BluessinceHydeRoad
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 26 Mar 2012
- Messages
- 2,562
Chris in London, yours is quite an interesting post and highlights the fact that some form of regulation per se is perhaps not without some merit. The trouble is that there appears to be no form of regulation which would be seen as “fair”. The demands for regulation have come most persistently from clubs such as Arsenal, who see “fair play” as allowing clubs to “spend only what they earn”. They do not consider any cap on their spending to enable teams such as Norwich or Stoke, or even Aston Villa to compete “fairly” with them, even before we are brought to consider the meaning of “what they earn” (and therefore what they spend) and certainly before we consider the historical origins of this spending power. The following points have to be made about attempts to regulate the finances of football clubs:-
1. they do not occur in a vacuum. Originally they were supposed to deal with the problem of debt, but in their final form they ignore that problem. This means that some clubs are effectively given treatment which is preferential in the extreme. Manchester United are heavily indebted but are allowed to carry this debt: Manchester City are to be subject to draconian penalties if they overspend. Manchester City are to be “protected” just in case their owners “walk away”: the possibility of the Glazers “walking away” is to be considered as “unrealistic”....
2. only one aspect of the balance sheet is to be given any consideration at all. Arsenal can borrow as much as they like to build a bumper new stadium, owners can invest as much as they like on “infrastructure”. The only spending which is controlled is that on players (an asset like a ground!) and wages. This is, of course, intended to make sure that the wealthiest clubs keep their right to all the best players.
3. this is where the historical origin of a club's wealth is interesting. The richest clubs in the world have been most of the time in the recent past, since 1992 at least, Manchester United, Arsenal, Real, Barca, the Milans, Juventus, Bayern Munich. In 2003 they were joined by Chelsea, and later by Manchester City, PSG and Monaco. The latest three hold a privileged position only because of the disgraceful “doping” their owners have carried out. On this forum we know much of this “doping” has actually been investment permitted even under UEFA's new rules, but we also know that the established aristocracy of club football all owe their position to such “doping”: Munich in the early sixties, United several times, most recently 1986 – 1992. Or they have had very wealthy owners ploughing money in: this is the Italian model. Or they have received aid from the state or benefited from questionable property deals. Such “doping” allowed them to enjoy an income which bought success and success which led to impressive growth of other “revenue streams”. UEFA never objected to this and in fact Mr Platini benefited from such arrangements as a player.
4. these “revenue streams” are interesting. They include “commercial activities” and TV money. These are traditional, but have increased enormously over the last 20+ years – funnily enough for clubs who were successful because of their already larger income and expanding stadia! But from the mid -1980s onwards they came to include sponsorship. FFPR will mean that foreign car companies, American investment banks and Bavarian car companies or insurance companies can put more money into a football club through sponsorship than the owner is allowed to! Is this really in the interests of the game or the “integrity” of competitions? Did the sponsors of WBA not seek to influence team selection by withdrawing their sponsorship if one particular player was selected?
5. but these measures are introduced by the game's governing body to maintain competition. This can be proved not to be the case. Uefa is behaving no as a governing body, but as a competing party trying to increase its own share of a market it already dominates. It negotiates TV payments and sponsorship and uses European competitions as the vehicle. And it distributes financial rewards to confer a competitive advantage on certain clubs in other, domestic tournaments. It's FFPR will protect that advantage.
1. they do not occur in a vacuum. Originally they were supposed to deal with the problem of debt, but in their final form they ignore that problem. This means that some clubs are effectively given treatment which is preferential in the extreme. Manchester United are heavily indebted but are allowed to carry this debt: Manchester City are to be subject to draconian penalties if they overspend. Manchester City are to be “protected” just in case their owners “walk away”: the possibility of the Glazers “walking away” is to be considered as “unrealistic”....
2. only one aspect of the balance sheet is to be given any consideration at all. Arsenal can borrow as much as they like to build a bumper new stadium, owners can invest as much as they like on “infrastructure”. The only spending which is controlled is that on players (an asset like a ground!) and wages. This is, of course, intended to make sure that the wealthiest clubs keep their right to all the best players.
3. this is where the historical origin of a club's wealth is interesting. The richest clubs in the world have been most of the time in the recent past, since 1992 at least, Manchester United, Arsenal, Real, Barca, the Milans, Juventus, Bayern Munich. In 2003 they were joined by Chelsea, and later by Manchester City, PSG and Monaco. The latest three hold a privileged position only because of the disgraceful “doping” their owners have carried out. On this forum we know much of this “doping” has actually been investment permitted even under UEFA's new rules, but we also know that the established aristocracy of club football all owe their position to such “doping”: Munich in the early sixties, United several times, most recently 1986 – 1992. Or they have had very wealthy owners ploughing money in: this is the Italian model. Or they have received aid from the state or benefited from questionable property deals. Such “doping” allowed them to enjoy an income which bought success and success which led to impressive growth of other “revenue streams”. UEFA never objected to this and in fact Mr Platini benefited from such arrangements as a player.
4. these “revenue streams” are interesting. They include “commercial activities” and TV money. These are traditional, but have increased enormously over the last 20+ years – funnily enough for clubs who were successful because of their already larger income and expanding stadia! But from the mid -1980s onwards they came to include sponsorship. FFPR will mean that foreign car companies, American investment banks and Bavarian car companies or insurance companies can put more money into a football club through sponsorship than the owner is allowed to! Is this really in the interests of the game or the “integrity” of competitions? Did the sponsors of WBA not seek to influence team selection by withdrawing their sponsorship if one particular player was selected?
5. but these measures are introduced by the game's governing body to maintain competition. This can be proved not to be the case. Uefa is behaving no as a governing body, but as a competing party trying to increase its own share of a market it already dominates. It negotiates TV payments and sponsorship and uses European competitions as the vehicle. And it distributes financial rewards to confer a competitive advantage on certain clubs in other, domestic tournaments. It's FFPR will protect that advantage.