I'm going to try and defend FFP.
Why was FFP introduced? FFP is intended to prevent clubs from running major deficits year over year. We've seen this in club after club, rich owners pick a club, run huge deficits, and the team screws up and doesn't do what the owner hoped for, they sell or the club goes into administration. Seems like every week we hear a new story about a club that racked up a lot of debt and is in administration. It's unfortunate and something needed to be done. UEFA recognizes that for every Manchester City, who has a good owner who hires good people to actually make the goal a success, there are 5 or 10 failures. And then what you have a club taken away from the supporters on the whim of a billionaire who treated the club like a plaything. Portsmouth is an example, and I'm sure you can think of many others.
I've read through the thread and most arguments tend to be that this was all a conspiracy of the big clubs, even though at least half of the big clubs are in this position of racking up massive debt who would love to go along spending their fortunes propping up a club.
FFP exempts from its spending calculations money spent on infrastructure, which will encourage clubs to home-grow their talent over buying it on the market, and to build new stadiums and seek new revenue streams. Clubs can still buy on the market, but they will have to show that it's sustainable. It will really be like any other business where you have to grow at a sustainable pace --- UEFA is just mandating a sound business practice. Ensuring that all the clubs are not running major deficits is no different than bank regulators requiring banks to hold a certain percentage of deposits. Regulation is necessary.
Why is unlimited spending a bad thing? For one, it artificially inflates transfer fees and salaries, as the rich owners compete with each other for their favored players. And do you think the current system is "fair"? Clubs that consistently break even are completely disadvantaged against clubs that can fund unlimited deficits year over year. Eventually, the benefactor may get bored and leave. That can leave the club in an awful position. And of course, losing clubs means we lose history, entertainment value, culture, etc. etc. Imagine if you were a Rangers or Pompey fan. Through no fault of you or any other supporter, your club was fucked over by a rich **** and now you're in the shit. I wouldn't want to be in that position.
As for this lawyer guy, shame on all of you for not recognizing this guy has a vested interest in arguing these FFP rules are invalid. He can make millions trying to overturn them. Also, just because an attorney gives an opinion, doesn't mean it's correct. There are always two or three or four sides of an argument, and competition law is notoriously hard to predict because the rules are very theoretical and open to the whims of the court. Also, I would be very surprised if this was overturned. Cases often turn on the inherent justice of a law, and this law doesn't strike me as unjust in any way that a judge will care about. There are not enough restraints on either clubs or players to justify overturning it.
Finally, the real danger with FFP, as Arsene Wenger pointed out, is that big clubs will be able to challenge the rules through legal maneuvers and avoid the regulations altogether. You already see PSG trying every sneaky trick they can to circumvent them, and I can't even imagine what the Russian clubs will try. Our own deal with Etihad may be justified (as I think it probably is) because they are getting significant value from the name recognition they have now. But these fake commercial deals need to be addressed very seriously. That is the only plausible conspiracy theory I think could be a reality.
