Getting a deal done in Belgian football: a high level of fitness required

June 17, 2022

#sportslaw #transactions #intermediaries

Friday, 17 June 2022 – The football season has barely drawn to its close and players, clubs and intermediaries are all again working frenetically. Out-of-contract players looking for a new club, unhappy players looking to change clubs, clubs looking to offload players, clubs and players trying to capitalise on last season’s positive performances, clubs looking to strengthen their squad for the upcoming season and, in the middle, intermediaries trying to broker deals. This is a good time to zoom into the current deal-making practice in Belgian football.

Belgium, a (reluctant) pioneer

Following a string of football scandals at the end of 2018, Belgium has been at the forefront of new practices in terms of regulating intermediaries and football transactions as a whole.

Anti-Money Laundering legislation now applies to football. The Flemish government has introduced more stringent rules. The Belgian FA has adopted a ban on dual representation[1] and has introduced a clearing department and clearing chamber. A limited tax deductibility was adopted for intermediary fees.[2] The Pro League has imposed guidelines on working with intermediaries. Special tax authorities and social inspectorate services have ‘raided’ clubs and intermediaries over the last years with impromptu inspections and hefty claims and fines.

A number of these legal and regulatory changes are arguably unlawful, but remain in force.

Following a string of football scandals at the end of 2018, Belgium has been at the forefront of new practices in terms of regulating intermediaries and football transactions as a whole.

An overly complex legal and regulatory framework

Whereas most clubs and intermediaries seem to have adopted a much more transparent and compliant approach in the meantime, the adoption of new rules and regulations has also led to an extremely complex legal and regulatory framework, which makes it difficult for clubs and intermediaries alike to work in a fully compliant manner (even if they want to). Of course, the complexity of Belgium’s state structure with, in addition to the Belgian FA’s rules, no less than four bodies of legislation applying to agent’s activities, does not help. Nor does the perceived incompatibility of some rules and regulations with applicable national and EU laws.[3]


In the meantime, a lot of clubs and intermediaries complain of suffering.[4]

According to most, the pendulum has swung in the opposite direction, with both legislative powers and sports’ governing bodies frequently overstepping their boundaries for the mere sake of virtue-signaling.

Most clubs and intermediaries agree that the legal and regulatory backlash is of their (predecessors’) own making. However, reactions overheard in many boardrooms echo frustration over the full-scale and unfettered crackdown on the sector and the fact that the ‘scorched earth’ tactics used by legislators and regulators disproportionally also affect those wanting to effectively work transparently and correctly. What is more, those working transparently and correctly feel they have a competitive disadvantage compared to, first of all, foreign clubs and intermediaries but also towards other, less scrupulous, Belgian clubs and intermediaries.[5]

The cry for a workable – preferably transnational – legal and regulatory framework for intermediaries sounds ever more louder.

In this respect, FIFA’s new football agent regulations are eagerly awaited. It is however doubtful that these will create a proper level playing field, let alone solve all the issues that the football sector is facing. This does not even mention the potential incompatibility of FIFA’s new football regulations with EU and national laws. Legal challenges have been announced prior to its implementation and actual legal cases have already started in different countries.

“The cry for a workable, preferably transnational legal and regulatory framework sounds ever more louder.”


Faced with this new reality, we have noted two tendencies in practice.

On the one hand, some clubs and intermediaries are trying to find their way through the legal and regulatory maze and are trying to abide to the maximum extent possible with the applicable rules. Ethics policies and strict guidelines have been adopted. Compliance officers have been hired. Maximum transparency is sought. For those clubs, a deal will not happen unless the deal can be closed in full compliance. If mistakes are nevertheless made, then it often concerns bona fide mistakes.[6]

On the other hand, one sees clubs and intermediaries simply not caring about compliance or limiting themselves to lip-service at best. They consider the existing rules and regulations as being either too complex or seek alternative practices to be able to maintain ‘old’ ways of doing business. They fear missing out on deals with a particular sporting or financial interest, if they do not bend the rules a little and hope they do not get caught.


Best practice is the only way, even if it requires a sustained effort.

Best practice in today’s football market means, for intermediaries, to register with the Belgian FA, register with the local government(s) where a deal is envisaged, and ensure proper administrative follow-up (registration of contracts, reporting towards local governments, etc.).

For clubs, it means working with duly registered intermediaries only and abiding by the full legal and regulatory framework. We briefly list the main guidelines below:

  • Work with Belgian registered intermediaries Timing is essential. Do not start negotiating unless an intermediary is registered with both the Belgian FA and the competent regional public service. Avoid closing a deal first and regularizing the registration formalities afterwards. The practice of ‘fronting’, in which a Belgian registered agent officially brokers a deal, but in reality serves as a façade for the actual agent, is a no-go. Collaborating with a non-Belgian registered agent could be a criminal offence.
  • Respecting the ban on dual representation. Have contracts reflect reality. A player’s agent is a player’s agent, not the club’s agent. The practice of ‘switching’, in which a player’s agent switches to being a club’s agent at the time of a (linked) transaction to be paid by the club rather than by the player, is still very popular in Belgium but is not without risk. In addition to being a potential violation of the ban on dual representation, setting up such a structure to avoid declaring a taxable benefit in kind constitutes tax fraud.
  • When working with a player’s agent, have the player pay his intermediary directly. Provided a payment is agreed beforehand and in writing with the player, a player can pay his agent.[7] Assuming that actual intermediary services have been performed and the relevant tax regulations have been complied with, the intermediary fee constitutes a deductible expense for income tax purposes. Alternatively, a club can pay a player’s agent but this triggers a taxable benefit in kind which is to be declared in the corresponding tax slips. Also in this scenario, the players can claim deduction of the intermediary fee. Either way, players are advised to seek specialized tax advice in this regard.
  • When paying club agent’s, clubs should be aware of the newly introduced limited tax deductibility of intermediary fees capped at 3% of the player’s salary.
  • Clubs should pay special attention to the impact of the updated tax regulations on loan deals and outgoing transactions on their salary cost. The wage tax exemption is no longer applicable to salary paid to players lent out to other Belgian clubs nor to bonus payments made to players post departure from the club.
  • Make sure that the player or coach in question is fully aware of all payments made to intermediaries. A player learning that – important – sums have been paid to his player agent[8] behind his back is not only likely to break with his agent but may also envisage civil and criminal proceedings.
  • Overall, ensure Anti-Money Laundering compliance and make sure that the contractual documentation that is drafted up reflects reality and is legally sound. Some examples: steer clear of – bogus – scouting – or other services – agreements to pay an intermediary (e.g. the intermediary of a minor); avoid paying player’s lawyers, effectively acting as agents, invoicing a commission that is disguised as lawyers’ fees (e.g. player’s lawyers invoicing legal fees to a club whereas it is clear that they assisted a player with the contract negotiations); etc.

“Best practice is the only way, even if it requires a sustained effort.”

For questions, please feel free to contact us: &



[3] It should be noted that sports arbitration courts are more likely to adhere to the lex sportiva and less inclined to apply such higher legal sources, which leaves clubs and intermediaries frustrated with what they perceive to be the partial justice they receive.

[4] This issue comes on top of a tax reform ( and the pandemic, which have taken a lot out of clubs’ finances.

[5] The very ‘diverse’ prosecution strategies adopted by the different regulatory authorities and regional inspectorate services, with numerous ‘bad’ practices in Belgian football remaining unchallenged and unpunished does not help either.

[6] In spite of the ‘excusable’ nature of the mistakes, harsh penalties are nevertheless imposed leaving those wanting to work correctly feeling frustrated.

[7] Cf. Cass. 3 February 2015, ECLI:BE:CASS:20150302. P.13.0908.N/1.

[8] As explained above, said player agents are frequently known to switch to being a club agent once a player signed a contract with a club.