First of all, as SWP explained, with the fair market value applied to their contracts, you should stop thinking PSG had an allowed sponsorship of 200 or 100 M with QTA. PSG worked with 50 M.Like I did say perhaps due to my ignorance, and if you read carefully I did not have a go at psg it was aimed at UEFA. Perhaps I am just looking at the sums involved regarding both Mbappe and Neymar, but I still don't understand how they can afford both players. Especially given the lower profile of both psg and the French league.
My point and maybe I didn't spell it out was that it appears uefa are prepared to let some things go if it isn't City or that's how it seems.
It seems and always will seem bizarre that a club that has no debt and runs at a profit and can sustain itself is in the wrong.
Secondly, City could have totally bought Neymar and Mbappé (and was quite interested in the second). City does spend more money than PSG overall. They are just spending in 40/50 M on lots of players. PSG will spend 145 M on Mbappé and then spend 0 on Buffon and 0 on Alves. 222 on Neymar and 0 on Choupo Moting and 15 on Bernat. You see the trends.
As SWP explained, City approach is more sound and balanced but PSG is on a lower profile league. As a consequence, they need that "star factor" to draw attention and get that sponsorship, marketing money. One dimension you ignored about the value of the non related party deals PSG are getting is PSG is, thanks to their strategy, one of the biggest kit seller worldwide. If you consider the kit as an advertising space, it makes sense for some companies to offer big money. For example, Nike will renew with PSG for a similar amount than what CFG is getting from Puma. And the bonus is that PSG does have that Jordan brand collaboration, so the overall value of their kit deal should be higher than City's one.
Every club in the world does loan player with a option to buy or compulsory option : Coman loaned by Juve to Bayern, Douglas Costa loaned by Bayern to Juve, James Rodriguez loaned by Real to Bayern, Lo Celso loaned by PSG to Betis Seville, and a lot more in Italy. Why is it because it involved PSG and the option is bigger than usual (145 M), people are seeing a shady deal ? For your information, since the deal was compulsory, UEFA had publicly declared from the start that they considered it as a direct transfer and not a loan. Which means that the Mbappé transfer was already in the FFP calculation from the first year of loan he had in PSG.
From what SWP and i have explained to you, i'm sure you can understand now how preconceived views are hard to change. This is exactly the same behaviour and process of thoughts other clubs fans have towards City. They are certain City is guilty and no matter what you say, that conviction will stay. Here, you are certain, despite all the facts shown, that PSG is a little bit guiltier, shaddier than City and should have been punished more than City and that alone is the sign that Nasser corrupted UEFA.