football industry, not least several thousand newly licensed football agents (many of whom without a formal legal background). If experienced professionals, legal experts, and even the regulatory authorities can arrive at the same “incorrect” interpretation, how can anyone operate with genuine confidence about compliance? The addition of a single word, “with” apparently flips the entire meaning of a hugely important regulation.
The Scale of the 'Problem'
From my own experience, I’ve seen how agents, clubs, and players make daily decisions based on their understanding of regulations. Many pour over regulatory documents, consult with compliance experts, seek legal advice, and genuinely MANY try to stay within the boundaries. Yet this case demonstrates that even widespread professional consensus about regulatory meaning can be completely wrong according to an independent panel’s interpretation (and the view of just 3 selected individuals from a somewhat limited background, who are meant to be able to accurately interpret wording to reflect the common interpretation by a ‘person in the street‘).
I would argue that this isn’t about legal technicalities or complex interpretive principles. It’s about whether the fundamental vocabulary of regulation is clear enough for the majority of those affected to understand what they’re supposed to do (or can’t do). When you can’t rely on industry consensus, regulatory authority guidance, or legal advice to understand what constitutes a breach of regulations, the compliance framework becomes essentially unworkable.
The implications extend well beyond this single case. How many other regulations contain similar ambiguities? And with there reported to be over 11,000 FIFA-licensed agents now operating globally, plus national regulatory frameworks, the scale of potential confusion is enormous. Each of these individuals, along with the clubs and players they work with, must navigate regulatory frameworks that this case suggests may be fundamentally unclear.
Who Gets Caught in the Confusion?
This underlying problem affects everyone, not just the agents and the football clubs.
Lawyers and consultants advising on compliance can arrive at interpretations that differ from panel decisions. Club administrators investing huge amounts of time and effort in compliance systems find that even regulatory authorities can misinterpret their own rules. Players trying to understand their obligations discover that the rules governing their interactions with agents are apparently open to multiple reasonable interpretations.
The Questions Everyone Affected by Football Agent Activity, Needs to Ask
This prompts some difficult, if not uncomfortable questions:
For agents: Do you really understand the regulations you’re operating under? If 90% of your peers shared an interpretation that was ruled incorrect, what confidence can you have in your own regulatory understanding?
For clubs: What’s your real responsibility in ensuring agent compliance? Is it enough to understand just the basics when even the basics can be interpreted so differently?
For players: Do you understand your role in the agent regulatory system, and what happens when the regulations themselves are unclear?
For authorities: Do you understand the practical realities of how agents, clubs, and players actually interact? Are you creating compliance problems through unclear drafting?
Where We Go From Here With Understanding Football Agent Regulations
I’m not criticising any particular decision with this article. The panels applied what I perceive as established legal principles to the text before them. The FA’s original charges were based on a reasonable reading of their own regulations. The widespread industry interpretation reflected genuine attempts to understand regulatory requirements.
The real issue is systemic. If this level of interpretive confusion exists around what seemed like a straightforward regulation, we need to acknowledge that our confidence in regulatory understanding might be misplaced, not because people can’t read regulations, but because the regulations themselves aren’t clear enough to be consistently understood.
When the difference between a breach and no breach comes down to whether a single word is implicit or explicit, included or excluded, when regulatory authorities must immediately amend rules after losing cases based on their own interpretations, and when industry-wide consensus can be entirely wrong, we’ve moved beyond normal legal interpretation into something more problematic.
Perhaps it’s time to recognise that the problem isn’t with the people trying to understand these regulations, it’s with the regulations themselves. Until we address these fundamental clarity issues, everyone in the industry will continue operating with what might be false confidence in their regulatory understanding.
The question isn’t whether you understand agent regulations, it’s whether the regulations themselves are actually understandable.
And this case suggests that the answer might be more troubling than any of us realized.
.
Reference Points:
Breach of the Football Agent Regulations found not proven – May 2025
https://www.thefa.com/news/2025/may/21/accrington-stanley-update-220525
Independent Appeal Board dismisses appeal from The FA – July 2025
https://www.thefa.com/news/2025/jul/30/accrington-stanley-update-300725
Poll asking “If the club sign-off & speak to the UNLICENSED agent about the signing. Has the club breached the regulations?”
https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7356650599829934083