While they're based outside the EU, they definitely represent many people within the EU, so I suppose that is what the EU gains.fbloke said:One element of this that I simply cannot get my head around is why the EU would apparently pander to the wishes of an organisation that is based in a non-EU country, pays no tax in the EU and is on very dodgy ground even in terms of the Swiss tax system.
What does the EU 'gain' from allowing a non-EU body/company to limit the options of EU citizens?
fbloke said:One element of this that I simply cannot get my head around is why the EU would apparently pander to the wishes of an organisation that is based in a non-EU country, pays no tax in the EU and is on very dodgy ground even in terms of the Swiss tax system.
What does the EU 'gain' from allowing a non-EU body/company to limit the options of EU citizens?
cleavers said:While they're based outside the EU, they definitely represent many people within the EU, so I suppose that is what the EU gains.fbloke said:One element of this that I simply cannot get my head around is why the EU would apparently pander to the wishes of an organisation that is based in a non-EU country, pays no tax in the EU and is on very dodgy ground even in terms of the Swiss tax system.
What does the EU 'gain' from allowing a non-EU body/company to limit the options of EU citizens?
FanchesterCity said:fbloke said:One element of this that I simply cannot get my head around is why the EU would apparently pander to the wishes of an organisation that is based in a non-EU country, pays no tax in the EU and is on very dodgy ground even in terms of the Swiss tax system.
What does the EU 'gain' from allowing a non-EU body/company to limit the options of EU citizens?
I'm guessing that football is a good earner for the many countries, and there's a lot of lobbying behind closed doors from EU countries.
Abramovich indirectly has probably added value to the Chelsea area (even though it was already highly desirable), and Mansour most certainly has added value to North East Manchester.
I don't know whether that would make them 'pander' to UEFA, but I'm sure it makes them very interested in UEFA's dealings.
FanchesterCity said:BluessinceHydeRoad said:Article 101
(ex Article 81 TEC)
1. The following shall be prohibited as incompatible with the internal market: all agreements between undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings and concerted practices which may affect trade between Member States and which have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition within the internal market, and in particular those which:
(a) directly or indirectly fix purchase or selling prices or any other trading conditions;
(b) limit or control production, markets, technical development, or investment;
(c) share markets or sources of supply;
(d) apply dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with other trading parties, thereby placing them at a competitive disadvantage;
(e) make the conclusion of contracts subject to acceptance by the other parties of supplementary obligations which, by their nature or according to commercial usage, have no connection with the subject of such contracts.
2. Any agreements or decisions prohibited pursuant to this Article shall be automatically void.
3. The provisions of paragraph 1 may, however, be declared inapplicable in the case of:
- any agreement or category of agreements between undertakings,
- any decision or category of decisions by associations of undertakings,
- any concerted practice or category of concerted practices,
which contributes to improving the production or distribution of goods or to promoting technical or economic progress, while allowing consumers a fair share of the resulting benefit, and which does not:
(a) impose on the undertakings concerned restrictions which are not indispensable to the attainment of these objectives;
(b) afford such undertakings the possibility of eliminating competition in respect of a substantial part of the products in question.
This is the relevant section of the European treaty. The wording is unequivocal: limits and/or controls on investment are clearly "prohibited" and any decisions based on such an agreement (eg the sanctions imposed on the nine "offenders") "shall be automatically void." This will NOT be the case ONLY if the agreement actually promotes technical or economic progress AND brings benefits to consumers WHILE NOT restricting the rights of undertakings more than strictly necessary or which allows for the elimination of competition.allow for the elimination of competition.
This clause expresses quite explicitly a desire to protect the right to invest, to prevent any interference with that right and illustrates the fundamental principle of the treaty, that investment is an important means of bringing benefits benefits to the consumer and in terms of economic development. It is thus inconceivable that the ECJ would accept as a justification of the break even rule, that Berlusconi has been losing 100 million euros a year or that certain rich, successful clubs would find it harder to compete with PSG or City. It would find it hard to understand why or how restricting investment at City and PSG or anywhere else contributes to financial stability at any other club. It is hard to accept that restricting investment makes football anything but less competitive in sporting terms. A further problem for UEFA is that financing investment through borrowing is a normal practice in every other area of business life, and law suits for anti-competitive behaviour would fly if anyone suggested that Tesco could not borrow to invest, to make up ground lost to other supermarkets recently. Here the connection between investment and progress for undertaking and consumer is more evident than in football, but is of the same nature. Any claim by ASDA that investment by Tesco should be stopped because it might make ASDA less competitive would be laughed out of court, but this is the view of competition that UEFA wants the ECJ to espouse. This is not a "sporting exception" but is asking the ECJ to reject the fundamental principles underlying competition law in Europe, and replace them with a completely different, not to say contrary, set of principles.
Nor can UEFA pull the "by invitation only" rabbit out of the hat. UEFA is clearly an association of undertakings and, in the case of the CL, it is not acting as a governing body at all, but as a competitor to the clubs. It has laid down clear criteria to take part in an "open" competition, but it enjoys a privileged ctatus - it alone sells the TV rights, it competes for sponsorship, won't allow non-sponsors to "appear" on TV and distributes money to the participants as prizes. To refuse an invitation to a club which qualifies on grounds other than the sporting criteria would be to "apply dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with other trading parties, thereby placing them at a competitive disadvantage" and would be one further breach.
That's my case, I suspect M. Dupont's is much more detailed but not greatly different and I can't see how the court cannot find in his favour. I'm not sure that UEFA have actually taken a great deal of legal advice, unless M. Berlusconi is acting for them! Certainly Platini has never come remotely near an explanation of how the law allows the regulations he has put in place. Certainly in the Bosman case UEFA relied on an argument that the law didn't apply because UEFA didn't think it was good for football. Can't try that one again!
I think they stood a chance arguing for the overall benefit of the industry, especially if there was a clear consumer benefit. They've missed a massive trick there. UEFA's stance seem to be that 'the market' is the clubs (and the subtext being 'only some clubs'). They've totally forgotten about the consumer - the fans (match goers, or tv subscribers). The price of watching this competition's not gone down, and it's no more accessible than previously either.
Platini's soundbites are all about the clubs, nothing about the consumer (terrible term really, but that's what we are).
Why not give clubs an incentive to lower prices? make an FFP exemption for subsidised tickets?
The pressure to comply with FFP not only encourages clubs to spend less (which they believe is a good thing), but it encourages them to charge more too (not consumer friendly).
cleavers said:Nodody is holding a gun to your head making you read it, maybe you could just not enter the thread if its so dull ?MaineRoadBlue said:Chippy_boy said:And I am sure the lawyers advising UEFA think that it's legal and defensible if challenged.
It's going to be interesting to see which way the courts decide. But either way, it's really of only passing interest to City now.
And with it a chance to close a thread that is utterly dull! Lets do it Mods!
pavelsrnicek said:FanchesterCity said:BluessinceHydeRoad said:Article 101
(ex Article 81 TEC)
1. The following shall be prohibited as incompatible with the internal market: all agreements between undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings and concerted practices which may affect trade between Member States and which have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition within the internal market, and in particular those which:
(a) directly or indirectly fix purchase or selling prices or any other trading conditions;
(b) limit or control production, markets, technical development, or investment;
(c) share markets or sources of supply;
(d) apply dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with other trading parties, thereby placing them at a competitive disadvantage;
(e) make the conclusion of contracts subject to acceptance by the other parties of supplementary obligations which, by their nature or according to commercial usage, have no connection with the subject of such contracts.
2. Any agreements or decisions prohibited pursuant to this Article shall be automatically void.
3. The provisions of paragraph 1 may, however, be declared inapplicable in the case of:
- any agreement or category of agreements between undertakings,
- any decision or category of decisions by associations of undertakings,
- any concerted practice or category of concerted practices,
which contributes to improving the production or distribution of goods or to promoting technical or economic progress, while allowing consumers a fair share of the resulting benefit, and which does not:
(a) impose on the undertakings concerned restrictions which are not indispensable to the attainment of these objectives;
(b) afford such undertakings the possibility of eliminating competition in respect of a substantial part of the products in question.
This is the relevant section of the European treaty. The wording is unequivocal: limits and/or controls on investment are clearly "prohibited" and any decisions based on such an agreement (eg the sanctions imposed on the nine "offenders") "shall be automatically void." This will NOT be the case ONLY if the agreement actually promotes technical or economic progress AND brings benefits to consumers WHILE NOT restricting the rights of undertakings more than strictly necessary or which allows for the elimination of competition.allow for the elimination of competition.
This clause expresses quite explicitly a desire to protect the right to invest, to prevent any interference with that right and illustrates the fundamental principle of the treaty, that investment is an important means of bringing benefits benefits to the consumer and in terms of economic development. It is thus inconceivable that the ECJ would accept as a justification of the break even rule, that Berlusconi has been losing 100 million euros a year or that certain rich, successful clubs would find it harder to compete with PSG or City. It would find it hard to understand why or how restricting investment at City and PSG or anywhere else contributes to financial stability at any other club. It is hard to accept that restricting investment makes football anything but less competitive in sporting terms. A further problem for UEFA is that financing investment through borrowing is a normal practice in every other area of business life, and law suits for anti-competitive behaviour would fly if anyone suggested that Tesco could not borrow to invest, to make up ground lost to other supermarkets recently. Here the connection between investment and progress for undertaking and consumer is more evident than in football, but is of the same nature. Any claim by ASDA that investment by Tesco should be stopped because it might make ASDA less competitive would be laughed out of court, but this is the view of competition that UEFA wants the ECJ to espouse. This is not a "sporting exception" but is asking the ECJ to reject the fundamental principles underlying competition law in Europe, and replace them with a completely different, not to say contrary, set of principles.
Nor can UEFA pull the "by invitation only" rabbit out of the hat. UEFA is clearly an association of undertakings and, in the case of the CL, it is not acting as a governing body at all, but as a competitor to the clubs. It has laid down clear criteria to take part in an "open" competition, but it enjoys a privileged ctatus - it alone sells the TV rights, it competes for sponsorship, won't allow non-sponsors to "appear" on TV and distributes money to the participants as prizes. To refuse an invitation to a club which qualifies on grounds other than the sporting criteria would be to "apply dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with other trading parties, thereby placing them at a competitive disadvantage" and would be one further breach.
That's my case, I suspect M. Dupont's is much more detailed but not greatly different and I can't see how the court cannot find in his favour. I'm not sure that UEFA have actually taken a great deal of legal advice, unless M. Berlusconi is acting for them! Certainly Platini has never come remotely near an explanation of how the law allows the regulations he has put in place. Certainly in the Bosman case UEFA relied on an argument that the law didn't apply because UEFA didn't think it was good for football. Can't try that one again!
I think they stood a chance arguing for the overall benefit of the industry, especially if there was a clear consumer benefit. They've missed a massive trick there. UEFA's stance seem to be that 'the market' is the clubs (and the subtext being 'only some clubs'). They've totally forgotten about the consumer - the fans (match goers, or tv subscribers). The price of watching this competition's not gone down, and it's no more accessible than previously either.
Platini's soundbites are all about the clubs, nothing about the consumer (terrible term really, but that's what we are).
Why not give clubs an incentive to lower prices? make an FFP exemption for subsidised tickets?
The pressure to comply with FFP not only encourages clubs to spend less (which they believe is a good thing), but it encourages them to charge more too (not consumer friendly).
I've mentioned this before but UEFA will have to show that even though FFP may distort the market, it is being done for "the greater good" and the measures are proportionate and are the best method of achieving FFP's goals. They may be able to show that because of it's stated aims it is being done for the benefit of a number of clubs but where the rules will be most vulnerable is the disproportionate effect on some clubs and it is very easy to think of a number of other measures that can have similar effects but with less negative consequences. Personally I think the fact that UEFA have decided to divide up the fines among the "compliant" elite clubs will be a major factor in torpedoing FFP.
Symantics on a word ;o)fbloke said:But they dont 'represent' anyone within the EU at all.