[Northwestern Watchtower, April 7, Exclusive] Going back to the summer transfer window of 2018, Guangzhou Evergrande FC paid as much as RMB 400 million in transfer fees for the transfer of two foreign aiders, Paulinho and Talisca.
Recently, Shanghai SIPG Group released the 2020 financial report, the Austrian foreign aid Arnautovic's attraction and coaching costs, about 150 million yuan, was listed as "important other payables with an age of more than one year", making the long-dormant "attraction and coaching costs The issue of "attracting coaching fees" has once again aroused concern. Football Association in the previous conference also revealed that Evergrande, Luneng and Dalian side have paid the attraction of coaching fees. According to NetEase Sports exclusive disclosure, which Evergrande in the 2018 summer transfer window, for Paulinho and Talisker two foreign aid paid about 400 million coaching fee.
Neither the Football Association (FA) nor Shanghai Harbour Club (SHCC) has responded to the issue of the 150 million RMB foreign aid transfer fee owed to the National Football Association (NFA), which was announced by the Shanghai Harbour Group in its 2020 financial report. The use of Arnautovic by Shanghai Harbor in Chinese Super League matches has also been questioned because of the FA's clear rule that players who have not paid the conditioning fee are not allowed to be registered.
The National Football League attraction and transfer fee policy began in June 2017, aiming to guide the Chinese Super League clubs to invest rationally. As of March 2019, the FA announced on its official website that Beijing Guoan for Bakambu and Bieira, Luneng for Fellaini, Evergrande for Paulinho and Talisca, Dalian for Hamsik, Gaetan and Carrasco, and Quanjian for Modeste, a total of five clubs have paid the full amount of the transfer fee for nine foreign aiders.
Guangzhou Evergrande paid more than 400 million RMB for Paulinho and Talisca's coaching fees, which have been paid in full. In addition, Li Ming, general manager of Guoan, has also said in public that the club has paid the full amount of attraction and coaching costs. The FA has also made it clear in a number of announcements that clubs such as Luneng, Evergrande and Guoan have already paid their fees, so media sources have revealed that it is unlikely that the FA has not provided clubs with an account to pay their coaching fees.
So why has Arnautovic's transfer fee, who joined Hong Kong in July 2019, been in arrears to date?
Some media reports claimed that this was because the Football Association was unable to issue an invoice for the attraction and coaching fees, resulting in state-owned Hong Kong not being able to make the payment. This argument seems plausible, as it has been reported that Evergrande has not yet received the corresponding invoice for the transfer fee, even though it has paid more than 400 million dollars for the fee.
However, the fact that Luneng, also a state-owned unit, managed to pay for Fellaini's transfer fee seems to complicate the issue of Shanghai's default on the transfer fee.
It is clear that SIPG did not intend to default on this fee, but more likely because there were many procedural problems with the FA's collection of the "attraction and coaching fee".
Previously, there are also reports that the CFA will be decoupled from the CFA, the Association in the release and implementation of the policy of attracting and coaching fees, should be based on the provisions of the registration of social organizations management approach for review. However, the CFA did not go through all the procedures for approval when it released the attraction and coaching fee, and had the idea of crediting this income to the China Football Development Foundation. But according to the relevant provisions of the management of associations and foundations, the coaching fee charges can not be counted as a unit of the endowment fee, is still collected by the Chinese super company, which has touched the management of associations and charges for a number of management regulations, some financial rules and guidelines and even difficult to overcome, resulting in the introduction of coaching fee has now become a "hot potato".
Therefore, the failure of Shanghai Hong Kong to pay the transfer fee for Arnautovic in time may be mainly attributed to the FA. However, the FA has so far not provided any explanation for Shanghai's failure to pay the transfer fee, nor has it provided any explanation as to why Arnautovic was allowed to register without paying the transfer fee.
Now leaving aside the question of why Arnautovic was able to register to play successfully in the Chinese Super League, is it fair to the clubs that have already paid for the coaching fee that so far Shanghai Hong Kong has still been unable to pay the fee, and should the CFA refund the fee?
Due to the epidemic and the various investment restrictions in the Chinese Super League, the hundreds of millions of dollars previously paid by the clubs for conditioning fees, once they can be refunded, this fee will be enough to offset the entire club's annual operating costs, for the club investors will also be a great relief.
