Third Party Ownership (TPO) is an agreement between a club and a third party (businesses and/or individuals–investment funds, agents etc.) to exchange a percentage of the so-called "economic rights" of the future transfer (value) of a football player. TPO is currently banned in England, France and Poland. It is a practice known to be widely used in South America, Spain, Portugal and parts of Eastern Europe.

This investment type can be deemed legal due to the principle of freedom of contract. However, FIFA intends to ban TPO due to Article 18bis par. 1 of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players which states; "No club shall enter into a contract which enables any other party to that contract or any third party to acquire the ability to influence in employment and transfer-related matters its independence, its policies or the performance of its teams". This rule seems to ban all kind of TPO agreements, but it actually forbids them only if there is an element of influence. Therefore, FIFA does not actually have a binding rule against the investors. "We took a firm decision that TPO should be banned but it cannot be banned immediately. There will be a transitional period" said Sepp Blatter, the chairman of FIFA, demonstrating the legal gap to ban TPO agreements. Indeed, the grounds to ban TPO agreements should be examined. Why is FIFA keen on forbidding this investment system in the absence of a binding regulation? The example of England Premier League shows us the motive under FIFA's inclination: The original prohibition regulations in the Premier League came as a result of the Carlos Tevez issue, where a third party owner had the contractual right to force West Ham United to sell the player if a suitable bid was received. This was against the current regulations at the time. Subsequently, the Premier League tightened its regulations to prohibit any type of TPO. So that, it may be stated that FIFA is against TPO because third parties generate power to interfere with the contractual rights of the parties. Without a transfer and thereby the termination of the contract, there is no financial incentive. On the other hand, some benefits should not be denied, such as small clubs surviving in the football market by purchasing "big" players that normally cannot be afforded by the club. Similarly, investors are capable of promoting the career of the player more effectively when compared to the club. TPO could seem as a different type of investment but it is not substantially different from a loan agreement.

Beyond the abovementioned advantages and disadvantages, the other justification to ban this kind of agreements, which is the most critical part, is the risk of influencing the result of the games. For example, an investor could own more than one player on each side of a game, which could arguably affect the game in a negatively. So that; this potential should be enough to ban third party agreements under current general regulations in all Europe. In respect of Turkish legislation, it is known that the immoral agreements are not valid under Turkish Code of Obligations. A question mark hangs over third party ownership agreements; is the risk of influencing the game results enough to deem these agreements invalid? As it seems, FIFA is conscious of abovementioned risks and intends to ban it completely.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.