UEFA FFP investigation - CAS decision to be announced Monday, 13th July 9.30am BST

[The Stockport Iniesta]

What date is the CAS hearing?

Hasn't been announced yet.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

The UAE football association are at CAS later this week, the 12th, in a case vs the Qatar football association and the Asian football confederation.

The UAE have alleged that Qatar fielded ineligible players in the Asian cup which Qatar won.

It's depressing how political sport has become. I am sure football has always been a bit corrupt but nowadays it's happening on a global scale.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Are they though? My understanding of Stefan Borson’s excellent piece on the 93:20 podcast was that CAS had previously confirmed that FFP was compatible with EU competition law (see below). A Court may take a different view, but I don’t think we would be wise to bank on it.


From the 93:20 podcast....

“For completeness, it seems to me that City are on less firm ground on the sort of well-trodden arguments UEFA rolled out in CAS 2018/A/5808 AC Milan v. UEFA. UEFA has successfully argued that clubs voluntarily submit to the rules and regulations of UEFA in order to participate in the European club championships. In particular it appears that UEFA will continue to argue that FFP does not breach competition law, EU competition law is not directly applicable to FFP generally and CAS jurisprudence has confirmed that the CL & FFP Regulations are compatible with EU competition law. This is likely to be relatively safe ground for UEFA at CAS – areas that have been tested before and more difficult for CAS to overturn in any meaningful way.”

Sounds about right - agreeing to take part suggests accepting the rules for taking part.
I suspect CAS view FFP as a whole to be outside their remit.

 

[journolud]

Sounds about right - agreeing to take part suggests accepting the rules for taking part.
I suspect CAS view FFP as a whole to be outside their remit.

Not agreeing to take part would be stupidity if not commercial suicide, there is effectively no choice but to accept the rules

 

[BluessinceHydeRoad]

This is the bigger picture.
What I find most puzzling is how UEFA consider their rule-making to be above the law and how they hope to defend it in the courts.
It seems inconceivable to me that the stuff they come up with about football’s ‘uniqueness’ could be considered grounds to break internationally accepted laws.

UEFA haven't had much luck with their approach in the courts and this, I suspect, is why FIFA have tried to block off any other course than an appeal to the court of arbitration, which was found to be a denial of the human rights of "victims" a few weeks ago. City will be well aware of that! In the Bosman case UEFA's first line of defence was that the case was purely a football matter and no concern of the courts. That went down very well and drew the stinging answer that matters of contract law and such like would be decided by what the law was and not what UEFA thought was in the best interests of football. Their argument that football was a special case also bombed, partly for the same reason but, I think, partly because UEFA seemed to have decided what that special case was without recourse to the interpretation of the courts. It's never a good idea to tell judges what the law means. In the end he court accepted a contract was binding for its duration, unless terminated by mutual consent, but the retain and transfer system was dead and buried. Some special case! The problem for Bosman was that the legal process is slow and though he was awarded a million or so his career had ended abruptly and he had gone through really hard times. In a sense UEFA had put up a risible defence but made an example of Bosman. City, on the other hand, are a much tougher nut. The club and its owners are quite prepared for a long battle if necessary and UEFA cannot be prepared to face a suit for damages resulting from a ten year ban finally ruled out by the courts... especially if its case is as weak as some suspect.

 

[Exeter Blue I am here]

I gave the analogy of setting up a Fast & Furious Speed Club. The rules of the club are you can drive at any speed you like. However the UK speed limit is 30. If the speed club challenge the speed limit, who's going to win? The speed club rules, or the law of the land?

The law is rarely that black and white though

 

[BluessinceHydeRoad]

FFP is not a law, but it's a rule of the competition.

And if it conflicts with law it cannot be applied. Or should we entertain the crowd before the match with the beheading of the chairman of a club found in breach of FFP?

 

[SilverFox2]

Each writer signed up was supposedly told they needed to acquire so many hits, clicks and followers within a certain time period.

Don't know how true that is, but they have paid out a lot in salaries and need to get it back.

Reasonable ask I suppose.

Perhaps a mismatch between salary and generated income has forced the issue.
So either too much salary or too little revenue. I suppose it is a little easier for them to allocate each writer their own cost centre TH?

 

[BluessinceHydeRoad]

And yet, Football for some reason is the exception.

It isn't but someone has to prove the existence of a cartel before action can be taken. This may not be as difficult as may be thought. Usually to prove an individual guilty of a crime proof has to be presented that their motivation was to commit that offence. Such a burden of proof is not present in the case of a cartel. For the existence of a cartel it is sufficient to show that the actions of a group amount to the actions of a cartel. Now what have UEFA and the chaps of the cartel done that might lead us to believe they actually are a cartel?!!!

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Not agreeing to take part would be stupidity if not commercial suicide, there is effectively no choice but to accept the rules

This is true.
It's why sport is awkward when it comes to politics.