Kewell’s agent admits he “did little” for £2m fee

Harry Kewell's business associate Bernie Mandic has defended his £2m fee for arranging the Australian midfielder's transfer from English Football League club Leeds United to top-flight club Liverpool in 2003.

Mandic, who insisted he was Kewell's manager rather than his agent, was speaking in London's High Court on the second day of a case in which the player is suing former England striker Gary Lineker for libel.

The case revolves around an article Lineker wrote for the Sunday Telegraph after Kewell's move, which left Leeds with only £3m of a £5m deal. Investigated about the money he received, Mandic said he expected to be remunerated for his work. He did not think Kewell would want him to work for nothing. "He is an honest, decent guy and the agreement we had at the end of the day was that if Leeds paid me, whatever it was, he was happy for me to make that money. In my case, Leeds paid me and Harry paid me nothing."

Mandic said Leeds had stood to gain £3m out of the deal, adding: "Did I do a job for Leeds? Yes, I did. I acted in the best interests of Harry in the Liverpool deal. There was zero wrong in the deal." Mandic also told the court: "At the end of the day Harry is in charge of Harry and we accede to his wishes. I am not an agent. I am a personal manager. Some of the worst people I have met in football are agents. I don't particularly like agents as a general rule. As a personal manager I manage the entire affairs of the player. Everything in its entirety."

Lineker said in the article that Kewell and his agent had "cleverly circumvented" rules relating to transfer negotiations, and criticized Kewell over the Leeds-Liverpool deal. When he opened the case Kewell's counsel Andrew Monson told the jury and Justice David Eady that overall the article suggested that Kewell had "willingly participated in a deeply dishonorable and financially dubious" transfer. In addition to suing Lineker, Kewell is also suing the Sunday Telegraph publishers and the paper's sports editor, John Ryan. All three deny the article was defamatory.