City & FFP | 2020/21 Accounts released | Revenues of £569.8m, £2.4m profit (p 2395)

[FanchesterCity]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I only read the last paragraph.

In it, Marcotti claims that its hard to argue that FFPR restricts a player's ability to work and make a living.

Well, it restricted Álvaro Negredo's ability to work and make a living at City when he was left out of our Champions' League squad.

You can't really argue that, as there are already restrictions on squad sizes (25?) so there will always be a 26th player who loses out. Can he argue the exist rules are limiting his opportunities? - not really.

There's also little evidence to suggest FFPR have caused less employment opportunities in the industry. They haven't.

There's certainly a case (imo) to say that EUFA are creating a barrier to entry in the CL and that's purely a financial barrier which certainly doesn't create competition to benefit the consumer and (arguably) increases the costs for consumers.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Here is the Marcotti article:

In 1995, it was football clubs, many of them with wealthy profiteering owners and enjoying the benefits of protectionism and state subsidies, both naked and veiled, versus players, most of whom earned a fraction of what they do now. Today, it is the vast majority of clubs and the game’s governing bodies versus fans of Manchester City and Paris Saint-Germain and some agents.

The first example is a non-sequitur to the second in terms of them being contrasting examples.

In the first, it was the players, who were disempowered by the prevailing systems that existed within football at the time. In spite of them wielding considerably less economic power and influence than the clubs and their owners (in relative and actual terms from the position today) the European Courts held that this was unlawful as contrary to EU law. Using the relative strengths of the clubs and DuPont in the second example as a contrasting point of reference makes absolutely no sense. It contradicts his first point. It must follow that this is not a consideration for the court if they find FFP is unlawful. Whilst it would be naive to suggest that the relative resources of each of the parties in this matter would not impose itself on the likelihood of success, as those with the deepest pockets can frequently grind matters out, that predication assumes that DuPont is funding this undertaking entirely out of his own pocket.

I would suggest anyone who believes that is living in cloud-cukoo land.

 

[fbloke]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Its interesting that he slyly suggests that Sheikh Mansour is only interested in negating FFP because it is in his interests to do so and that perhaps that will change once City are profitable.

I honestly believe that the stance that City have taken is on the point of principle of FFP restricting one type of owner investment and only one.

His broader argument that those people who will be taken on by Dupont are invested in FFP and therefore any challenge will fail is more than a tad limited. For his position to be correct then UEFA and European judges are in cahoots. Is that the case?

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Its interesting that he slyly suggests that Sheikh Mansour is only interested in negating FFP because it is in his interests to do so and that perhaps that will change once City are profitable.

Or worse, that he hasn't really thought this through. An utterly absurd thing to suggest.

 

[Sir peace frog]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

TBH I wouldn't take a blind bit of notice of what he thinks.

Given the choice I'd rather listen to Dupont.

Do you think for one minute he would pursue this, if he didn't think he had a good chance of winning?

its all very well pissing about on a football forum,shouldnt you be out with your camera. :)

 

[Rösler von Stretfordbömber]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Its interesting that he slyly suggests that Sheikh Mansour is only interested in negating FFP because it is in his interests to do so and that perhaps that will change once City are profitable.

I honestly believe that the stance that City have taken is on the point of principle of FFP restricting one type of owner investment and only one.

His broader argument that those people who will be taken on by Dupont are invested in FFP and therefore any challenge will fail is more than a tad limited. For his position to be correct then UEFA and European judges are in cahoots. Is that the case?

Philosophically they were universes apart from one another in the Bosman era. Things can always change over 20 years but I have not gotten the sense of that being the case.

The argument cibaman (I believe) references earlier is a good one. If FFP is struck down I believe this sort of reasoning will be part and parcel of why. Restriction on potential employment options for footballers was a big part of Bosman.

 

[Rösler von Stretfordbömber]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Would have thought if something was contrary to the law it is contrary to the law whether it was created 100 years ago or one day ago.

And if anything, something created one day ago usually has a higher jurisprudential hurdle to get over than something having been in place for a great deal of time.

 

[jrb]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

TBH I wouldn't take a blind bit of notice of what he thinks.

Given the choice I'd rather listen to Dupont.

Do you think for one minute he would pursue this, if he didn't think he had a good chance of winning?

its all very well pissing about on a football forum,shouldnt you be out with your camera. :)

It's my day off. :-)

I'll be out with my camera before the Spurs game.

 

[Rösler von Stretfordbömber]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Quote: "there are also plenty of owners who would not be investing in football were it not for FFP and the fact is that it reduces costs and makes profitability more viable."

This is utterly preposterous. Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of economics could see in advance that the forced break-even dynamic would cause clubs to address this primarily from the revenue side. Just look at the behaviour of the rags both before and after full implementation of FFP. So all these sponsorship deals of theirs and rampant spending on left backs is going to make some potential owner of Aston Villa want to jump into those waters?

This revenue dynamic also would effectively impose higher costs upon consumers worldwide. And there lies another excellent argument against FFP from an antitrust standpoint.

 

[Dribble]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Here is the Marcotti article:

In 1995, it was football clubs, many of them with wealthy profiteering owners and enjoying the benefits of protectionism and state subsidies, both naked and veiled, versus players, most of whom earned a fraction of what they do now. Today, it is the vast majority of clubs and the game’s governing bodies versus fans of Manchester City and Paris Saint-Germain and some agents.

The first example is a non-sequitur to the second in terms of them being contrasting examples.

In the first, it was the players, who were disempowered by the prevailing systems that existed within football at the time. In spite of them wielding considerably less economic power and influence than the clubs and their owners (in relative and actual terms from the position today) the European Courts held that this was unlawful as contrary to EU law. Using the relative strengths of the clubs and DuPont in the second example as a contrasting point of reference makes absolutely no sense. It contradicts his first point. It must follow that this is not a consideration for the court if they find FFP is unlawful. Whilst it would be naive to suggest that the relative resources of each of the parties in this matter would not impose itself on the likelihood of success, as those with the deepest pockets can frequently grind matters out, that predication assumes that DuPont is funding this undertaking entirely out of his own pocket.

I would suggest anyone who believes that is living in cloud-cukoo land.

Absolutely this.

Also even if nothing else can be proved, if as expected Manchester City Football Club breaks even this season and quickly moves into profit then there is a current working investment model which is proving that FFP is not necessary and the free market should prevail.

We have provided a working template of investment success as apposed to the failing indebted model used by Real, Barca & ManUre. If they are the present, they have proven their model to be inept and heavily weighted with risk. We on the other hand have categorically shown what can be achieved with heavy but controlled investment and for me that is the better model to be followed for the future.

FFP, should concentrate on ensuring clubs only borrow what they can afford to pay back over the loan agreement period. Their ability to make repayments should NOT take into account European competition qualification because it isn't a given that a club will always qualify as Leeds found to their cost. Relying on UEFA competition revenue is like including overtime revenue in a mortgage application as a necessity to make the repayments.

To stop another Portsmouth, in future any owners who want to follow the investment model should deposit the funds they want to invest for security and these funds should cover all wages and forecasted costs. If this were the case, why would anyone have a problem with the investment model or sustainable borrowing........

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

The key argument against FFP (and one I believe Dupont is using) is that it's not the principle itself which is a problem but the implementation of that principle which is faulty.

If your objective is to ensure sustainability then you can't just ban owner investment per se and ignore debt. Particularly when that debt is built up via excessive outgoings or is loaded onto the club as part of a buyout or takeover.

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Marcotti is a fraud, another who thinks he comes across as a footballing intellectual, simply because he's a fat Yank who can speak Italian.

He lays bare his entire argument when he suggests our owner may want reconsider his stance once we are into profitability (please feel free by the way to show me which clubs are profitable)

So he's already admitting FFP rules are of self-interest to only certainly clubs, barring route to entry for others.

 

[aguero93:20]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Marcotti is a fraud, another who thinks he comes across as a footballing intellectual, simply because he's a fat Yank who can speak Italian.

He lays bare his entire argument when he suggests our owner may want reconsider his stance once we are into profitability (please feel free by the way to show me which clubs are profitable)

So he's already admitting FFP rules are of self-interest to only certainly clubs, barring route to entry for others.

He's no fraud Tolme, he's being a bit silly here trying to predict the outcome of an appeal to a court he knows nothing about, under legislation he had never heard of until march this year when I referenced it to him, but he's been quite open minded about the whole thing in my experience of the man. Unlike a lot of other journalists.

Edit: Dribble made a very good point on the previous page about our investment plan working, which seemingly Khaldoon's speeches and public comments have very carefully avoided giving credit to UEFA intervention for.

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Marcotti is a fraud, another who thinks he comes across as a footballing intellectual, simply because he's a fat Yank who can speak Italian.

He lays bare his entire argument when he suggests our owner may want reconsider his stance once we are into profitability (please feel free by the way to show me which clubs are profitable)

So he's already admitting FFP rules are of self-interest to only certainly clubs, barring route to entry for others.

He's no fraud Tolme, he's being a bit silly here trying to predict the outcome of an appeal to a court he knows nothing about, under legislation he had never heard of until march this year when I referenced it to him, but he's been quite open minded about the whole thing in my experience of the man. Unlike a lot of other journalists.

Fraud.

He's not a journalist by my own definition - they get stories.

He's a commentator.

Martin Samuel is a brilliant commentator. A newsgatherer he is not.

 

[aguero93:20]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Marcotti is a fraud, another who thinks he comes across as a footballing intellectual, simply because he's a fat Yank who can speak Italian.

He lays bare his entire argument when he suggests our owner may want reconsider his stance once we are into profitability (please feel free by the way to show me which clubs are profitable)

So he's already admitting FFP rules are of self-interest to only certainly clubs, barring route to entry for others.

He's no fraud Tolme, he's being a bit silly here trying to predict the outcome of an appeal to a court he knows nothing about, under legislation he had never heard of until march this year when I referenced it to him, but he's been quite open minded about the whole thing in my experience of the man. Unlike a lot of other journalists.

Fraud.

He's not a journalist by my own definition - they get stories.

He's a commentator.

Martin Samuel is a brilliant commentator. A newsgather, he is not.

They're all journos to me mate :)

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

He's no fraud Tolme, he's being a bit silly here trying to predict the outcome of an appeal to a court he knows nothing about, under legislation he had never heard of until march this year when I referenced it to him, but he's been quite open minded about the whole thing in my experience of the man. Unlike a lot of other journalists.

Fraud.

He's not a journalist by my own definition - they get stories.

He's a commentator.

Martin Samuel is a brilliant commentator. A newsgather, he is not.

They're all journos to me mate :)

Haha - some are better than others;)

It's like the girls on Sky Sports News, all classing themselves as journalists.

Yeah, course you are.

A bit easier on the eyes, unlike Marcotti!

 

[BluessinceHydeRoad]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Here is the Marcotti article:

Some 20 years ago, a fresh-faced Belgian lawyer named Jean-Louis Dupont took on the establishment and changed the course of football history. We remember him for the Bosman case, which ultimately granted players free agency and eliminated limits on the number of European Union players a club could field or sign. It is hard to overstate the impact of the Bosman ruling, whether it is in terms of globalising the game, increasing the gap between the top leagues and the rest of the Continent or giving footballers more of a say in their professional lives.

Bosman gave Dupont superhero status in some quarters and he was enlisted a while back in the legal battle to challenge Financial Fair Play.

A Belgian court is considering the appeal against Uefa and the Belgian FA on the grounds that FFP, by limiting investment, is violating European competition law and that whatever exemptions Uefa may call upon do not apply. He has been joined in the lawsuit by a range of plaintiffs, including agents and the 15,000-strong Manchester City Supporters Club, an organisation representing City fans from 168 nations.

The goal is to have the issue referred to the European Court of Justice, which has the power to strike down FFP. Obviously these legal battles move only slightly faster than molten lava, which is why Dupont asked the court on Friday for a provisional measure that would effectively suspend the further implementation of FFP. Effectively, it would leave the break-even requirements at present levels (£37 million over two years) rather than tightening them over time to £22 million over three years, which is FFP’s goal.

The concept is sound. He is telling the courts: “You don’t know if FFP is legal because you haven’t explored the issue further. We don’t believe it is, we understand it will take you some time to decide the matter, but, in the meantime, please suspend the process.”

Dupont’s supporters are not concerned by the fact that many see him fighting a losing battle. After all, no one gave Jean-Marc Bosman a chance either. Yet Dupont fought his corner, persevered and made history. This will be no different, they say. But, in fact, whatever your thoughts on FFP, this is very different.

For a start, the legislation that Bosman struck down was longstanding and antiquated. FFP, on the other hand, is new. And that matters, because the actors who put FFP into place — not just Uefa, but also the majority of European clubs and the European Commission that gave it the green light — are still in power. That means they are more invested in it than the powers-that-be back in the mid-1990s, who inherited regulations limiting player movement and sort of took it for granted.
Just as important, though, is the issue of whether Dupont is on the right side of history. And here you get the sense that the momentum is on the other side with a realpolitik argument based on stakeholders.

In 1995, it was football clubs, many of them with wealthy profiteering owners and enjoying the benefits of protectionism and state subsidies, both naked and veiled, versus players, most of whom earned a fraction of what they do now. Today, it is the vast majority of clubs and the game’s governing bodies versus fans of Manchester City and Paris Saint-Germain and some agents.

It is not that they do not have a valid argument, but given that City themselves say that they are very close to breaking even, you wonder how they will feel about FFP once they join the ranks of the profitable clubs. Equally, there is a just as valid counterargument to be made. You can argue that it restricts investment in the form of PSG and City and you would be correct, but there are also plenty of owners who would not be investing in football were it not for FFP and the fact is that it reduces costs and makes profitability more viable.

That is why it is hard to see how Dupont can win this time. It may have been different if he could find a way to argue that FFP restricts workers (footballers) and their ability to make a living. But with the plaintiffs he represents, there is much less of an appetite for the kind of laissez-faire argument he is pushing.

This is a very strange article indeed. One of the most curious statements concerns the Bosman case and declares that "the legislation that Bosman struck down was longstanding and antiquated." Dupont struck down no legislation at all. What he did strike down was the retain and transfer system. This was not legislation but a code of practice in use in football and solely in football. George Eastham had established his right to change clubs when his contract had expired in the 1960s but no-one had pushed this because it suited no-one's interests. Indeed Bosman established a principle but had his career destroyed. What Marcotti doesn't point out is that UEFA fought to the death to maintain this "system" when it was obvious they would lose in court and it actually left the courts to decide on what the rights of the various parties in the dispute were. This "system" was far less in the interests of the clubs than, for instance, the system in use by our FA - the old tribunal. Retain and transfer was against the law and Dupont had it declared so, and any future violation of the law will involve heavy damages, compensation, a fine etc etc. Furthermore the ECJ gave UEFA a sharp lecture that sporting matters must be decided on the basis of what the law is, and not what UEFA sees as its best interests.

This last point is what makes Marcotti's argument nonsense. The case will not be judged by UEFA, the ECA or any of "the actors who put FFP into place" or even Manchester City or PSG, but by the court on the basis of the law. The law binds all, whether they are on "the right side of history" or not. It matters not if Manchester City break even or not, or whether Sheikh Mansour wants to destroy FFP or not. As far as City is concerned, it is their fans who are standing up their rights and the rights of fans throughout Europe who do not see why they should finance their club instead of the shareholders. Dupont is not fighting for the right to invest of PSG or City, but of the (future) owners of Ajax, Anderlecht, Standard Liege, Aston Villa etc. As Dupont says, the law must give the protection of the law to the whole of Europe, not just "wealthy profiteering owner enjoying the benefits of protectionism and state subsidies." The point about state subsidies is relevant. It is actually the EC which has taken up this matter, largely with reference to Spanish clubs, and it is this which gives rise to Marcotti's other strange remarks that it was "the European Commission that gave it (FFP) the green light". Snr Alumunia has made one statement that FFP is consistent with European law on unlawful state aid - funnily enough to protect the right of private investors from unfair state competition! Not one member of the EC has ever given any support to an assault on the rights of the private investor.

A further curiosity is Marcotti's assertion that, "Dupont’s supporters are not concerned by the fact that many see him fighting a losing battle." I have been unable to find one serious study of FFP which does not conclude that it is inconsistent with European laws on competition. I'm sure the Arsenal supporters grous consider their forums an exception, but legal opinion seems to favour Dupont strongly. The coalition Marcotti identifies as pushing for FFP may strike the court as having more in common with a cartel.

 

[Rösler von Stretfordbömber]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Here is the Marcotti article:

Some 20 years ago, a fresh-faced Belgian lawyer named Jean-Louis Dupont took on the establishment and changed the course of football history. We remember him for the Bosman case, which ultimately granted players free agency and eliminated limits on the number of European Union players a club could field or sign. It is hard to overstate the impact of the Bosman ruling, whether it is in terms of globalising the game, increasing the gap between the top leagues and the rest of the Continent or giving footballers more of a say in their professional lives.

Bosman gave Dupont superhero status in some quarters and he was enlisted a while back in the legal battle to challenge Financial Fair Play.

A Belgian court is considering the appeal against Uefa and the Belgian FA on the grounds that FFP, by limiting investment, is violating European competition law and that whatever exemptions Uefa may call upon do not apply. He has been joined in the lawsuit by a range of plaintiffs, including agents and the 15,000-strong Manchester City Supporters Club, an organisation representing City fans from 168 nations.

The goal is to have the issue referred to the European Court of Justice, which has the power to strike down FFP. Obviously these legal battles move only slightly faster than molten lava, which is why Dupont asked the court on Friday for a provisional measure that would effectively suspend the further implementation of FFP. Effectively, it would leave the break-even requirements at present levels (£37 million over two years) rather than tightening them over time to £22 million over three years, which is FFP’s goal.

The concept is sound. He is telling the courts: “You don’t know if FFP is legal because you haven’t explored the issue further. We don’t believe it is, we understand it will take you some time to decide the matter, but, in the meantime, please suspend the process.”

Dupont’s supporters are not concerned by the fact that many see him fighting a losing battle. After all, no one gave Jean-Marc Bosman a chance either. Yet Dupont fought his corner, persevered and made history. This will be no different, they say. But, in fact, whatever your thoughts on FFP, this is very different.

For a start, the legislation that Bosman struck down was longstanding and antiquated. FFP, on the other hand, is new. And that matters, because the actors who put FFP into place — not just Uefa, but also the majority of European clubs and the European Commission that gave it the green light — are still in power. That means they are more invested in it than the powers-that-be back in the mid-1990s, who inherited regulations limiting player movement and sort of took it for granted.
Just as important, though, is the issue of whether Dupont is on the right side of history. And here you get the sense that the momentum is on the other side with a realpolitik argument based on stakeholders.

In 1995, it was football clubs, many of them with wealthy profiteering owners and enjoying the benefits of protectionism and state subsidies, both naked and veiled, versus players, most of whom earned a fraction of what they do now. Today, it is the vast majority of clubs and the game’s governing bodies versus fans of Manchester City and Paris Saint-Germain and some agents.

It is not that they do not have a valid argument, but given that City themselves say that they are very close to breaking even, you wonder how they will feel about FFP once they join the ranks of the profitable clubs. Equally, there is a just as valid counterargument to be made. You can argue that it restricts investment in the form of PSG and City and you would be correct, but there are also plenty of owners who would not be investing in football were it not for FFP and the fact is that it reduces costs and makes profitability more viable.

That is why it is hard to see how Dupont can win this time. It may have been different if he could find a way to argue that FFP restricts workers (footballers) and their ability to make a living. But with the plaintiffs he represents, there is much less of an appetite for the kind of laissez-faire argument he is pushing.

This is a very strange article indeed. One of the most curious statements concerns the Bosman case and declares that "the legislation that Bosman struck down was longstanding and antiquated." Dupont struck down no legislation at all. What he did strike down was the retain and transfer system. This was not legislation but a code of practice in use in football and solely in football. George Eastham had established his right to change clubs when his contract had expired in the 1960s but no-one had pushed this because it suited no-one's interests. Indeed Bosman established a principle but had his career destroyed. What Marcotti doesn't point out is that UEFA fought to the death to maintain this "system" when it was obvious they would lose in court and it actually left the courts to decide on what the rights of the various parties in the dispute were. This "system" was far less in the interests of the clubs than, for instance, the system in use by our FA - the old tribunal. Retain and transfer was against the law and Dupont had it declared so, and any future violation of the law will involve heavy damages, compensation, a fine etc etc. Furthermore the ECJ gave UEFA a sharp lecture that sporting matters must be decided on the basis of what the law is, and not what UEFA sees as its best interests.

This last point is what makes Marcotti's argument nonsense. The case will not be judged by UEFA, the ECA or any of "the actors who put FFP into place" or even Manchester City or PSG, but by the court on the basis of the law. The law binds all, whether they are on "the right side of history" or not. It matters not if Manchester City break even or not, or whether Sheikh Mansour wants to destroy FFP or not. As far as City is concerned, it is their fans who are standing up their rights and the rights of fans throughout Europe who do not see why they should finance their club instead of the shareholders. Dupont is not fighting for the right to invest of PSG or City, but of the (future) owners of Ajax, Anderlecht, Standard Liege, Aston Villa etc. As Dupont says, the law must give the protection of the law to the whole of Europe, not just "wealthy profiteering owner enjoying the benefits of protectionism and state subsidies." The point about state subsidies is relevant. It is actually the EC which has taken up this matter, largely with reference to Spanish clubs, and it is this which gives rise to Marcotti's other strange remarks that it was "the European Commission that gave it (FFP) the green light". Snr Alumunia has made one statement that FFP is consistent with European law on unlawful state aid - funnily enough to protect the right of private investors from unfair state competition! Not one member of the EC has ever given any support to an assault on the rights of the private investor.

A further curiosity is Marcotti's assertion that, "Dupont’s supporters are not concerned by the fact that many see him fighting a losing battle." I have been unable to find one serious study of FFP which does not conclude that it is inconsistent with European laws on competition. I'm sure the Arsenal supporters grous consider their forums an exception, but legal opinion seems to favour Dupont strongly. The coalition Marcotti identifies as pushing for FFP may strike the court as having more in common with a cartel.

Precisely this. This was a laugh out loud moment for me in reading that article. One of numerous, actually.

 

[BillyShears]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Here is the Marcotti article:

Some 20 years ago, a fresh-faced Belgian lawyer named Jean-Louis Dupont took on the establishment and changed the course of football history. We remember him for the Bosman case, which ultimately granted players free agency and eliminated limits on the number of European Union players a club could field or sign. It is hard to overstate the impact of the Bosman ruling, whether it is in terms of globalising the game, increasing the gap between the top leagues and the rest of the Continent or giving footballers more of a say in their professional lives.

Bosman gave Dupont superhero status in some quarters and he was enlisted a while back in the legal battle to challenge Financial Fair Play.

A Belgian court is considering the appeal against Uefa and the Belgian FA on the grounds that FFP, by limiting investment, is violating European competition law and that whatever exemptions Uefa may call upon do not apply. He has been joined in the lawsuit by a range of plaintiffs, including agents and the 15,000-strong Manchester City Supporters Club, an organisation representing City fans from 168 nations.

The goal is to have the issue referred to the European Court of Justice, which has the power to strike down FFP. Obviously these legal battles move only slightly faster than molten lava, which is why Dupont asked the court on Friday for a provisional measure that would effectively suspend the further implementation of FFP. Effectively, it would leave the break-even requirements at present levels (£37 million over two years) rather than tightening them over time to £22 million over three years, which is FFP’s goal.

The concept is sound. He is telling the courts: “You don’t know if FFP is legal because you haven’t explored the issue further. We don’t believe it is, we understand it will take you some time to decide the matter, but, in the meantime, please suspend the process.”

Dupont’s supporters are not concerned by the fact that many see him fighting a losing battle. After all, no one gave Jean-Marc Bosman a chance either. Yet Dupont fought his corner, persevered and made history. This will be no different, they say. But, in fact, whatever your thoughts on FFP, this is very different.

For a start, the legislation that Bosman struck down was longstanding and antiquated. FFP, on the other hand, is new. And that matters, because the actors who put FFP into place — not just Uefa, but also the majority of European clubs and the European Commission that gave it the green light — are still in power. That means they are more invested in it than the powers-that-be back in the mid-1990s, who inherited regulations limiting player movement and sort of took it for granted.
Just as important, though, is the issue of whether Dupont is on the right side of history. And here you get the sense that the momentum is on the other side with a realpolitik argument based on stakeholders.

In 1995, it was football clubs, many of them with wealthy profiteering owners and enjoying the benefits of protectionism and state subsidies, both naked and veiled, versus players, most of whom earned a fraction of what they do now. Today, it is the vast majority of clubs and the game’s governing bodies versus fans of Manchester City and Paris Saint-Germain and some agents.

It is not that they do not have a valid argument, but given that City themselves say that they are very close to breaking even, you wonder how they will feel about FFP once they join the ranks of the profitable clubs. Equally, there is a just as valid counterargument to be made. You can argue that it restricts investment in the form of PSG and City and you would be correct, but there are also plenty of owners who would not be investing in football were it not for FFP and the fact is that it reduces costs and makes profitability more viable.

That is why it is hard to see how Dupont can win this time. It may have been different if he could find a way to argue that FFP restricts workers (footballers) and their ability to make a living. But with the plaintiffs he represents, there is much less of an appetite for the kind of laissez-faire argument he is pushing.

This is a very strange article indeed. One of the most curious statements concerns the Bosman case and declares that "the legislation that Bosman struck down was longstanding and antiquated." Dupont struck down no legislation at all. What he did strike down was the retain and transfer system. This was not legislation but a code of practice in use in football and solely in football. George Eastham had established his right to change clubs when his contract had expired in the 1960s but no-one had pushed this because it suited no-one's interests. Indeed Bosman established a principle but had his career destroyed. What Marcotti doesn't point out is that UEFA fought to the death to maintain this "system" when it was obvious they would lose in court and it actually left the courts to decide on what the rights of the various parties in the dispute were. This "system" was far less in the interests of the clubs than, for instance, the system in use by our FA - the old tribunal. Retain and transfer was against the law and Dupont had it declared so, and any future violation of the law will involve heavy damages, compensation, a fine etc etc. Furthermore the ECJ gave UEFA a sharp lecture that sporting matters must be decided on the basis of what the law is, and not what UEFA sees as its best interests.

This last point is what makes Marcotti's argument nonsense. The case will not be judged by UEFA, the ECA or any of "the actors who put FFP into place" or even Manchester City or PSG, but by the court on the basis of the law. The law binds all, whether they are on "the right side of history" or not. It matters not if Manchester City break even or not, or whether Sheikh Mansour wants to destroy FFP or not. As far as City is concerned, it is their fans who are standing up their rights and the rights of fans throughout Europe who do not see why they should finance their club instead of the shareholders. Dupont is not fighting for the right to invest of PSG or City, but of the (future) owners of Ajax, Anderlecht, Standard Liege, Aston Villa etc. As Dupont says, the law must give the protection of the law to the whole of Europe, not just "wealthy profiteering owner enjoying the benefits of protectionism and state subsidies." The point about state subsidies is relevant. It is actually the EC which has taken up this matter, largely with reference to Spanish clubs, and it is this which gives rise to Marcotti's other strange remarks that it was "the European Commission that gave it (FFP) the green light". Snr Alumunia has made one statement that FFP is consistent with European law on unlawful state aid - funnily enough to protect the right of private investors from unfair state competition! Not one member of the EC has ever given any support to an assault on the rights of the private investor.

A further curiosity is Marcotti's assertion that, "Dupont’s supporters are not concerned by the fact that many see him fighting a losing battle." I have been unable to find one serious study of FFP which does not conclude that it is inconsistent with European laws on competition. I'm sure the Arsenal supporters grous consider their forums an exception, but legal opinion seems to favour Dupont strongly. The coalition Marcotti identifies as pushing for FFP may strike the court as having more in common with a cartel.

I like Marcotti in so far as he's not the worst football commentator/pundit out there. However I agree totally with what you've posted. That piece he's written (like many of his FFP pieces) is both poorly researched and poorly presented.

 

[mrbelfry]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Don't mind Marcotti that much mainly because he does challenge a lot of the lazy punditocracy. Unfortunately I don't think he's that clued up about FFP and especially what is happening at City with regards the CFG and CFA. Maybe we are doing a bad job at pushing what we are doing or maybe people are wilfully ignorant but when you listen to podcasts (such as Marcotti's) you can't fail to realise that football journalists actually don't watch that much football, don't generally challenge each other when an opinion or assertion is incorrect, and crucially don't really understand much of what is happening at City.