I shall not copy the whole of Almunia's letters, but I shall put them in context. The letters date from 21 March 2012. They do not mention City or any other club by name, because they are not concerned with any specific club. In March 2012 the German press was outraged at the contribution expected of the German taxpayer to bail out Spanish banks. Das Bild went further and asked for how long German taxpayers were to be expected to pay the wages of Messi and Ronaldo among others because it had become clear that all but one or two Spanish clubs owed very large sums of money indeed to the Spanish government in unpaid tax. The fear was that the Spanish government would waive these debts, as it had in the past. This could be construed as a state subsidy to a competing enterprise and would be against EU competition law. Almunia explains that the EU is confident that FFP “is also consistent with the aims and objectives of European Union policy in the field of state aid.” This gives the green light for UEFA to take action against Spanish clubs which do not pay their debts to the Spanish government. City are not mentioned because they are not concerned. This issue concerned only Spanish clubs and only the question of state aid.
Interestingly the letter talks approves of the broader question of the need for tight financial regulation in very difficult times. It mentions the need to “live within your means” and to “break even” and it alludes to clubs which pay “inflated transfer fees and wages … even when their true financial position should not allow them to do so.” This is assumed to be a dire warning to City that their “sugar daddy” will not be allowed to spend “funny money” on players and wages. Several points must be made about this interpretation.
The first is that the statement refers exclusively to Spanish tax dodgers! In the very next paragraph to his assertions of convergence between FFP and state aid policy he continues, “such policy of clubs (ie transfer fees and wages) seems particularly unjustified in the context of the economic downturn where austerity measures are being introduced in all member states.” This is a clear reference to government policy in Spain and the position of its football clubs. If those hostile to City argue that Almunia's letter shows support for a wider application of FFP than in cases of “state aid”, and that it shows support for action against City, they are reading words not to be found in the letter. The word Almunia uses is “inflated” about transfer fees and wages. The belief in football is that not since 2009 have City paid above market value for a player and that City's wage bill is large because of the number of players at the club, not because of the “inflated” wages paid to individuals. Then Almunia moves on to talk of clubs whose “true financial position should not allow them to do so.” If this refers to City then it has to be said that City's true position is that the owner pays off the annual deficit by buying shares and the club are debt free. His right to do so is protected by EU and British commercial law. It can be argued that Almunia is actually more worried by Manchester United, who had spent some £50 million in the window of summer 2011 and would bring in a £17 million midfielder and a £24 million striker (on £250 000 pw) in that of 2012, while their true position is that they are some £400 million in debt and hide their accounts in the Cayman Isles.
Now the warnings about sponsorship deals are, I suspect, so much chest beating. UEFA have shown themselves in the past to be stubbornly, stupidly arrogant, notably in the Bosman case. They ploughed on to the bitter end pursuing a case which everyone knew was hopeless and unwinnable. Their assertions that football was a special case and therefore beyond the reach of European law went down like the proverbial lead balloon. Now, Platini seems determined to tell the European courts that they not only decide which European laws apply to football (again!) but now, as a new twist!), he and his buddies actually make them.
I suspect, however, that the Sheikh will view this with scarcely concealed amusement. City have moved on a stage or two. The days of massive investment are over, and they paid off. There may well be a clear out in summer, others will come in. I don't know. But whatever happens will be carefully planned, financially balanced, done with footballing knowledge and expertise and along sound business lines. Michel who?
