Shaelumstash said:
FanchesterCity said:
And that's one of the crux issues though... yes it's still technically possible, but if a group of clubs (or under the guise of UEFA) conspire to create a set of rules that severely diminishes competition, and cannot persuade a court is for the general welfare of the industry and consumer at large, then it has a problem.
They effectively deliberately create a barrier to entry.
It's like Warburtons and Tesco deciding that you have to 'earn' the right to buy an industrial breadmaker. Local bakers can't afford such a machine from the profits they make doing it by hand. IF they could borrow 100K to buy the machine, they could soon pay it back and compete with Warburtons and Tesco.
UEFA will argue that unfair competition (rich owners) devalues the sport and that's why they are 'safeguarding' the integrity of the game, which is a BENEFIT to consumers. In addition, they are preventing clubs from overstretching their finances and keeping more clubs in business.
It's easy for us to say UEFA are wrong, and we are right, but the arguments on both sides are quite strong (that's even before you start to look at how they go about implementing their 'safeguards').
Personally I expect FFP in principle will be approved by most courts, but the methods will be scrutinised and some aspects will be deemed illegal, or inappropriate. I can't see any ruling deeming it ALL to be wrong and totally scrapped, I just think it will be 'changed' (potentially significantly, and in our favour, but it could even get worse for us).
Remember, right now, and without FFP, one of our key advantages IS spending power. If the courts ruled that spending should be capped, even at Real, United, Barca et all, then we lose a lot of that advantage - and they have the advantage in 'heritage'.
We have to be very careful that changes to FFP don't end up being even worse for us!
I think you're making the often easy mistake of assuming courts are there as some kind of moral bastion to decide what is right and what is wrong, what is fair, and what isn't.
Unfortunately that's not the case. Courts are there to decide whether something is legal or illegal. I'm sure Dupont's case will be based around the fact that the current FFP rules are anti-competitive and restrict trade of private business.
UEFA's argument will probably be that the CL is an invitation only competition and they are free to decide who should qualify and how. It's going to be an interesting case, but I'm pretty confident the court won't be looking at this objectively about whether it's good for the spectacle of football.
You are are right to suggest it's about law and not morality, but nothing in my post makes such any such assumption.
UEFA's case is a matter of law, and restrictions on trade ARE legal in certain circumstances. UEFA are arguing that the restrictions are in place for the betterment of football - which is an industry. It's not a sporting argument but a business one. I am no saying I agree with their stance (or disagree), but that is essentially their case.
THEY claim that measures are in place without bias, and are designed to stop clubs overspending which can (and has) resulted in clubs ending up in a perilous situation.
Not only that, they claim that clubs like City are having a negative impact on transfer fees and wages which is affecting the entire industry, and in order to protect the industry and the consumer, they need to curb the spending.
And finally, they believe clubs like City are buying success which is devaluing the sport and limiting competition.
These are their basic premises for introducing FFP.
It is very easy to cry foul and say "it's a restraint of trade, and should be thrown out immediately'.
Sadly if that WERE the case, it would have been challenged and defeated with ease already. The reason it hasn't is because it's not quite so simple. Regardless of what we think, UEFA's argument has SOME merit, and it has a fair amount of support from the former G14 too (unsurprisingly).
We City fans, think a challenge in the courts MIGHT (or ought to) win - but it's not guaranteed. It's a risk which our club and sponsors have assessed and believe to be not worth taking given the relatively light punishment we've been given.
If we were guaranteed to win, there'd be no debate.
PSG have also chosen not to take it to court. Almost certainly for the same reasons as City.
If UEFA were to impose much harsher penalties, then the gamble might be worth taking, but right now, it's not worth it for either club.
And as I said, it's not just a matter or winning or it stays the same. If we were to lose, things could get harder!
