They don't want a 'level playing field'.It’s crazy that people want socialism in sport to allow a level playing field, whereas it’s a dirty word when it comes to politics.
Not sure there will ever be a salary cap as each country would have to adopt the same rules. Plus, Saudi Arabia would just take all the best players if they got paid more.
It's 117 charges now.
It's 117 charges now.
I remember when the pundits were forecasting free entry to PL games as clubs would be making so much money on the commercial side. Ha!The downside to normal fans of FFP is that clubs will focus on growing revenue rather than cutting costs. The vast majority of increasing revenues will be commercial deals but that extra 2% that might be needed to pass FFP… put the ticket prices up, put the prices of drink and food up, charge more for shirts etc.. and us fans get hit in the pocket.
The even bigger downside is that FFP is all done to protect the teams not owned by people from a certain area of the world.
Why would income from the owner be prohibited by FFP?I get the impression from some posts that the belief that City are accused of not meeting FFP rules. This is not and cannot be the case because City have been granted a license to play in UEFA competitions every season since the 2011-12 season. The charges brought by the PL are much more serious since they would require proof of criminal behaviour to uphold them. It seems (and we are not certain what the charges are in detail) that the claim is that City have falsified the club's accounts to maintain that the club's income is higher than it is in reality. In particular it is claimed that what is income from sponsors is, in fact, investment from the owner. This may be (and probably certainly would be) prohibited by FFP but the payment itself would not be against the law, though the misrepresentation and false accounting would be.
'As It Was'? That Harry Styles cove gets everywhere, doesn't he..?!They don't want a 'level playing field'.
That would be all revenues pooled and split 20 ways. They would be absolutely horrified if it was set up that way.
'Level playing field' is code for 'as it was' with Rags, Red Scouse, Arsenal and Chelsea in the top 4 almost every year, only the order of the 4 varying.
That's been a fundamental part of FFP since it was introduced.Why would income from the owner be prohibited by FFP?
That's been a fundamental part of FFP since it was introduced.
The original concept was to target debt, and at various times Madrid, Chelsea, United were all accused of cheating by UEFA, but after a lot of lobbying the target became financial input from owners.
All of City's FFP issues have been related to the authorities arguing that part of our sponsorship is actually paid by our owner, or that the owner is paying players and managers extra money off the books.