Buying a business and then making the business pay for it is not allowed in some countries, the USA is one interestingly enough, but it is lawful in the UK and so UEFA would find itself tied up in the courts for years if it tried to outlaw it. It seems unlikely to be good "for the game", I agree, but it looks certain not to be good for Burnley and other clubs but it is still lawful. There are a couple of points about cash injections, the first of which is that you wish to limit what can be injected and limit the period over which it can be invested (over and above other sources of revenue). This pays no heed to the needs of the club. Spurs' new stadium s illustrates the problem. During construction the costs spiralled which means they would almost certainly have injected more than allowed and/or taken longer to have paid. It took Arsenal years to pay for their new ground and Spurs will take years so the idea that injecting so much over so long defies any attempt by regulations to say what can be invested over how long. And neither Arsenal nor Spurs could show that the "money actually existed" because they had to borrow it and it was the judgement of the lenders, not the FA or UEFA, that they could meet repayments years in the future. But it would be "bad for the game" if such investment and debt were not allowed. So, do you want to limit spending just on transfers and wages .......... which is exactly what FFP tries to do, and this favours some clubs massively at the expense of others. As for agents, they perform a service which players obviously value and as well as being, as the phrase goes, stakeholders in the game they're also the people we pay to go and watch so we may need to proceed with care.
