Jump to content
  • Sign up for free and receive a month's subscription

    You are viewing this page as a guest. That means you are either a member who has not logged in, or you have not yet registered with us. Signing up for an account only takes a minute and it means you will no longer see this annoying box! It will also allow you to get involved with our friendly(ish!) community and take part in the discussions on our forums. And because we're feeling generous, if you sign up for a free account we will give you a month's free trial access to our subscriber only content with no obligation to commit. Register an account and then send a private message to @dave u and he'll hook you up with a subscription.

FFP


Guest LFD
 Share

Recommended Posts

What's the answer Fanchester?

 

I don't know. Does anybody know?

 

My gut feeling is this (and I know it's flawed):

 

 

- Rich owners should be allowed to spend what they like on big grounds and facilities, possibly marketing too. I've no objection to the money making things better for the fans.

 

- Spending on the pitch has to be leveled out in some way. European employment laws aside, I'd like to see (say) 50% born within a given radius of the club, and that radius is proportional to population in some way.... So the big city teams have a smaller radius than (say) Norwich.

 

- A 'whole team' salary cap (teams can split it however they like)

 

- Possibly a player ranking system... where a team can have 3 A grade players, 4 B grade, 4 C grade etc. Effectively just some way to stop any team having 11 grade A players. Determining who is Grade A or B etc is another matter!

 

 

I have lots of admiration for the big clubs who've built their empires, but I also accept that if you look back at most club's histories, somewhere down the line they stumbled across an investor who turned a corner, or they happened upon a truly remarkable manager, or they suffered a tragedy that won the hearts of many. There's always something that sparked the flame, just as there's usually something that led to the ill-fortune of another club.

 

So those clubs 'deserve' what they have.

 

 

What I object to, is creating rules primarily designed to protect that status.

 

ANY club should have the chance to eventually build an empire.

ANY club should also be subject to decline.

 

The rise and fall of football is what makes the game great (imo). The protectionism of an 'elite' spoils things.

 

And because that elite is protected, you can only barge your way into the party by sheer brute force (money).

That's not to say you can't sometimes defy the odds and win things without money, you can, but you can't mount a sustained attack without it (imo).

 

Without turning this into City vs Liverpool etc, the fact (in my eyes) is that we're just supporting a set of mercenary players in both camps, supposedly representing 'us'. Admittedly, Liverpool still has the remains of a dying breed in Gerrard, but on the whole, we're supporting an American investment group, and a Middle Eastern PR campaign, played out by Johnny Foreigner who'll be at the club for 3 years if he's lucky and who's itching to go home at every opportunity. We're being asked to pay a small fortune for the privilege, and fed bullshit about 'I wanted to join this great project' or 'the history of the club compelled me'.

 

 

There was a time when Liverpool (the club) winning in Europe felt like it meant Liverpool (the city) had won something. It doesn't feel like that anymore... it's just brand LFC, or brand City.

 

I honestly believe... IF they could move the clubs out of Manchester and Liverpool - to London or Paris.... they would.

 

Maybe I'm just being a bit cynical. It's just how I feel.

 

I like to believe that if a plucky Fulham side managed to find a great manager, who built a great team and they won the league 7 times in the next decade, I'd be content with that.

What I'm not content with this utter bullshit that United have simply grafted their way to the top and stayed there. The notion that their mega corporation and profits hasn't played a part is folly.

 

And for City? only a fool would think money didn't buy them a title. Of course it did. But that only goes to prove the point, that your wealth influences your ability to be successful. I don't like that. Not one bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest San Don
I don't know. Does anybody know?

 

My gut feeling is this (and I know it's flawed):

 

 

- Rich owners should be allowed to spend what they like on big grounds and facilities, possibly marketing too. I've no objection to the money making things better for the fans.

 

- Spending on the pitch has to be leveled out in some way. European employment laws aside, I'd like to see (say) 50% born within a given radius of the club, and that radius is proportional to population in some way.... So the big city teams have a smaller radius than (say) Norwich.

 

- A 'whole team' salary cap (teams can split it however they like)

 

- Possibly a player ranking system... where a team can have 3 A grade players, 4 B grade, 4 C grade etc. Effectively just some way to stop any team having 11 grade A players. Determining who is Grade A or B etc is another matter!

 

 

I have lots of admiration for the big clubs who've built their empires, but I also accept that if you look back at most club's histories, somewhere down the line they stumbled across an investor who turned a corner, or they happened upon a truly remarkable manager, or they suffered a tragedy that won the hearts of many. There's always something that sparked the flame, just as there's usually something that led to the ill-fortune of another club.

 

So those clubs 'deserve' what they have.

 

 

What I object to, is creating rules primarily designed to protect that status.

 

ANY club should have the chance to eventually build an empire.

ANY club should also be subject to decline.

 

The rise and fall of football is what makes the game great (imo). The protectionism of an 'elite' spoils things.

 

And because that elite is protected, you can only barge your way into the party by sheer brute force (money).

That's not to say you can't sometimes defy the odds and win things without money, you can, but you can't mount a sustained attack without it (imo).

 

Without turning this into City vs Liverpool etc, the fact (in my eyes) is that we're just supporting a set of mercenary players in both camps, supposedly representing 'us'. Admittedly, Liverpool still has the remains of a dying breed in Gerrard, but on the whole, we're supporting an American investment group, and a Middle Eastern PR campaign, played out by Johnny Foreigner who'll be at the club for 3 years if he's lucky and who's itching to go home at every opportunity. We're being asked to pay a small fortune for the privilege, and fed bullshit about 'I wanted to join this great project' or 'the history of the club compelled me'.

 

 

There was a time when Liverpool (the club) winning in Europe felt like it meant Liverpool (the city) had won something. It doesn't feel like that anymore... it's just brand LFC, or brand City.

 

I honestly believe... IF they could move the clubs out of Manchester and Liverpool - to London or Paris.... they would.

 

Maybe I'm just being a bit cynical. It's just how I feel.

 

I like to believe that if a plucky Fulham side managed to find a great manager, who built a great team and they won the league 7 times in the next decade, I'd be content with that.

What I'm not content with this utter bullshit that United have simply grafted their way to the top and stayed there. The notion that their mega corporation and profits hasn't played a part is folly.

 

And for City? only a fool would think money didn't buy them a title. Of course it did. But that only goes to prove the point, that your wealth influences your ability to be successful. I don't like that. Not one bit.

 

Far too complicated to work. What's needed is simplicity and transparency. I dont have a problem with manchester united spending what they earn after running costs etc have been paid.

 

I do have a problem with a club's income being artificially inflated with owners personal wealth and \ or sponsorship deals clearly arranged via owners other businesses and family or, other borrowings secured against the club, its infrastructure and properties and state sponsorship.

 

The problem is making this work especially across Europe where you have different tax regimes, different models of ownership within clubs and their grounds.

 

Saying owners should be allowed to spend 'their' money isnt the answer. If we go down that route, clubs with those owners may as well go their own way and have their own pissing contest at who can chuck the most money at a club.

 

The current model of football isnt sustainable. In England at least, fans are being priced out of grounds, certainly visiting support. Throughout Europe (which is financially the strongest confederation in world football), many clubs are teetering on the edge with massive cumulative debt and leagues are either not competitive or becoming that way.

 

Its true you tend to find one or two club historically dominate any league. Throughtout the football league and premier league's history, some clubs have dominated. For example sunderland, arsenal ourselves etc. But even so that dominance faded.

 

Now, the clubs with all the wealth will be able to maintain their respective positions unless those stop spending or arent replaced by other mega rich owners.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Numero Veinticinco
FFP is here.

 

The problem is the perception, and the reality, are different. In practise it is a device to keep the CL elite rich, and the rest out.

 

You say this all the time, but you never explain why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You say this all the time, but you never explain why.

 

FFP is predicated on the principle that Clubs should only spend what they earn. The problem is that at the point that it is introduced it freeze-frames everything. Last season (11/12) Fulham earned £79m, we earned £169m. How can Fulham ever make up the difference in a 25,000 capacity stadium with Chelsea a couple of miles down the Road? Under FFP they would be a second or third tier side, under Al-fayed they stood a chance.

 

Those teams in the CL have such an advantage in the PL that sustainable investment to bridge that gap is almost impossible. You NEED a Mansour or an Abrhamovic to crack it, the new order, which is actually the old order, is itself inherently unfair under FFP. If a rich man or woman wants to bankroll a team, so long as it is underwritten personally ( Chelsea/ Man City) and not by the club (Portsmouth), why not?

 

At the point where things are freeze- framed, and the money is rolling in as revenue, it is quite easy, legitimately to show profits by creative accounting. Who is to say what the sponsorship of the Ethiad is worth to Ethiad? Carrington is sponsored to the tune of £150m, whilst Everton can’t afford an annual rent on their ground of £1.5m- get the picture?

 

For me the premise of FFP is wrong. Rich people have always made a difference at football clubs whether you go back to Bob Lord at burnley in the 60’s, Sam Longson at Derby in the 70’s or their latter day incarnations. The problem is when owners arrive, saddle the club with debt, and leave.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Numero Veinticinco

But teams without rich owners already have to stay within their means. Nothing changes in that regard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But teams without rich owners already have to stay within their means. Nothing changes in that regard.

 

What changes is mobility.

 

Rich owners can no longer come in and buy LFC, Villa, Newcastle, etc, and immediately mount a title challenge.

 

Mounting a sustainable challenge even for the likes of Villa, has proved impossible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Numero Veinticinco
What changes is mobility.

 

Rich owners can no longer come in and buy LFC, Villa, Newcastle, etc, and immediately mount a title challenge.

 

They can. It's over a 4 year period, so very larger signings can be made short term and a stadium can be build. Then they can do the same naming rights dodginess as other clubs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They can. It's over a 4 year period, so very larger signings can be made short term and a stadium can be built. Then they can do the same naming rights dodginess as other clubs.

 

Stadium income is "free" under FFP anyway.

 

My own view is that there is no chance of balancing the books in four years. Look at what Chelsea and City had to spend to crack the top, then take a look at the enhanced revenues, it isn't enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest San Don
FFP is predicated on the principle that Clubs should only spend what they earn. The problem is that at the point that it is introduced it freeze-frames everything. Last season (11/12) Fulham earned £79m, we earned £169m. How can Fulham ever make up the difference in a 25,000 capacity stadium with Chelsea a couple of miles down the Road? Under FFP they would be a second or third tier side, under Al-fayed they stood a chance.

 

Stadium development is outside of FFP. If they can secure funding they could increase the size of the stadium. Always presuming they can get planning permission from hammersmith(?) council.

 

FFP doesnt stop clubs like FFC from developing their own players. Nor being smarter in the transfer market. FFP stops a club spending beyond its means. It doesnt stop its growth.

 

Those teams in the CL have such an advantage in the PL that sustainable investment to bridge that gap is almost impossible. You NEED a Mansour or an Abrhamovic to crack it, the new order, which is actually the old order, is itself inherently unfair under FFP. If a rich man or woman wants to bankroll a team, so long as it is underwritten personally ( Chelsea/ Man City) and not by the club (Portsmouth), why not?

 

A line had to be drawn somewhere. Course I'd have loved it if they'd drawn that line in the sand before comerade abramovich arrived to cut this off at the pass. Maybe they could do it retrospectively?

 

Saying you need a mansour or abramovich is the lazy option. You increase your smartness in buying and selling players and not paying them stupid wages you cant afford.

 

When that is applied across the board, it will introduce a smoothness. There's no getting away from the fact that those clubs who already have mega rich owners who've pumped hundreds of millions into their club have a head start.

 

But, its also harder for them to meet FFP. My only gripe is that UEFA have given these clubs too much advance warning about getting their financial house in order.

 

The next step is to hit them and hit them hard if \ when they violate FFP. UEFA being able to grant exemption is a total cop out though. Yet more shame on platini.

 

At the point where things are freeze- framed, and the money is rolling in as revenue, it is quite easy, legitimately to show profits by creative accounting. Who is to say what the sponsorship of the Ethiad is worth to Ethiad? Carrington is sponsored to the tune of £150m, whilst Everton can’t afford an annual rent on their ground of £1.5m- get the picture?

 

I dont think it is easy. UEFA's test will be to ensure their compliance team is rigourous and independant enough to weed out these deals.

 

For me the premise of FFP is wrong. Rich people have always made a difference at football clubs whether you go back to Bob Lord at burnley in the 60’s, Sam Longson at Derby in the 70’s or their latter day incarnations. The problem is when owners arrive, saddle the club with debt, and leave.

 

Bob Lord had fuck all success at burnley. Same with longson except when he had a certain managerial team in place. Portsmouth also tried to spend their way to success in the early 70's. They failed. They tried it again in the last few years and crashed and burned, where are they now? So clearly money wasnt the difference.

 

Fucking hell, you'll be saying we bought our success next.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stadium development is outside of FFP. If they can secure funding they could increase the size of the stadium. Always presuming they can get planning permission from hammersmith(?) council.

 

FFP doesnt stop clubs like FFC from developing their own players. Nor being smarter in the transfer market. FFP stops a club spending beyond its means. It doesnt stop its growth.

 

 

 

A line had to be drawn somewhere. Course I'd have loved it if they'd drawn that line in the sand before comerade abramovich arrived to cut this off at the pass. Maybe they could do it retrospectively?

 

Saying you need a mansour or abramovich is the lazy option. You increase your smartness in buying and selling players and not paying them stupid wages you cant afford.

 

When that is applied across the board, it will introduce a smoothness. There's no getting away from the fact that those clubs who already have mega rich owners who've pumped hundreds of millions into their club have a head start.

 

But, its also harder for them to meet FFP. My only gripe is that UEFA have given these clubs too much advance warning about getting their financial house in order.

 

The next step is to hit them and hit them hard if \ when they violate FFP. UEFA being able to grant exemption is a total cop out though. Yet more shame on platini.

 

 

 

I dont think it is easy. UEFA's test will be to ensure their compliance team is rigourous and independant enough to weed out these deals.

 

 

 

Bob Lord had fuck all success at burnley. Same with longson except when he had a certain managerial team in place. Portsmouth also tried to spend their way to success in the early 70's. They failed. They tried it again in the last few years and crashed and burned, where are they now? So clearly money wasnt the difference.

 

Fucking hell, you'll be saying we bought our success next.

 

The point is that a club like Fulham ( or anyone else outside of the Top Four) needs a level of investment to grow the stadium or the team beyond their current means if you don’t have backers prepared to take a supra-budgettary punt.

 

It doesn’t matter how smart you are- you can’t be smarter than an £80m head start ( Liverpool/Fulham). I think you are saying that we can overcome the stadium advantage of Man u and Arsenal and the ownership cash of Celsea and City by being smart. I am saying I thnk it unlikely, under Rodgers and Ayre it is impossible- they are not good enough.

 

We agree that Chelsea, and then City, distorted the market. But then the question of “what is fair?” comes in. The metropolitan clubs have always had a commercial advantage by accident of location- is that fair? I think we would also agree that if the PL adopted the Bundesliga structure, our football would be a lot fairer for all.

 

My concern about enforcement of FFP is that some aspects are unenforceable. Warrior’s kit deal with us did not make commercial sense, hence Addidas pulling out of negotiating. Warrior took a punt, it may well come off. But it is not the job of a regulator to risk manage deals. Who can say whether the Ethiad deal turns out to be worth it? The proof comes in a few years time. Can a football regulator determine the commercial value of a speculative punt by an airline? Or should they?

 

The role of Longson at Derby and Lord at Burnley is a matter of record. Local business men putting their money in. Burnley’s glory days in Div 1, and Derby’s under Clough obviously passed you by. Check them out when you have a minute.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you mean, income? Ticket sale income?

 

Revenue counts, expenditure does not.

 

So if your new stadium brings in an extra £35m a year, but you are paying £20m a year in interest/capital repayments, your balance sheet shows a credit of £35m, not £15m.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spain has far less clubs that England has.... proportionally, their income in boosted. Combine that with the duopoly of Barca and RM, and their revenues are boosted.

 

Conversely, the PL earns far more than any other nation, and splits the revenue (arguably) more fairly....

 

It's not like for like, and never has been.

 

 

Then we come to the sugar daddies. There's a number of issues there:

 

1) Living according to your means can be interpreted many ways, and some would say it means 'spend what you earn', other see is as 'don't spend what you can't afford'. The two are VERY different things.

 

2) Almost every club in existence has undergone speculative investment at some point. Some in a minor way, some in a huge way, but this is still money that wasn't 'earned', but obtained from outside sources looking to get a return somewhere down the line.

So how far down the line is acceptable? 1 year? 10 years? 20 years? and what is the 'return' measured in? Money, or acclaim? or something else.

 

3) The return on investment argument is tricky too...

FSG believed there was something in LFC worth investing in. It's a gamble, but one they believed was worth taking right? It may turn out to be a failure or a success, but they must have looked at the amount of money required and taken a view that it was a good thing to buy the club.

In the same way, the Sugar Daddies must have looked at clubs and come to the conclusion that they were worth investing in. For SOME reason (many we don't always know of, or understand), they think spending ludicrous amounts of money still helps them achieve their aims. By that definition, the silly money sponsorship deals and such ARE the going rate. They are paying what they believe is still worth paying. Our big problem is that we can't measure the benefits quite as easily as a simple financial return.

 

If a man is willing to spend 1bn on boosting his own ego, then as long as someone is willing to pay that, there's a proven market for it. The fact that someone paid it, is arguably evidence enough that the market existed.

 

 

Xerses is right, FFP creates a snapshot / freeze frame. Can you imagine is someone snapshotted (say) Liverpool's books and said... "OK, you made a 20 million loss, so you can't spend ANYTHING next year". People wouldn't like it. The argument would be "but Liverpool are a huge club, and we can make that money back in the long term, but we need to spend now".

 

That's leads us right back to square one.

 

As for Man United? they spend money they don't have. Most business do. But the investment made in them relies on a firm belief that they will continue to grow in size, and maintain their worldwide appeal for the foreseeable future. If they don't, then people will lose their investments.

 

There's a LOT of money banked on the success of the elite clubs, and anything that poses a risk to those investments is viewed negatively. If that means some upstart club with a sugar daddy, posing a risk, then people start getting upset.

 

In addition, we can see already how the likes of Chelsea and City's revenues have increased.... so the investment is working to some extent. It is growing the business...

the problem is, spending 100 million a year to boost the business by 50 million is false economy if that's the case every year. But if it takes 10 years of that investment before the crossover point, where a club is still spending 100 million a year, but now bringing in 120 million profit (and growing).... is that wrong? over the first 10 years they'll lost 500 million, then during the next 10 years, they'll recoup it, with the club being significantly larger in the process.

 

This whole notion of 'organic growth' is romanticised into believing a club finds a great manager and a great crop of players, who go on to defy all the odds and achieve glory, turning their clubs into wonderful success stories and 'earning' their success. It's the stuff of dreams and Hollywood sports movies.

 

The reality is that teams have always gone and found a wealthy local hero, financially outmuscled smaller teams and if lucky, gone on to win as a result of that spending.

 

When once a local hero businessman with money was 'perfectly acceptable', an overly rich foreign businessman is 'unseemly'. I'm not sure there's much difference.

 

Xerses is also right when me mentions the way FFP discounts expenditure but does count revenue (depending on the nature of the revenue).

 

I use City as an example, but this is applicable to Liverpool, just as it is any other club:

 

- The owners of a club (in theory) can blow 1 billion on a new stadium. This would be counted as spending on infrastructure, and therefore not counted as 'loss'.

- The club can then boost their gate receipts / sponsorship / corporate revenue by a relatively measly 30 million per year (say).

- The 50 million per year is immediately counted as generated revenue.

 

This, the club is 30 million up, even though it's blown 1 billion to achieve it.

That's how prone FFP is to manipulation. But UEFA doesn't mind that is it thinks it's getting a better stadium, and it's not directly buying success on the pitch. (but we all know it is, because that's 30 million the club can spend on a player now).

 

All of the above said, it doesn't mean all the sugar daddies are blatantly manipulating. It's too early to be sure. For Chelsea? it doesn't look great. The money's clearly gone on players, and it's worked for them - but as a business model, it's questionable. For Abramovich's PR, a success.

 

For City? it's superficially more promising. The club have invested in infrastructure as well as on the pitch, and model looks slightly more believable as a marketing platform for Abu Dhabi... it's still too early to be certain it's all a cunning ruse, or if there's some real merit to it.

 

For Liverpool? it's different again. The value seems to be in already having a huge brand, and just wanting to bring the on pitch success back to a standard where the money will flow back in. In some ways, that's the simplest project, but in others, it's the hardest of all... because FSG won't want to spend and spend to make sure of success.

 

All I can say is how I feel...

and things don't FEEL how they used to.

 

It's purely coincidental that when things felt romantic, Liverpool were are their peak, but that coincides with my youth too. But football felt GOOD then. Liverpool felt English, and they represented English football... and we had the best team in the world.

 

I have seen other English teams be crowned champions of Europe in more recent years, but it no longer feels like they represent England. And it no longer feels as good as it used to.

 

Maybe it's me romanticising the past. It just doesn't feel as good these days, and my gut feeling is that excessive amounts of money have played a part in that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Numero Veinticinco
Revenue counts, expenditure does not.

 

Exactly my point, mate. IF they come in and build a new stadium, do a dodgy deal in naming rights, then they can plough money into the squad. It doesn't stop smaller teams getting sugar daddies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly my point, mate. IF they come in and build a new stadium, do a dodgy deal in naming rights, then they can plough money into the squad. It doesn't stop smaller teams getting sugar daddies.

 

The number of clubs where that is possible is negligible. Derby could build a 60,000 seater stadium, they wouldn't fill it, and no-one wants to sponsor Derby.

 

The difference is that we COULD fill a 60,000 seater, and a successful LFC COULD command massive naming rights.

 

I continue to believe that in this country, FFP is not the problem, rogue ownership is- LFC under G&H, Leeds, Pompey, Darlington, Coventry, Portsmouth etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This would be ideal. Won't happen though. It makes too much sense to a corrupt FIFA and UEFA. They had the chance to save football by doing something like this but, they aren't interested in that. The only thing they're interested in is lining their own pockets.

 

A wage cap in football can never work, simple really.

 

The difference between the different leagues are too big and for it to work it would have to be the same rules everywhere.

 

Its simply impossible to introduce.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 years later...
  • 2 years later...

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2021/08/19/uefas-new-ffp-rules-will-allow-monitor-squad-spending-wages/
 

UEFA's new FFP rules will allow them to monitor squad spending and wages in real time

 

The proposed replacement for Uefa financial fair play (FFP) would have the power to make Champions League clubs change their squads immediately, under plans that it will operate in real-time rather than try to dish out punishments retrospectively as with the current system.

 

The new luxury tax proposals, which will be discussed by Uefa, clubs and leagues in Nyon next month, would take into consideration “squad costs” – not just transfer fees and player salaries but also agents’ fees – when calculating whether limits had been breached. Clubs would have to submit to Uefa each player’s squad costs with their proposed 25 names for the upcoming season, which would then be scrutinised as to whether it passed controls.

 

Any breaches would potentially see clubs forced to drop players from their squads for the three Uefa competitions to bring them into line with spending limits.

 

While the details are still to be decided over the next few months, some form of the luxury tax proposal – which would see clubs pay a premium when spending breached a certain level - is certain to replace the current ten-year FFP system. It is likely that the luxury tax control would be two-pronged. There would be a top-limit of the percentage of a club’s revenue that could be spent on squad costs, and potentially in addition to that a “hard cap” on the total of capital that could be invested each year by an owner.

 

Uefa does not believe any system can realistically hope to close the competitive gap between wealthier and poorer clubs, but by redistributing the income from luxury tax to clubs lower down the hierarchy, it believes it is following a principle of fairness that should lead to greater financial stability. Repeated breaches of the luxury tax would result in disciplinary measures, potentially leading to sporting sanctions.

 

The governing body has faced huge challenges in applying FFP rules to wealthy clubs, including Paris Saint-Germain and Manchester City – both of whom have won significant victories over Uefa in the Court of Arbitration for Sport. The relaxing of the rules over the pandemic, to allow owners to inject funds into the clubs, have seen FFP become even more difficult to enforce. Currently clubs are not permitted to make losses of more than €30 million over a three-year assessment period.

 

It is the proposed real-time monitoring of squad costs that those familiar with the proposals believe would be one among the most effective safeguards against overspending and financial instability. For example, under FFP, the wages of Lionel Messi will only be included in PSG’s financial results for the 12 months ending next July. Those results will most likely be submitted to Uefa in October next year, leaving a gap between spending and enforcement. The real-time nature of the system would see Uefa regulators working off unaudited club accounts with verdicts much more difficult to challenge. There is no suggestion that PSG have broken FFP rules.

 

Uefa’s priority is to see financial stability across leagues and clubs hit hard by the pandemic, and next month’s convention on the future of the game will also discuss how to stimulate the transfer market post-Covid. Spending this summer across Europe is around €2.8 billion with little more than two weeks of the window remaining, the majority of it coming from English clubs. The total European summer market spending pre-pandemic was more than €6 billion.

 

With Uefa president Aleksander Ceferin having made clear that FFP is no longer fit for purpose after 11 years, the switch to a new model is likely to be rapid with regulations finetuned this season and then a brief transition period. Uefa also aims to be more transparent in the application of a luxury tax with a publicly available system of tariffs depending on the scale of the breach of spending limits.

 

The luxury tax description is the working name for the plan although when it is finally launched it is expected to be called something else, with “tax” regarded as creating a misleading impression. Uefa also hopes that by monitoring fixed costs in salary levels and agents’ fee so closely clubs will be encouraged to ally wages with performance.

 

Uefa has studied the cost controls measure of Major League Baseball, which operates a luxury tax threshold, set each year. When the threshold is broken teams have to pay a percentage of their overspend as a penalty. That percentage rises according to how many times the threshold has been broken over successive previous years. For example, since 2003, the New York Yankees have paid around $350 million (£256 million) in luxury tax, known officially as “competitive balance tax”.    

 

The Premier League and Football League, which will be represented in Nyon next month, are also expected to change its FFP laws to harmonise with Uefa. As it stands, Premier League clubs are permitted to lose £105 million over a three-year period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bobby Hundreds said:

A fine for people with unlimited cash, yeah great. Football is going to die on its arse.

Similarly, nobody will even enjoy Spurs rinsing City for £160m for Kane. Again, people with unlimited cash.

 

That European Super League was a principled idea compared to the status quo. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...