In the Bosman case the European Commission did not back Bosman and effectively gave its support to UEFA. This made things rather more difficult for Bosman but not only did he win but the ECJ gave UEFA a blunt warning that all future cases would be decided by what the court considered lawful and not what UEFA considered best for football. The European Commission has recognised UEFA as the body competent to regulate football finance, but this was with the proviso that such regulation should be consistent with European competition law. Throughout the EU such law guarantees the right of investors to invest and prohibits any attempts to prevent or limit investment. There are exceptions to prevent the use of the investment to prevent or hinder technological innovation, but there is no sporting exception. UEFA's claims that FFP is to protect clubs from their owners and encourage financial stability don't apply at all. That the only source of income FFP wishes to limit is owner investment seems, to me, to raise the possibility of acting as a cartel, since UEFA are a commercial rival of the clubs but also because the influence of certain clubs on it is evident and UEFA withdrew from its initial concern with debt under the influence of these clubs at the time Sheikh Mansour bought our club. It is possible that ECJ might see some merit the argument that FFP stops ultra wealthy owners "buying" success and trophies but it is hard to bring any proof of effectiveness here, and it is hard to show that Sheikh Mansour's investment has done anything but good for City and it is hard to identify any harmful effects on the game. My view is that competition law does all it can to encourage investment: FFP sees it as a threat to the game and puts more limits on it than it does on a betting company to sponsor a football team!