Stoned Rose said:
Prestwich_Blue said:
No it doesn't. It imposes a limit on club's spending based on their income. Another part of FFP restricts the amount an owner can invest to €40m over three seasons. Using hysterical words like 'ban' doesn't encourage me to read on.
This is not a hysterical word at all PB and it certainly does not justify your idisproportionate reaction. I don't remember outrage on your part when M. Dupont described FFP as "quite simply an unjustified ban on owner investment." UEFA have simply chosen not to permit clubs to spend (invest) money not generated from other forms of revenue, but whichever way you want to look at it its intention is clearly to stop some clubs buying the players they want. Owner investment in players is clearly
limited and any investment beyond that figure is banned.
The Bosman ruling indicates clearly that football is an economic activity which mus operate within the law. Article 101 has the clear intention of guaranteeing the right to invest, which may not be limited or prohibited (whichever word you prefer). Paragraph 3 gives circumstances in which investment might be limited or prohibited, but such a limit or prohibition would permit technical or economic progress bringing benefits to consumers which the investment would prevent. An agreement to limit the investment must not, however, afford those parties agreeing to limit the investment "the possibility of eliminating competition in respect of a substantial part of the products in question."
If you study Article 101 it is clear that only investment which is designed to hinder progress and damage consumer interests can be limited, so a permanent limit on what an owner can invest is clearly prohibited. FFP falls foul of the law on these grounds. The second point is that the transfer market is a mechanism, as its title shows, for transferring assets (players) from one enterprise to another, which has existed since the beginning of organised professional football. It has never been found to be a form of investment which can be prohibited or limited under Paragraph 3 of Article 101 and, it follows, therefore, that the Sheikh's investment in players cannot be limited either. The law deals with the purposes of investment not the origin of the monies to be invested. If monies from TV companies, paying customers, sponsors etc can be used to invest in assets monies from an owner cannot be disqualified. Arsenal FC would be hard pressed to prove that all the money spent on their stadium came from house building etc, and allowing Manchester United to spend £150 million last summer shows that UEFA do not consider the transfer market to be any breach of Article 101 yet again, but restricting PSG and City to £49 million clearly afforded United " the possibility of eliminating competition in respect of a substantial part of the products in question."
Now you can argue "sporting exceptions" and the "overall good of the game" if you like, but the Bosman ruling shows that football has to operate within the framework of business law, and the courts have to apply the law not ignore it. In City's case UEFA have to show that the Sheikh's investment is actually harming City or any other club in the long, medium or short term and they cannot do this. Nor can they show that the investment so far has damaged anything. They would have to prove that a limit on investment would do any good, especially in dealing with the problem of debt and financial instability. United's debt has increased this year - to around £400 million! The biggest debtors are the biggest spenders. The only conclusion is that UEFA actually considers it "unfair" that clubs with wealthy owners can buy players and may use their financial power to dominate the market. This is a real fear, which may have to be taken seriously, but UEFA cannot take action under a set of rules which are designed to ensure that one group of clubs perpetuate their dominant position in the transfer market at the expense of the Sheikh's club by riding roughshod over his right to invest. It cannot argue that any player bought by the Sheikh is a step towards destroying the competitive balance of football while allowing Real Madrid to buy one player for £100 million, another for £86 million then pay a high fee for the star of the world cup at the same time as forking out for one of the stars of the world cup winners. It is clearly not City threatening the sporting integrity of UEFA competitions. If UEFA feels that City are ever threatening such integrity they do not need FFP and illegal permanent bans - they simply go to court to disqualify the investment in question. Clubs, like individuals, can only be punished for actual breaches of the law.
