Good evening,
In an effort to improve the quality of trade reporting and to share observable trends with the community, FPC members would like to present an overview of the trade reports from Season 103.
During the full course of Season 103, a total of 113 trades were reported. 18 trades were rejected, 4 of which were marked as “punished.”
A brief look at canceled trades:
Trades are canceled when the same or a very similar IP address is detected, and the trades themselves are disproportionate or illogical, for example:
Deadman Walking -> KIMMY SP EAGLES – in this case, both teams were penalized; both teams are now closed due to rule violations.
Athletics -> Diamonds – both teams penalized after being repeatedly warned not to trade with each other.
Down to Hook UP -> BC Inquisitors – both teams were additionally penalized.
Down to Hook UP -> BC Inquisitors – another identical case.
FPC reminds that trades between related teams are strictly forbidden. Owning multiple teams in the game is not allowed.
Salary drop – a topic that sparks a lot of debate:
Here are a few trades that were rejected last season due to salary drop concerns:
BC High Five -> Virtuozai – an expiring draft (last season) player traded for two 6POT talents. According to the current rules, the trade must be beneficial for both teams. In this case, a trade was carried out between WL1 clubs, which involved two 6POT players (difficult to fit into the rotation of WL1 level clubs). In addition, one of them is also lower than the WL1 standard. Taking this into account, it was decided that the exchange is not beneficial for at least one of the teams.
XBU Gaming -> Burokai – a 7POT expiring (last season) player for a 6POT talent. Similar situation as in the previous case. A player with a career peak of ~250 RT is traded, who is difficult to adapt to the future activities of the club being traded, based on his current situation.
Wroclaw Highlyers -> koreshai – a 6.5POT expiring (last season) player for a 6POT talent. Basically the same situation. A ~260 RT player is hard to use in a WL2 level club's plans.
FPC emphasizes that while trading an expiring veteran for a youth player is allowed, the trade must still make logical sense and benefit both teams, as required by the game rules. Trades should be proportional. For example, a final-season veteran can be traded for a player with a lower POT one, but the youth player must have some value for the receiving team anyway.
Unbalanced trades:
A significant portion of rejected trades were deemed unbalanced, where one team clearly gives more than it receives. The game rules explicitly require that trades be beneficial for both teams.
These are often the most debated cases among FPC members, and decisions are not always unanimous – which is normal, given the diversity of opinions and federations FPC members represent.
Examples:
Hong Kong Monarch -> Utenos Green Death – while some managers are willing to overpay for specific players, in this case, the given value was deemed excessive and one-sided. It should be noted that opinions of the members of the FPC on this trade were quite divided. Some FPC members evaluated the excessive benefits that one of the managers received, while the other half of the FPC members pointed out that both managers received the benefits they needed - one has benefited from players useful to his team for the future, the other has historically been willing to pay a little more than a standard team for the players they want.
ChuanShuo -> Basketball Emperor Chamberlain – a non-expiring 8POT veteran for a 7POT low-potential player. In FPC's opinion, giving up a player who was not in his last season and was still putting up significant stats for a team with a peak PG of ~300 RT was not beneficial to at least one of the teams involved in the trade.
Kobe forever -> Bin Ciapa – the team's most promising player was traded for a mediocre PG and a small SG. There was no financial benefit either. Overall, the FPC believes that such a trade was valuable to only one of the teams.
ESSEN STADTWOLVES -> Žalgiris-BC – a strong player in the context of a trading team was traded for 2 obviously weaker players, one of whom is already a veteran with declining skills. No financial benefit was seen. FPC saw a benefit only for one team.
Shotgun DH -> Good Luck – a WL2 club has given up a stronger player for a player who is in no way suitable for WL2. In the opinion of the FPC, the benefit was seen for only one team.
Telšių Paukštis -> KK Plungės Olimpas – two players who were worth each other were traded, but one team got an additional ~300 RT peak player. In FPC's opinion, the benefit was only visible to one team.
SECOND IN SHAN TOU -> Tanzania Chavo Lions – the WL2 club gave up a player for a player who is not suitable at his level. In the opinion of the FPC, the trade benefits only one side.
We would also like to highlight a few trades that sparked internal debate but were ultimately approved by just one or two votes:
ESSEN STADTWOLVES -> Quantum – opinions within the FPC were divided. Some members saw that a more expensive and late-scouted player (with obvious skill gaps) was given away for a slightly cheaper one-season veteran. Another half of the FPC members saw that the younger player was usable despite his late scouting, while the other player was completely unusable. The first insight was followed by more FPC members.
Zaragoza Lions -> Luošintojai – the opinions of the FPC members were divided. One side argued that despite the unbalanced trade, there was a visible financial benefit for one of the teams (the other side - the potential received). The other side argued that despite the mutual benefit, one team gave much more than it received from the other team and the trade was beneficial to only one side. Ultimately, the first position was supported by more FPC members.
Šabakštynas -> koreshai – the opinions of the FPC members were divided. One side argued that there was a mutual benefit (one team got a strong veteran for one tall talent and two small players), the other side that despite the quality veteran, one of the teams gave up too much talent, and the value was on the side of one team. It also took on a greater financial burden. In the end, the first opinion was supported by more FPC members.
Suspicious patterns:
Some trades involved inactive teams, and FPC suspects that these were attempts to offload less useful players to lower divisions, benefiting higher-division teams:
Tian Shen Alliance -> NEWBEELONG
BC Saules iela -> Miami Heat1
The game rules prohibit hidden lending – where players return to their original teams through direct trades during the same season:
Jesuitinas -> Inturkės Miežionių Bebrai – such a case occurred last season and the trade was canceled.
Misinformation during trades:
Žuvų Taukai -> WallStreetBets – in this case, incorrect information was given during trade discussion. While the error was not critical, the trade was canceled, and no penalty was issued.
Dishonest behavior:
During the season, 57 cases of suspicious activity were reported. As a result:
10 managers were warned
9 were penalized
All confirmed dishonest behavior cases can be grouped into three categories:
Intentional losses - FPC reminds that since last season, intentionally losing matches is not allowed and the team is warned for this, and in case of repeated cases - punished. Please pay attention this season as well, especially in the second half of the season.
Improper behavior (in the market or personal/public communication) - FPC reminds that malicious behavior in the market - buying players and then releasing or trading them - is unacceptable and is subject to warnings and/or penalties. Anyone can buy players in the restricted market, but players bought, especially at a price higher than the market price, must be used for the team's purposes. The FPC also reminds us that communication in public spaces should maintain mutual respect and understanding. Any insult is not tolerated.
Multiple teams managed by the same person - FPC reminds that one person can have one team.
None of these are allowed. All such cases are subject to FPC review and penalties. We appreciate all the reports received from the community.
In summary:
Thank you for your continued effort to report suspicious trades and unfair behavior. Your vigilance directly contributes to the fairness of the game. Please note that escalations should be based on arguments and not on a personal point of view.
FPC members are committed to ensuring that all managers have equal opportunities to reach their goals. We hope this overview helps clarify what is unacceptable and what should be reported for review....
