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. Wrong, marketed as such but really protectionism by indirect means. 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. Have been cases like that most notably Portsmouth but a well regulated fit and proper test would deal with this. 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. Agreed but fit and proper test and ensuring that football clubs are run by people or at least employ people with a basic understanding of finance would be a start. 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. Actually United are a better example, revenues from the club are used to pay the owners debt and restrict the clubs spending and development. Portsmouth were purchased by a loudmouth spoofer with no real money brought in, debts created in the purchase were the problem there, not investment itself
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. If the cap fits, the rules brought in should preserve the elite as they stand at present. It would suit people like the Glazers immensely if the rules were brought in as they could be the biggest fish without having to compete with big spending new boys like PSG or City.
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. Funnily enought that should suit clubs in France where the Euros are due to be held, coincidental I'm sure. 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. So Microsoft, Apple, Facebook or Amazon should really have restricted their own growth to lower levels to make sure it was sustainable? They should've stayed away from investors seeking to invest in the business even though those companies weren't making money at the time? Alarming logic there. 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. Clubs that have been bank rolled by certain owners are showing no deficits at all. Also bank rgulations are also to ensure proper lending ratios etc. Rampant debt would be a problem for certain banks and many business but not for certain clubs under FFP. Regulation is necessary. True but not arbitrary rules that have one effect- to reduce outside investment. It's also called protectionism.
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. Why would transfer fees and salaries be artifically inflated. The market sets these levels no one else. And do you think the current system is "fair"? What system is Communism? Clubs that consistently break even are completely disadvantaged against clubs that can fund unlimited deficits year over year. Under the FFP system clubs that have deeper pockets will have an inbuilt systematic and perpetual advantage. Eventually, the benefactor may get bored and leave. That can leave the club in an awful position. Not the case where the deficits have been covered, though how many benefactors have got bored and abandoned their clubs? If costs exceed revenues the owner will most likely rationalise before a sale so they can at least have an assey to sell. 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. Neither were f'ed over by a rich owner, the owners weren't rich enough and in both cases saddled the club with debt and in Rangers case there were additional legacy issues with respect to taxes. A robust fit and proper test would have solved both those issues. l don't want to be in that position. You needn't worry the Glazers aren't that bad really.
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. It is an opinion piece, so funnily enough he has given an opinion. 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. THE ECJ is not usually open to whim and I would think that in the circumstances he has given very clear rationale for his opinion. 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. Your opinion of course but in mine this is utter, utter nonsense, possibly the clearest case of anti-competitive behaviour I have seen in a long time. There are reasons why it may take a long time before the ECJ is troubled with the case but any actions taken by a European wide body which have the effect of making inward investment difficult except for certain clubs, restrict the possible future earnings of certain clubs, are soft on debt but restrictive on investment and which have the effect of creating a cartel will always fall foul of the ECJ.
For example if the owners of all airlines in the EU brought in rules that limited similar investments in airlines, with guidelines based on the current revenues of the airlines with possible exclusions from certain airports for breaches of the regulations they would be thrown at the first instance at the ECJ.
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. Because the rules are slightly arbitrary and badly drafted circumventing them shouldn't be difficult. 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. Why not the rules are designed to protect United, Bayern, Real et al good luck to PSG any anyone else who wants to get round them. 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. Don't you mean your deal with Chevy? But anyway Etihad are not an associated company as pointed out elsewhere under normal accounting standards. But these fake commercial deals need to be addressed very seriously. That is the only plausible conspiracy theory I think could be a reality.
