African players - 'commodities' in the power game: Lessons from Sarr and Camara cases

In modern football, transfer reports are often written before the match ends. I learned that from my mistake at the 2026 World Cup qualifiers: the report is not written in advance. But there are other reports, written by those without power, who must accept their fate as a commodity with a price tag. Look at two cases that just happened in the recent winter transfer window. Ismaïla Sarr, the 28-year-old Crystal Palace forward, deleted all references to his club on social media after Liverpool made an approach and were rejected. Lamine Camara, the 21-year-old Monaco midfielder, almost joined Chelsea for £47 million, but the deal collapsed at the last minute because Monaco withdrew a written agreement. Both are Senegal internationals. Sarr's agent, former striker Diomansy Kamara, spoke out against the treatment of African players. "We must get out of this logic where the African player can sometimes give the feeling that he is just a commodity: you buy it, you set its price, you negotiate its future and, too often, your will seems to go to the background," Kamara said in a statement. This is not the first time I have witnessed this scene. In 30 years of observing European football, I have seen many African players treated unfairly in transfer deals. But what caught my attention in this case was how the clubs reacted. Throughout football history, African players have always faced prejudice. From the 1990s, when players like George Weah or Samuel Eto'o had to struggle to prove their worth, to today, the situation has not changed much. European clubs often treat African players as "commodities" that can be bought and sold, without regard for their wishes. This is especially clear when compared to how European players are treated. When an English or French player wants to move clubs, they often have more of a voice. They can reject offers, they can demand to leave. African players, on the other hand, often have to accept what is offered. Crystal Palace insisted Sarr was not for sale, despite the player expressing his desire to leave. Liverpool did not return with a new bid after deciding to keep Cody Gakpo. Monaco, according to sporting director Thiago Scuro, withdrew the agreement with Chelsea because they thought Folarin Balogun's move to Everton would be revived. Scuro defended his actions: "Around 10pm, Everton realised there is no problem: 'We are ready to do it. Let's sign the contract.' As soon as we got the information, we came back to Chelsea and told them: 'OK, we have our deal there. There is no deal on Lamine.' Because it's also fair to do this. It's also part of the game." But the question is: is this game really fair for the players? When a European player wants to leave, he often has a voice. When an African player wants to leave, he is often treated as a "commodity" that needs to be kept at a certain price. My method for following the 2026 World Cup was a net: small mesh, no fish missed. I applied this method to analyze transfer deals. I look at small details: Sarr deleting his social media posts, Camara not being in Monaco's squad in the recent match, Balogun changing his mind at the last minute. All these details show a reality: the player is often the last one to be consulted. Look at the Balogun case. The American forward changed his mind about moving to Everton, and Scuro suggested he was unhappy with how Everton treated him during his medical. This shows that even European players can be treated badly. But the difference is: Balogun has a voice, he can refuse. Sarr and Camara, they are stuck between clubs. I remember a Ligue 1 match last season, when I was following an African player who was substituted in the 70th minute and looked angry. After the match, I asked the coach about it, and he said: "He needs to understand his position." His position? He was the best player on the team, but still considered someone who needs to "understand his position." This leads me to a counter-intuitive perspective: the problem is not just racism, but the power structure in modern football. Clubs, especially big clubs, have almost absolute power. They can keep players, they can withdraw agreements, they can price players as they wish. Players, whether African or European, are in a weaker position. But African players often lack support from national federations or players' unions. Look at how Monaco handled the Camara case. They had a written agreement with Chelsea, but they withdrew it because they thought there was a better deal. This can be seen as business logic, but it shows that the player has no voice in the decision. Camara had agreed personal terms with Chelsea, he was ready to move, but his club decided otherwise. In a previous article, I analyzed distance covered and sprint counts - metrics often packaged as effort indicators, but ineffective running also produces good numbers. Similarly, in transfers, clubs often use "objective" reasons like medicals, tactics, or finances to hide subjective decisions. The Balogun case is an example: Everton may have been concerned about his fitness, but he changed his mind because he felt mistreated. I have witnessed many similar cases in my career. There was an African player in Ligue 1, I will not name him, who was forced to stay by his club despite wanting to leave. He had to accept because his contract had no release clause. When I asked him about it, he just said: "That's football." But I knew he was unhappy. This shows that the problem is not just individual, but systemic. The current transfer system gives too much power to clubs, and too little to players. So what is the solution? I do not think we can change the power structure in football overnight. But we can start by listening to the players' voices. Kamara was right: "The player must be able to be heard and respected in the decisions that determine his future." Perhaps it is time for organizations like FIFPro to be more assertive in protecting players. Perhaps it is time for African football federations to speak up more strongly. And perhaps it is time for us - those who write about football - to look at the small details, the "small fish" we often overlook. I still remember the lesson from the 2026 World Cup qualifiers: the report is not written in advance. But I also learned that in football, there are reports written by those without power, and they must accept their fate. That needs to change. When I reviewed the footage of the Lyon - Marseille match in 2026, I realized I had missed an important detail: a player was fouled but the referee did not blow the whistle. That detail did not affect the result, but it showed a lack of fairness. Similarly, in the Sarr and Camara cases, we are ignoring the players' own voices. Perhaps it is time for a new "report" for football, where players are treated as human beings, not as commodities. And the final question: are clubs willing to listen?