UEFA FFP investigation - CAS decision to be announced Monday, 13th July 9.30am BST

[BobbyBoy]

Article 101 of TfEU states unequivocally that "any agreement to limit or control production, markets, technical developments or investment" are prohibited. When you say that "if you don't want to enter UEFA sanctioned competition you can spend what you (like)" you are actually admitting that if you DO want to enter UEFA sanctioned competition you have to agree NOT to spend what you like, and this is a clear acceptance of a limit on investment. UEFA is quite clear on what it will not let you spend. This is, of course, the fundamental part of FFP, the break even rule; clubs may not spend more than what they " earn" from certain sources. In other words a club may only spend what other companies put into your club, not your owner! If they do the owner/shareholders may only make up 30 million euros of the difference over three years. Now expenditure on academies, stadia etc are not counted towards the break even calculation, though interest on loans to pay for them is. Money spent on players (transfer fees and wages) is counted in full. Money spent on players is investment in an asset just as spending on an academy or a stadium, and it is clear that a team of low cost, poor players will keep an expensive stadium near empty. Thus FFP clearly limits investment by owners and shareholders and, in short, that is what is illegal about that., and further proof of this comes from the settlement agreed by City and UEFA in 2014. UEFA decreed that City's wage bill must not increase for two years, they set down a limit on what City could spend in the transfer market and City were even allowed a squad of only 21 in the CL instead of the 25 other teams were allowed. In no other area of economic activity is this degree of interference from an external body contemplated, let alone allowed. UEFA is in fact abusing a dominant market position - and this is prohibited - by trying to force participants to accept an abrogation of their rights as a pre-entry condition. City's acceptance of the settlement of 2014 was only an agreement in that the club's consent was obtained only because refusal would have led to long legal proceedings damaging to its interests.

You may end being shown to be right but sport has loads of these type rules. F1 has spending limits, rugby union has a salary cap per team, even the PL has it's own financial rules which City signed up to, China has limits on it will allow be spent on foreign players, the list of restrictions compared to "normal life" would go on for miles.

If you get what you're looking for the implications are enormous for every sport on the planet.

 

[BluessinceHydeRoad]

Only yesterday Rick Parry was in front a government committe stressing the need for wage caps, he's hardly doing that if it's illegal?

I don't think you'll find Mr Parry's opinion attracts much respect on Bluemoon. Leaving aside for the moment his all consuming obsession with Liverpool it has to be pointed out that he is now speaking on behalf of the football league. He is, quite rightly, preoccupied with the £200 million "hole" facing football league clubs as a result of the pandemic. The financial difficulties of football league clubs were serious enough before the present crisis and it doesn't surprise me that one proposed solution is a wage cap. Rugby League has one and the rugby union does, as Saracens can tell you. A wage cap will only work if ALL clubs agree to it, as they have in rugby. An informal cap may well get acceptance from the FL and it would not be unlawful until a club went to law because action was taken by the league against it for breaching the cap. This was what ende the days of the maximum wage in 1961; the players threatened to strike and when the big city clubs intimated they were prepared to pay more (and some wanted to) it was clear the courts would not intervene to tell a club how it must run its affairs. This is the problem FFP will have; a company runs its own affairs without interference from external bodies. Only the law regulates it.

Another example is the retain and transfer system. This was supported by the FL in court in the George Easrham case and the FL lost. Even then UEFA stuck by it in the ECJ and lost definitively 50 years later.

Rick Parry is not a lawyer...

 

[BobbyBoy]

You can’t see the irony in this if you think a system which allows owners to ‘install gold plated toilet seats and have academies built on the moon’ but cannot invest their own money in employing the best possible staff for their own business is acceptable?

But they can invest in their own staff, it just has limits for entry to specific competitions. I'm not saying it's right or wrong just not illegal as bluesincehyderoad has claimed.

 

[BobbyBoy]

A wage cap will only work if ALL clubs agree to it, as they have in rugby. An informal cap may well get acceptance from the FL and it would not be unlawful until a club went to law because action was taken by the league against it for breaching the cap.

So every club could agree on June 1st for a wage cap buy Preston get taken over by a billionaire on August 1st and suddenly something that was legal in July now becomes illegal in August because someone wants to go a spending spree?

I think you're comparing apples with oranges in your examples, you are using restrictions of trade and general employment laws from the past where we are speaking about agreements in advance of registering in a league or cup.

 

[Prophet of Doom]

There is absolutely no point anybody going on about the rights or wrongs of FFP and why we failed it. CAS have no interest in that. They are only judging only on the the 2 year ban and the relevant charges from UEFA that led to ban i.e. overstating sponsorship and failure to assist with the investigation.

The time to fight FFP and the original charges passed years ago.

 

[SatOnTheWall]

Plus they can't have rules that are illegal. Is it appropriate to draw comparisons with golf clubs, that used to ban women from membership? Were they eventually overruled by law, or public onion?

The courts said "That's your lot".

 

[WRicko]

So every club could agree on June 1st for a wage cap buy Preston get taken over by a billionaire on August 1st and suddenly something that was legal in July now becomes illegal in August because someone wants to go a spending spree?

I think you're comparing apples with oranges in your examples, you are using restrictions of trade and general employment laws from the past where we are speaking about agreements in advance of registering in a league or cup.

The point is sometimes something need to be challenged to be proven illegal

 

[Bodicoteblue]

But they can invest in their own staff, it just has limits for entry to specific competitions. I'm not saying it's right or wrong just not illegal as bluesincehyderoad has claimed.

I know each case must be judged on its own merits, but we have to return to the Bosman ruling and the precedent it set.
Having found against them, the ECJ told uefa that they could not apply their own arbitrary rules, no matter how much they pleaded ‘special case for sport’ if those rules contravened properly constituted European laws. City’s legal team will be well aware of this and its significance.
They can have their day in court over this and we can let the legal brains decide on whether uefa have the power to circumvent law for their own ends.

 

[WRicko]

So every club could agree on June 1st for a wage cap buy Preston get taken over by a billionaire on August 1st and suddenly something that was legal in July now becomes illegal in August because someone wants to go a spending spree?

I think you're comparing apples with oranges in your examples, you are using restrictions of trade and general employment laws from the past where we are speaking about agreements in advance of registering in a league or cup.

They are both examples of restriction of trade either to play football or invest in football

 

[KS55]

There is absolutely no point anybody going on about the rights or wrongs of FFP and why we failed it. CAS have no interest in that. They are only judging only on the the 2 year ban and the relevant charges from UEFA that led to ban i.e. overstating sponsorship and failure to assist with the investigation.

The time to fight FFP and the original charges passed years ago.

I don't think City really want to bring FFP down. After all, Khaldoon is in favour of a wage cap. Nor do they want to bring UEFA down, as Khaldoon says we do have some friends there.
All City want is fairness and acceptance. The latter may take time, but the former is attainable now, if UEFA has the will to stand up to the bullies of G14/16.