Manchester City have reportedly reached an agreement with Nottingham Forest to sign Elliot Anderson, yet England have been urged to step in and prevent the player from undergoing his medical.

The uncertainty over whether the transfer fee is £130 million or £116 million, and whether the amount will be paid outright or through a structured deal with add-ons, has certainly generated lively debate.

However, many believe such discussions should not be taking place while England are competing in the World Cup, calling the timing inappropriate and unprofessional compared to how things were supposedly handled in the past.

There has been some frustration surrounding Manchester City’s decision to pay a record fee for Anderson, but Dean Scoggins and Shaun Custis from The Sun have taken a particularly strong stance on the issue.

Speaking on The Sun’s new show, Proper Football Daily, the duo focused on the timing of the move. The headline “Anderson transfer WRONG on England duty” sums up their opinion perfectly.

“I’m pretty annoyed, to be honest,” admitted Scoggins, Head of Sport at the publication.

“We talked about Pedro Porro and Marc Cucurella, who shouldn’t be discussing contracts and moves while at a World Cup. And now we’ve got an England player doing it probably, possibly, on the eve of our third World Cup game, and he shouldn’t be doing it, it shouldn’t be happening.”

England will likely manage fine against Panama even with the supposed distraction of one of their players finalising a £116 million transfer.

Those personal terms were agreed some time ago, and it’s hard to see how Manchester City and Nottingham Forest negotiating a fee during the tournament could have any real impact on England’s preparations.

But then came another twist.

“And there’s even discussions that he’s going to have a medical in New York at some point over this weekend,” Scoggins added, growing increasingly frustrated.

A medical during a World Cup? In the very city where England will play their next match? Scoggins called it a “disgrace”, describing it as a global scandal of sorts.

Despite his outrage, Scoggins continued, “We think it’s because Manchester City are the owners of New York City FC, and I’m just not happy about it. I think, you know, they can use their facilities, fine, while they’re here. But the England player should be concentrating on the England World Cup, not his next move.”

It’s fair to assume Anderson can balance his focus—preparing for the Panama match while briefly attending a medical evaluation on a non-match day.

If anything, the medical might serve as a welcome distraction from England’s well-documented defensive issues.

“Deano’s right actually,” added Custis, the publication’s Director of Sport. “Back in the day it wouldn’t even have been entertained. You would not be able to discuss transfers while you’re on World Cup duty. It would be ‘do it before you leave, or do it afterwards, never during’.”

Yet the facts are clear: Manchester City and Nottingham Forest have agreed on the fee, and personal terms were settled previously. Anderson hasn’t skipped training to negotiate directly with manager Enzo Maresca.

The nostalgic “back in the day” argument doesn’t hold much weight either. Manchester United signed Fred during the 2018 World Cup, Chelsea completed the signing of Cesc Fabregas during the 2014 edition, and Manchester City brought in David Silva during the 2010 tournament.

In truth, such transfers have always taken place during major competitions.

“The world’s changed, it’s moved on, people seem to be allowed to do it now,” one pundit conceded, acknowledging the evolution of football’s business side.

It’s worth noting that this debate is about a footballer changing clubs mid-tournament—not the demise of long-standing traditions or values.

Scoggins persisted, though: “But it shouldn’t be happening and I hope we aren’t talking about it in three days’ time, saying he’s had a terrible game against Panama, he’s going to be dropped for a knock-out game, and it’s because this deal has got in his head. We shouldn’t be talking about it now. It shouldn’t be happening at a World Cup.”

It’s hard not to appreciate the intensity of Scoggins’ frustration as he imagines a scenario where Anderson’s form nosedives purely because his mind wandered to training with Rodri.

“I don’t think Thomas Tuchel’s gonna be too happy about it,” Scoggins added.

But Tuchel has already made it clear that he’s unconcerned. Just weeks earlier, he stated that Anderson “seems not affected”, that there are “no distractions” and “full commitment”, emphasising that “in reality, nothing changes, he just changes the club and that’s the rules of the game.”

Tuchel’s comments suggest complete calm and acceptance of the situation.

Finally, Scoggins concluded with, “I hope we’re standing here tomorrow where England have said, ‘You cannot have your medical during it, we’re not releasing you for the medical. I hope that’s the case. They should. They’re on international duty, so international duty it is. Not, ‘I’ll have a day off and go and have a medical to move clubs’.”

Blocking the transfer altogether, however, hardly seems the most logical approach if the concern is Anderson’s focus or mental well-being.

At the very least, the uproar has ensured a ready-made narrative in case Anderson fails to deliver a standout performance against Panama.