Players signing with AI teams for less money makes FM unplayable.

[Four3Three]

Title says it all.  I'm playing FM23.

 

What the actual **** do I have to do to sign a player?  Offered a player who would be a 2.5 star player on my team 1.4/1.5 times as much money as the team he signed for.  Offered him "star player" status.. it's ludicrous.  

[turnip]

Players have their own reasons for wanting to sign for, or not sign for, specific clubs. If you get turned down, there's often a bit of blurb explaining why (e.g. "Frank Bobson said it was an easy decision to make as  he felt the squad at Doncaster Rovers was much stronger", or something like that). 

And just generally, the better the reputation of your manager and your club, the more likely it is a player will choose your club over another. 

 

Also, though, why would you offer a 2.5 star player (bang-average for your team) "Star Player" status? 

[scythian12]

As explained above, usually they simply go for the higher rep / stronger squad club.

Something you have not mentioned whether you removed any promises or clauses they were asking for. The transfer AI evaluates these clauses as well and puts a certain importance to them (I assume by pseudo-monetary value). I can easily imagine a low release clause or a shorter contract that has been agreed at the other club presents so much more flexibility for the player to be independent of the contracting club in his career choices and hence potential for higher earnings later down the line that it can make a lower salary in the short-term make it worth it.

Part of their wage demand algorithm is peeking at your open transfer / wage budget and asking for a certain portion of it, depending on their personality and prospective squad status. Now, this is not particularly well researched or supported, I have the personal impression sometimes they will also go for a lower rep club if the squad status and _wage budget portion_ (not absolute) salary is higher. So the other club had less money, yet shelled out more on him in relation to their budget, which indicates he would be a more important asset for them.

Edited August 30, 2024 by scythian12

[whatsupdoc]

Unplayable is a bit much... 

Signing good players has not been a problem for me. Occasionally I'll get beaten by a nonsense offer. More often by an offer with higher playing time but a lower wage. 

In either case it's easy enough to get someone else in.

[HUNT3R]

There are a lot of factors that goes into a player's decision making here. 

It will depend on things like how much money the club has and the standard of living in the area. The player will also take into consideration how much other players at the club (and compare it to their squad status and ability) are getting paid and the reputation of the club. 

Why are you offering Star Player status to a 2.5* player?

[Mobius]

3 minutes ago, HUNT3R said:

There are a lot of factors that goes into a player's decision making here. 

It will depend on things like how much money the club has and the standard of living in the area. The player will also take into consideration how much other players at the club (and compare it to their squad status and ability) are getting paid and the reputation of the club. 

I didn't realise the game went into that much complexity for transfers, that is pretty cool. I didn't even realise that standard of living of areas was coded into the game.

[Dagenham_Dave]

FM player can't sign whoever he wants as in-game player wants to join another team and the game is 'unplayable'. 

[scythian12]

3 hours ago, Mobius said:

I didn't realise the game went into that much complexity for transfers, that is pretty cool. I didn't even realise that standard of living of areas was coded into the game.

You have to take that FM quality of living index with a pinch of salt - Luton has 6/20 relative to other places in England, which is 5 too high.

Edited August 30, 2024 by scythian12

[turnip]

It's also true that Wolves have a small squad because they have to pay everyone at least 3x what any other Premier League team would, so the players would come to Wolverhampton

[bartex55]

I have seen this complaint many times, but in most cases it turns out to be a bug of incorrectly presented information. There is this message you get when a player rejects your offer and chooses another club instead. It gives you the details of the contract he accepted, but in fact it displays information about his old contract with his previous club. If you go to his profile, you can see his actual wages and it will probably be higher than what you offered.

[podunkboy]

I long ago accepted that I will only acquire about 20% of the players I want, the rest I give them a silly nickname and spend my virtual career making their lives miserable. If you can't accept that, buy the editor, transfer the player against their will to your club (and compensate the losing club adequately) and play on. It's your game, play it the way you want to, whether it's realistic or not. 

[NineCloudNine]

On 01/09/2024 at 21:05, podunkboy said:

I long ago accepted that I will only acquire about 20% of the players I want, the rest I give them a silly nickname and spend my virtual career making their lives miserable. If you can't accept that, buy the editor, transfer the player against their will to your club (and compensate the losing club adequately) and play on. It's your game, play it the way you want to, whether it's realistic or not. 

Getting around 20% of the players you want would make you a very good DoF in real life. I suspect only the very biggest clubs exceed that. 

[MrPompey]

On 29/08/2024 at 20:07, turnip said:

Players have their own reasons for wanting to sign for, or not sign for, specific clubs. If you get turned down, there's often a bit of blurb explaining why (e.g. "Frank Bobson said it was an easy decision to make as  he felt the squad at Doncaster Rovers was much stronger", or something like that). 

And just generally, the better the reputation of your manager and your club, the more likely it is a player will choose your club over another. 

 

Also, though, why would you offer a 2.5 star player (bang-average for your team) "Star Player" status? 

you are still unlikely to get an  player turning down a contract yet accepting a 50% lower wage from a similarly sized club, I agree with the OP that in many instances it just wouldnt happen irl

[NineCloudNine]

On 01/09/2024 at 16:27, bartex55 said:

I have seen this complaint many times, but in most cases it turns out to be a bug of incorrectly presented information. There is this message you get when a player rejects your offer and chooses another club instead. It gives you the details of the contract he accepted, but in fact it displays information about his old contract with his previous club. If you go to his profile, you can see his actual wages and it will probably be higher than what you offered.

Bumping this reply since it seems some people didn’t read it 👍🏻

[Sunstrikuuu]

On 29/08/2024 at 15:07, turnip said:

Players have their own reasons for wanting to sign for, or not sign for, specific clubs. If you get turned down, there's often a bit of blurb explaining why (e.g. "Frank Bobson said it was an easy decision to make as  he felt the squad at Doncaster Rovers was much stronger", or something like that).

A lot of those blurbs are dubious, to put it mildly.  Players sign for less money because the money was too good to turn down.  They sign contracts with teams to be closer to home that are actually further away, or for superior development opportunities with teams that have gluts of players in their position.  @Weston, I think, did a bunch of great work submitting bug reports related to these blurbs in 2023 or 2022.

 

On 01/09/2024 at 11:27, bartex55 said:

I have seen this complaint many times, but in most cases it turns out to be a bug of incorrectly presented information. There is this message you get when a player rejects your offer and chooses another club instead. It gives you the details of the contract he accepted, but in fact it displays information about his old contract with his previous club. If you go to his profile, you can see his actual wages and it will probably be higher than what you offered.

In most cases, but not all -- just the other day I had Franck Kessie reject my £90,000/week offer to take a £47,500/week offer; his previous contract was £550,000/week in the Saudi Pro League.

Edited September 3, 2024 by Sunstrikuuu

[XaW]

4 hours ago, Sunstrikuuu said:

just the other day I had Franck Kessie reject my £90,000/week offer to take a £47,500/week offer; his previous contract was £550,000/week in the Saudi Pro League.

What country are you in vs what country did he join? Players take tax percentage into consideration. Standard of living such can also impact things, in addition to how attractive the city the club is located is (London vs smaller cities for example).

Also, bonuses, if they gave lower weekly wage and massive bonuses that was likely to trigger, his wage might be higher.

Also also, playing time promise. Some players value this higher than wages.

So what was the comment on the signing, like the post you quoted? What did it say the reason was?

There are million factors other than just the weekly wage that decides where players go. If you or anyone else have see a transfer to another club you don't understand, even reading the signing message, then post them as potential bugs in the bug tracker and let SI take a look.

[Sunstrikuuu]

1. I was playing as Roma; he joined Al-Wehda on a free transfer.  After tax, an £85kpw contract comes out to £67kpw in Italy; Kessie's £45kpw contract is £43kpw.  The contract I offered, after tax, would have been £80.5kpw.
2. The contracts have the same duration -- both expire in 3 years.  My offered basic wage is double Al-Wehda's (£90k vs £45k).  My offered Loyalty Bonus is £1m higher (£2.4m vs £1.4m).  My offered Appearance Fee is £2k less (£16k vs £18k).  My Unused Substitute Fee is £500 less (£4k vs £4.5k).  My offered contract includes bonuses for winning Serie A (£230k), winning the Champions League £275k), and making Team of the Year (£160k).  Looking in the editor, Al-Wehda's contract includes no bonuses other than the previously-mentioned loyalty, appearance and unused substitute fees.  I did not offer a release clause; the player didn't indicate that this was important.  Al-Wehda offered a £56m release clause (and the point of a release clause would be to leave the club to go somewhere better... like perhaps the defending Champions League winners, who are offering a role as the starting 6).  Neither contract includes any wage escalator clauses.  My contract is a flat three years; Al-Wehda's is a 3+1 with an optional club extension (which, in my experience, is a significant negative, not a positive.  Prime-age players don't like club contract extensions).  So I'm not seeing anything that makes Al-Wehda's contract offer competitive.
3. Playing time is Regular Starter in my offer and Important Player in Al-Wehda's.  Small difference in their favor, though in fourteen years and many thousands of hours playing this game I have never had a player accept less money for more playing time.  Wage demands are causally related to the offered playing time, and one of the easier ways to get a player to take less money in my experience has been to get them to agree to a lower squad status.
4. The comment is that Al-Wehda's squad is much stronger.  This Roma side admittedly finished 6th in 2025 and 2026, but won the UEFA Cup in 2025 and the Champions League in 2026.  Al-Wehda are in an unloaded league, so they have no recent achievements.  Their global reputation is 5500 to Roma's 8900.  And the squad is, obviously, not very good, as it's mostly grey players. 

Smaller city, worse standard of living, less money, less favorable contract terms, worse squad, worse league.

[scythian12]

1 hour ago, Sunstrikuuu said:

1. I was playing as Roma; he joined Al-Wehda on a free transfer.  After tax, an £85kpw contract comes out to £67kpw in Italy; Kessie's £45kpw contract is £43kpw.  The contract I offered, after tax, would have been £80.5kpw.
2. The contracts have the same duration -- both expire in 3 years.  My offered basic wage is double Al-Wehda's (£90k vs £45k).  My offered Loyalty Bonus is £1m higher (£2.4m vs £1.4m).  My offered Appearance Fee is £2k less (£16k vs £18k).  My Unused Substitute Fee is £500 less (£4k vs £4.5k).  My offered contract includes bonuses for winning Serie A (£230k), winning the Champions League £275k), and making Team of the Year (£160k).  Looking in the editor, Al-Wehda's contract includes no bonuses other than the previously-mentioned loyalty, appearance and unused substitute fees.  I did not offer a release clause; the player didn't indicate that this was important.  Al-Wehda offered a £56m release clause (and the point of a release clause would be to leave the club to go somewhere better... like perhaps the defending Champions League winners, who are offering a role as the starting 6).  Neither contract includes any wage escalator clauses.  My contract is a flat three years; Al-Wehda's is a 3+1 with an optional club extension (which, in my experience, is a significant negative, not a positive.  Prime-age players don't like club contract extensions).  So I'm not seeing anything that makes Al-Wehda's contract offer competitive.
3. Playing time is Regular Starter in my offer and Important Player in Al-Wehda's.  Small difference in their favor, though in fourteen years and many thousands of hours playing this game I have never had a player accept less money for more playing time.  Wage demands are causally related to the offered playing time, and one of the easier ways to get a player to take less money in my experience has been to get them to agree to a lower squad status.
4. The comment is that Al-Wehda's squad is much stronger.  This Roma side admittedly finished 6th in 2025 and 2026, but won the UEFA Cup in 2025 and the Champions League in 2026.  Al-Wehda are in an unloaded league, so they have no recent achievements.  Their global reputation is 5500 to Roma's 8900.  And the squad is, obviously, not very good, as it's mostly grey players. 

Smaller city, worse standard of living, less money, less favorable contract terms, worse squad, worse league.

What exactly is the CA of the best 16 players in your squad and that of Al-Wehda?

[Sunstrikuuu]

9 minutes ago, scythian12 said:

What exactly is the CA of the best 16 players in your squad and that of Al-Wehda?

From the final day of the transfer window, the average CA of the 20 players in the Al-Wehda squad is 104.85.  The average CA of the top 16 is 111.68.  The average CA of the 13 non-grey players is 107.23.  The average Current Reputation of the non-grey players is 5771.  The average World Reputation of that same group is 4020.

Roma's squad has 27 players.  The average CA is 144.33.  The average CA of the top 16 is 152.00.  There are no temporary/grey players.   The average Current Reputation of the top 16 players by CA is 7986.  The average World Reputation of those same 16 players is 6244.

Spoiler

Kessie's CA at this time is 154; he becomes by some distance the best player in the Al-Wehda squad.  His current rep is 7719 and his world rep is 7483, making him first in CR and second in WR in the Al-Wehda squad (35 year old Danilo is 7420 and 7684 CR/WR respectively). 

 

[jacono]

On 03/09/2024 at 14:04, Sunstrikuuu said:

A lot of those blurbs are dubious, to put it mildly.  Players sign for less money because the money was too good to turn down.  They sign contracts with teams to be closer to home that are actually further away, or for superior development opportunities with teams that have gluts of players in their position.  @Weston, I think, did a bunch of great work submitting bug reports related to these blurbs in 2023 or 2022.

 

In most cases, but not all -- just the other day I had Franck Kessie reject my £90,000/week offer to take a £47,500/week offer; his previous contract was £550,000/week in the Saudi Pro League.

Players not being 100% truthful? Colour me shocked!

 

I’ve signed players back from the Saudi league, after getting such big wages there that’ll set them up for life, they settle for far less when their contracts expire in the game. Not sure how realistic this is mind you!

[Ataraxia]

We've all heard the arguments suggesting that players have many potential reasons to sign elsewhere for less. But there are cases where there are no such reasons. Occasionally, I'm seeing players and their agents demand as much as double the wage that they later accept from an AI club, but the club does not have a higher reputation, does not offer better terms of any kind, including promises, does not have a better league position or talent levels, does not have less competition at their position, and does not have any favored staff, players, or other relationships that might be a factor. Essentially, you can imagine any conceivable reason why they might sign somewhere else for less, and none of those reasons are in play. It appears to be a brute-force or random decision. Yet, if the human manager offers the same terms that the player eventually accepts elsewhere, they are always rejected. You can actually save backups of your saved game and test this.

To me, if there is no reasonable explanation anywhere in the FM data or in the contract terms, then that's a serious problem. It's unfairly working against the human user for no rational reason, and it's unrealistic. I have never once been able to do the same in reverse. When I'm able to sign players for less money than they were earning, it's always because they were unhappy, unwanted, couldn't get playing time, wanted a better role, or otherwise had a desire or issue that could be clearly seen in their profile, situation, interactions, or underlying data. I've never been able to sign a player for far less money for no apparent reason. If the situation and terms are effectively equal between the human and AI club, the player will not accept a massively lower offer from the human manager. Yet the AI is sometimes able to get away with that.

So, if it's happening, I would like to know why, and unless there is a compelling reason why the game is doing this and completely hiding and not revealing it, then it should be fixed.

 

Edited October 31, 2024 by Ataraxia

[Kickballz]

Offering star player when you are over-promising in unlikely to work. It certainly used to work but It was an exploit. Now players consider other factors like are you are lying to me?

I've had this work for and against me and I really don't think there is any anti-player bias. It can be unpredictable and sometimes can seem illogical, but you need that when you are trying to simulate human beings,

Edited November 1, 2024 by Kickballz

[Koffing]

AI squadbuilding is braindead, so I assume these actions are taken for the make the game a bit harder, I feel you.

It depends on mostly league reputation, flat wage is 2nd most important and playing time is 3rd.

Also think like this: Some coaches has 20 set pieces coaching. You offer them set piece coach role, give 1 million € wage , he rejects. Instead, he wants to be coach with 100k € wage.

[Koffing]

[arfie]

Can I suggest a totally cheeky and slightly wrong solution to this problem rather than a discussion of its merits...

I have always disliked Man Utd and I "use" them to solve these issues sometimes. If player X is on my radar and others make offers for him, I am aware that signing for Tonbridge or Bonnyrigg Rose or whoever I am managing will be unappealing. OK, so it is realistic that he will accept a rubbish offer from Exeter or Greenock Morton over us, but boooooo to that. I refuse to accept that reputation is everything, which the game puts so much emphasis on. So I briefly become Man Utd manager too (because of their reputation), make an offer to him and of course, he will accept. As he is about to sign I cancel the transfer and resign as Utd manager. Then I put a new bid in from us and the others will not respond because their bid was rejected. He will sign for me and no problem. 

Obviously this is a sign of me being a cheaty-face not a brilliant manager, but sometimes I just want it to work and let me win rather than be realistic. Realistic is overrated.

I have tried to be more fair with my current save, to be fair, and i have never ascended the leagues so quickly! I got some amazing free transfers who left premier league clubs without doing this. If you make offers for players who have been set for release before they are released sometimes you can beat the 'reputation' problem. 

[arfie]

On 31/10/2024 at 20:03, Ataraxia said:

We've all heard the arguments suggesting that players have many potential reasons to sign elsewhere for less. But there are cases where there are no such reasons. Occasionally, I'm seeing players and their agents demand as much as double the wage that they later accept from an AI club, but the club does not have a higher reputation, does not offer better terms of any kind, including promises, does not have a better league position or talent levels, does not have less competition at their position, and does not have any favored staff, players, or other relationships that might be a factor. Essentially, you can imagine any conceivable reason why they might sign somewhere else for less, and none of those reasons are in play. It appears to be a brute-force or random decision. Yet, if the human manager offers the same terms that the player eventually accepts elsewhere, they are always rejected. You can actually save backups of your saved game and test this.

To me, if there is no reasonable explanation anywhere in the FM data or in the contract terms, then that's a serious problem. It's unfairly working against the human user for no rational reason, and it's unrealistic. I have never once been able to do the same in reverse. When I'm able to sign players for less money than they were earning, it's always because they were unhappy, unwanted, couldn't get playing time, wanted a better role, or otherwise had a desire or issue that could be clearly seen in their profile, situation, interactions, or underlying data. I've never been able to sign a player for far less money for no apparent reason. If the situation and terms are effectively equal between the human and AI club, the player will not accept a massively lower offer from the human manager. Yet the AI is sometimes able to get away with that.

So, if it's happening, I would like to know why, and unless there is a compelling reason why the game is doing this and completely hiding and not revealing it, then it should be fixed.

 

I agree that sometimes there is no reason a player will go somewhere else except to annoy you. I have found that club reputation, manager reputation and wage are the only considerations but yet they still might choose elsewhere. Sometimes I am convinced the game senses you are enjoying yourself and does something to make you feel small again. 

[turnip]

Ultimately, it's a single player game so you should feel free to do whatever the hell you want in your save.

Having said that, it's an unusual approach to claim "Cheating is the best way of getting a fair outcome in this situation". No-one playing this game knows 100% the reason why a player would sign for one club over another in the kind of situations being discussed here, so cheating isn't making it fair; it's just cheating. 

But I can also see you're a "the game is working against me" kind of complainer. So, here's a tip: the game doesn't care about you. SI want you to have fun with the game, so there is literally no reason for them to code the game to be mean towards you. When you try to sign a player, you're treated exactly the same as every other manager of every other club trying to sign the same player. The game even now tells you how likely it is you'll be successful with the "Has more interest in joining XXXXXX" message. 

 

But like I said, it's a single player game, so do whatever you want, and definitely continue robbing Man U of the several million quid they have to pay every time they sack a manager so that you can hire someone you'll probably never even play.  

[Draakon]

In my FM career I've seen numbers of young players who are itching to leave my club (Ajax), thinking that they're better than they actually are (their stats are good because of their teammates and my tactics, while their attributes are often not good enough to test themselves in the Premier League, for example).

My secret hobby is to browse sometimes back in our transfer history and check how their careers have gone - most have been sold forward for half the transfer fee we got for them, after just  just a season or two in their new club. Or are just rotting on the bench. Karma.