Why Accrington were charged and why the case failed
At the heart of the charge sat a drafting issue: what does it mean to “engage or appoint” an agent under the regulations? The Commission had to decide whether the club’s contact with a non-registered individual amounted to engaging them as an agent, or whether it was something short of that threshold. The written reasons show the FA argued that even dealing with an unregistered “advisor” to secure a player should count; the panels did not accept that interpretation on the facts and wording, so the allegation couldn’t be proven to the required standard. In short, intent and proof of “engagement” became decisive. (www.thefa.com)
What the Disciplinary and Appeal decisions say about evidence
The Commission’s “Not Proven” finding and the Appeal Board’s refusal to disturb it, underline a practical reality: policing unlicensed intermediary activity is evidentially hard. Unless emails, messages, payment trails or instructions show the club knowingly engaged the person as an agent (rather than had peripheral contact), cases will struggle. The Appeal Board expressly emphasised sticking to what the rules actually say, not what a regulator might wish they covered—another check on expansive readings when proof is thin. (Blackstone Chambers)
Tying in Jonathan Beckett v FIFA (CAS 2024/A/10918)
Up a level, we previously covered FIFA’s attempt to suspend English agent Jonathan Beckett ran aground at CAS because his alleged conduct concerned a purely domestic matter and, with Article 21 FFAR suspended, FIFA lacked a functioning disciplinary pathway. CAS set the suspension aside, restoring his licence. The Accrington case shows the complementary challenge within a nation: even where a national body does have jurisdiction, it still needs tight drafting and hard evidence to prove a club engaged an unlicensed agent. Put together, Beckett limits who can prosecute (FIFA vs. national FAs), while Accrington highlights what it takes to win a case on the ground. (LawInSport)
The bigger takeaway: enforcement is difficult by design.
National associations carry the enforcement burden for most day-to-day intermediary conduct. But success hinges on crisp rule-drafting and evidential trails that show “engagement,” not mere contact. Clubs and licensed agents should expect more targeted investigations, clearer definitions, stronger disclosure requirements, and an emphasis on documentary proof. Until then, many cases will continue to live or die on small phrases (“engage or appoint”) and the quality of the paper trail, rather than on broad suspicions about who did what in a negotiation.
