FFP facing legal challenge (updated pg 12)

Re: Wall St Journal Article on FFP

bluedanza said:
Another whopping headache for Platini is that the French Government have confirmed that footballers are not exempt from the new 75% tax rate for those in earning above a million euros per year

hence the exodus of french players to geordieland

expect another flood of players trying to get out of France again during the next transfer window

furthermore, psg will have to pay even more over the odds to get players to join them, owners bleating to the media, platini jnr asking pops for an increase in his allowance

The really interesting thing about the 75% tax is that its the employer and not the employee who is now liable for it (legal gymnastics pure and simple) so I do wonder if Monaco will have a massive advantage on that one?

Also, third party ownership will be judged to be illegal under FIFA rules soon so an exodus from South America will perhaps happen this summer as 'owners' of players rush to get paid out.
 
Re: Wall St Journal Article on FFP

Charles Sale:

A gang of six Premier League clubs strongly opposed to wage restraint in the top flight held a clandestine meeting last week to discuss how they can best combat the measures.

The summit at the Grove Hotel outside Watford, where England stay before Wembley matches, was attended by the refusenik group of Manchester City, Fulham, Reading, Aston Villa, West Bromwich and Southampton.

The Premier League executive, who had lobbied so hard to get their proposal limiting the amount of TV money spent on players’ wages voted through by the narrowest of margins, had no knowledge about the gathering arranged by Southampton finance director Gareth Rogers.

Because the rule changes were accepted by a two-thirds majority, the rebel clubs can only fight the details of the regulations, which will be put to the 20 clubs a week today, rather than derail a process that includes restrictions on club losses over a three-year period.

Reading were at the Grove despite having controversially abstained from the 13-6 vote over the way the plans were presented. However, Swansea, who had voted against, were absent. They are understood to have switched sides after it was explained that TV money from European competitions are not included in the Premier League restrictions.

So as it stands, the current 14-6 balance would allow the rule changes to be implemented. Legal action was not on the Grove agenda.

So Reading, who pathetically abstained in the vote, have changed their mind... but so have Swansea! If this group stays together and just one club can be convinced before the final vote, the domestic version of these rules wouldn't pass.

PS: You won't be in Europe every year Swansea, you short-sighted fools.
 
Re: Wall St Journal Article on FFP

dave_blue12 said:


Here is the full text of the press release issued today:

“Today, 6 May 2013, Mr Daniel Striani, player agent (registered with the Belgian Football Association), represented by lawyer Jean-Louis Dupont, lodged a complaint with the European Commission against UEFA in order to challenge infringements to fundamental principles of EU law caused by some provisions of the UEFA “Financial Fair Play” regulation (FFP).

Specifically, this complaint challenges the restrictions of competition caused by the “Break-even rule” (article 57 of the UEFA FFP regulation).

The rule imposes on clubs that participate in the UEFA Champions League or in the Europa League the obligation “not to overspend” (the expenses of a club cannot exceed income). In effect, a club owner is prohibited from “overspending” even if such overspending aims at growing the club.

The “Break-even” rule (which, according to article 101 of the Treaty on the functioning of the EU, is an “agreement between undertakings”) generates the following restrictions of competition:

- Restriction of investments;
- Fossilization of the existing market structure (i.e. the current top clubs are likely to maintain their leadership, and even to increase it);
- Reduction of the number of transfers, of the transfer amounts and of the number of players under contracts per club;
- Deflatory effect on the level of players’ salaries; and
- Consequently, a deflatory effect on the revenues of players’ agents (depending on the level of transfer amounts and/or of players salaries).

At the same time, because of the aforementioned restraints, the “Break-even” rule also infringes other EU fundamental freedoms: free movement of capital (as far as club owners are concerned), free movement of workers (players) and free movement of services (player agents). Consequently, such restriction of competition and violation of EU fundamental freedoms cannot be justified by the objectives put forward by UEFA (long term financial stability of club football; and integrity of the UEFA interclub competitions).

Moreover, detailed legal and economic analysis shows that, even if the “Break-even” rule may appear initially a plausible concept, the rule is not able to achieve efficiently its objectives as presented by UEFA (whereas other means are available to attain such objectives. For additional information, see The Wall Street Journal op-ed published 25 March 2013 – <a class="postlink" href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324077704578357992271428024.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 28024.html</a>

As far as the integrity of the UEFA competition is concerned, in order to avoid the risk that club X would jeopardize the smooth running of the competition because its owner stops mid season providing funds (the “overspending”), it is not necessary to prohibit such “overspending” (as implemented by the “Break-even rule”), when it is sufficient to require “overspending” to be fully guaranteed (for instance, by means of bank guarantees) before the start of the competition and for its whole duration.

In short, the current prohibition – even assuming it to be justifiable (quod non) in the light of the pursued objective (i.e. integrity) – is in practice illegal because the rule is not proportionate (since it can be replaced by another measure, equally efficient but less damaging as far as EU freedoms are concerned).

In conformity with article 101.2 of the Treaties of the European Union, the complainant requests the European Commission to declare that the Break-even rule is null.

It is important to note this complaint does not at all question the legality of the UEFA rule (also included in the FFP regulation) that states that any club participating in the UEFA competition must prove – before the start of the competition – that it has no overdue payables towards clubs, players and social/tax authorities. In our view, this rule is justified in principle for the attainment of the integrity of the football competition and proportionate to this objective).

A copy of the complaint has been provided to UEFA.

ENDS”

The argument bears some similarities to the arguments I have advanced against FFP but in case any one is interested, I have not been working with the lawyers, although we have exchanged emails. I’m going to be at a conference in Leuven next week talking about FFP and hope to meet Mr Dupont there.
 
Re: Wall St Journal Article on FFP

dave_blue12 said:
Here is the full text of the press release issued today:

“Today, 6 May 2013, Mr Daniel Striani, player agent (registered with the Belgian Football Association), represented by lawyer Jean-Louis Dupont, lodged a complaint with the European Commission against UEFA in order to challenge infringements to fundamental principles of EU law caused by some provisions of the UEFA “Financial Fair Play” regulation (FFP).

Specifically, this complaint challenges the restrictions of competition caused by the “Break-even rule” (article 57 of the UEFA FFP regulation).

The rule imposes on clubs that participate in the UEFA Champions League or in the Europa League the obligation “not to overspend” (the expenses of a club cannot exceed income). In effect, a club owner is prohibited from “overspending” even if such overspending aims at growing the club.

The “Break-even” rule (which, according to article 101 of the Treaty on the functioning of the EU, is an “agreement between undertakings”) generates the following restrictions of competition:

- Restriction of investments;
- Fossilization of the existing market structure (i.e. the current top clubs are likely to maintain their leadership, and even to increase it);
- Reduction of the number of transfers, of the transfer amounts and of the number of players under contracts per club;
- Deflatory effect on the level of players’ salaries; and
- Consequently, a deflatory effect on the revenues of players’ agents (depending on the level of transfer amounts and/or of players salaries).

At the same time, because of the aforementioned restraints, the “Break-even” rule also infringes other EU fundamental freedoms: free movement of capital (as far as club owners are concerned), free movement of workers (players) and free movement of services (player agents). Consequently, such restriction of competition and violation of EU fundamental freedoms cannot be justified by the objectives put forward by UEFA (long term financial stability of club football; and integrity of the UEFA interclub competitions).

Moreover, detailed legal and economic analysis shows that, even if the “Break-even” rule may appear initially a plausible concept, the rule is not able to achieve efficiently its objectives as presented by UEFA (whereas other means are available to attain such objectives. For additional information, see The Wall Street Journal op-ed published 25 March 2013 – <a class="postlink" href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324077704578357992271428024.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 28024.html</a>

As far as the integrity of the UEFA competition is concerned, in order to avoid the risk that club X would jeopardize the smooth running of the competition because its owner stops mid season providing funds (the “overspending”), it is not necessary to prohibit such “overspending” (as implemented by the “Break-even rule”), when it is sufficient to require “overspending” to be fully guaranteed (for instance, by means of bank guarantees) before the start of the competition and for its whole duration.

In short, the current prohibition – even assuming it to be justifiable (quod non) in the light of the pursued objective (i.e. integrity) – is in practice illegal because the rule is not proportionate (since it can be replaced by another measure, equally efficient but less damaging as far as EU freedoms are concerned).

In conformity with article 101.2 of the Treaties of the European Union, the complainant requests the European Commission to declare that the Break-even rule is null.

It is important to note this complaint does not at all question the legality of the UEFA rule (also included in the FFP regulation) that states that any club participating in the UEFA competition must prove – before the start of the competition – that it has no overdue payables towards clubs, players and social/tax authorities. In our view, this rule is justified in principle for the attainment of the integrity of the football competition and proportionate to this objective).

A copy of the complaint has been provided to UEFA.

ENDS”

The argument bears some similarities to the arguments I have advanced against FFP but in case any one is interested, I have not been working with the lawyers, although we have exchanged emails. I’m going to be at a conference in Leuven next week talking about FFP and hope to meet Mr Dupont there.


great find

i'm sure the Dupont fella has come up before in the thread
 
Re: Wall St Journal Article on FFP

This will clearly take time as you don't get instant rulings so what happens to FFP in the interim period? Can it still be implemented pending a ruling or will it be delayed? If UEFA implement it and the challenge succeeds then they could potentially be liable for huge damages claims.
 
Re: Wall St Journal Article on FFP

lets hope ,the game has ticked along ,very nicely for the last 150 ,years,why must it change now,?
 
Re: Wall St Journal Article on FFP

Remember when i said this -

From what I understand of EU law any EU citizen or business can ask for an investigation into such business practices.
Just a few pages back.

<a class="postlink-local" href="http://forums.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=280291&start=40" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">viewtopic.php?f=1&t=280291&start=40</a>

Now we have

In conformity with article 101.2 of the Treaties of the European Union, the complainant requests the European Commission to declare that the Break-even rule is null.

***walks away whislting merrily***
 
Re: Wall St Journal Article on FFP

fbloke said:
Remember when i said this -

From what I understand of EU law any EU citizen or business can ask for an investigation into such business practices.
Just a few pages back.

<a class="postlink-local" href="http://forums.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=280291&start=40" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">viewtopic.php?f=1&t=280291&start=40</a>

Now we have

In conformity with article 101.2 of the Treaties of the European Union, the complainant requests the European Commission to declare that the Break-even rule is null.

***walks away whislting merrily***

Yes ;)

What about the premier FFP would same rules apply?
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.