FFP facing legal challenge (updated pg 12)

[mcnab-sees-red]

Re: Wall St Journal Article on FFP

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2013/may/06/agent-legal-threat-uefa-financial-fair-play" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2013 ... -fair-play</a>






Uefa's financial fair play regulations face a legal challenge in the European courts after a players' agent argued the rules will unfairly restrict the amount of money he can earn. Daniel Striani, an agent registered in Belgium, has lodged a formal complaint with the European commission against the rules, which require clubs in European competitions from 2011 to move towards breaking even financially.

Striani is represented by Jean Louis-Dupont, a lawyer who in 1995 successfully challenged football's contract rules on behalf of a Belgian player, Jean-Marc Bosman, a legal victory which allowed players to move for free at the end of their contracts. Dupont argues that, as in the Bosman case, he will defeat Uefa's FFP rules even though they are supported by the European Commission.

He argues that Uefa's regulations, which prevent clubs making heavy financial losses whether backed by an owner or not, will have five separate consequences he claims are anti-competitive. The first is that they will restrict investment in a club by no longer allowing them to run at a loss.

The second is the key concern being voiced particularly in England, that it will lock in the power of the already rich clubs, whose dominance will no longer be able to be broken by the odd club like Manchester City or Chelsea which has losses supported by a mega-rich owner.

He then argues that the aim of FFP to dampen down players' wage and transfer fee inflation is "anti-competitive", a breach ofEU law. This is because FFP will lead to a "reduction of the number of transfers, of the transfer amounts and of the number of players under contracts per club", and will have a "deflationary effect on the level of players' salaries".

In conclusion, Striani argues that FFP will be "anti-competitive" because it will affect his own ability to earn agents' fees from players' wages and transfer fees.

Dupont will base his case for Striani on the argument that "the 'break-even' rule 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 (players agents)".

Uefa could better rebalance European football and make it more competitive, he states, by greater sharing of money from rich clubs to small, preventing the need for them to overspend.

Uefa responded by referring to the support the rules' introduction had received from Europe's clubs and players' union, and from the EC.

"The rules encourage clubs to 'live within their own means,' which is a sound economic principle aiming to guarantee the long term sustainability and viability of European football," Uefa said in a statement.

"Uefa believes that financial fair play is fully in line with EU law and is confident that the European commission will reject this complaint."

 

[waspish]

Re: Wall St Journal Article on FFP

Do they? If it passes eu law there probably been some hefty brown envelopes because we know This is how UEFA work

"Uefa believes that financial fair play is fully in line with EU law and is confident that the European commission will reject this complaint."

 

[Kinkys Left Foot]

Re: Wall St Journal Article on FFP

"UEFA is introducing so-called “financial fair play” rules to stop clubs outspending rivals on player transfer fees and salaries to achieve success and prize money"

AND

" Financial Fair Play does not have financial equality as its objective," a spokesman for European football's governing body said."

They don't even try and hide it anymore under some pretence that these rules are introduced for the overall good of the game.

Interestingly that objective would be desirable and having trawled through the PDF posted earlier on UEFA there are some redeeming features of FFP in general however the break-even rule may have to be binned and replaced by something else which won't breach EU regulations on investment. In any event I don't expect FFP to be retired it will most likely be adapted to fall in line with EU legal recommendations.

The press make me piss as well. So we are "refuseniks" for not wanting to vote for a system which is detrimental to our club and being peddled in the red tops as a saviour of football when we recognise it for what it is. It says something that the root of the integration of FFP into EPL rules is brought about by secret meetings involving the evil empire and Arsenal the well known paragons of English football. When have they ever done anything for anyone with the intention of level playing fields being the objective. Clearly FFP for them is the maintenance of the status quo in perpetuity. They wont care if the game in this country stagnates and United win the title every year and the Arse finish second and win the odd cup. Basically fuck everyone else as long as we're alright and the cash keeps rolling in.

It will be interesting to see the developments in Mr Duponts legal challenge and what UEFA do in the meantime. Perhaps all the turkeys who recently voted for X-mas might re-evaluate their position and take their heads out of Mr Gills arse.

 

[fbloke]

Re: Wall St Journal Article on FFP

There are so many issues that could be raised by different groups or individuals that it is simply a matter of time before the EU finds against FFPR.

It's interesting that UEFA is blindly saying that the rules comply with EU law because it reminds me of the efforts being made by the UK government in deporting terrorists.

Weirdly I made the tangential point yesterday and again that FFPR actually breaches the free movement of capital which had not been mentioned until the developments today.

That freedom, which can be explained in a number of ways, in this case points to the rights of owners to invest in their own businesses but also for all EU citizens to be allowed to invest freely across the EU.

Under FFPR my ability to make a profit by investing in a football business is directly limited by the rules introduced by UEFA.

There is a chance therefore that I could sue UEFA for losses as could any other football shareholder .

Interesting times ahead.

 

[TGR]

Brilliant! Just fucking brilliant!
I think a number of clubs would already take the opportunity to reverse their vote now they know exactly what it means to them and football.
Hopefully, this one will run and run - we'll see...

 

[Stoned Rose]

Re: Wall St Journal Article on FFP

FFP being challenged !

http://www.soccernomics-agency.com/?p=454

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.

Fucking quality post Waspish. I hope this starts off a string of kick off re FFP. Without these ludicrous regulations we'd have been unstoppable. Tell Mr Dupont we at BM said a nice big hello ;)<br /><br />-- Mon May 06, 2013 7:52 pm --<br /><br />

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***

FBloke feels like this...

 

[chesterbells]

Re: Wall St Journal Article on FFP

A Salary Cap is a restraint of trade and is illegal in virtually all Western democracies UNLESS it is agreed with most employers and is fair - i.e. also agreed with the players representatives (normally a player Union of some sort). When all sides agree the league operates, when they don't there is normally a labour dispute - be it a strike or a lock out.

Interesting, do you know if the PFA agreed to the Premiership FFP rules? Also interesting that the government backed the rules, surely they wouldn't have done if they weren't passed in the correct legal manner?

Any player or employer could object to the rules - so long as they have the money to take it to court.

If a Salary cap was proposed by the PL it would have a much higher chance of success than the FFP bollox they have concocted as it would apply to all teams equally and would be less likely to "Fossilise the existing market structure" - which as we all know is the reason for FFP in a nutshell.

Must admit that "fossilise" quote was exactly what stood out for me straightaway - its the nail on the head isn't it?
Exciting developments these - and long overdue; can't believe it hasn't happened sooner tbh

 

[Neil_K]

It was just a matter of time. I suspect UEFA having been waiting for this and will have a strategy to get it swiftly resolved with the minimum of fuss or bad press. Hopefully that will not happen.

I wonder if these events will promote debate in the English press or will they resort to the same tired cliches they have been spouting? The nobs on Sunday Supplement actually have something tangible to discuss for once instead of idle speculation and conjecture. Saying that it will probably show them up for the frauds they are, and I'm expecting the usual drivel from the press. Interesting times indeed.

 

[paulchapo]

Great news but we know how corrupt Europe is.When they started mooting this crap i thought if someone legally challenged it surely they should win,i just didn't think someone would.

If FFP goes west the rags etcetera will crap it as we will blow them away for good!

 

[Blue Heaven]

All of this is academic if Pratini gets his antitrust exemption from the EU parliament. Here's a (hopefully) helpful link:

http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/legislation/legislation.html