UEFA to propose FFP replacement plan


Well-Known Member
12 May 2011
News emerged that the governing body deem the current FFP rules 'no longer fit for purpose' and are set to replace them with rules that mean clubs in European competition would be limited to spending a fixed percentage of their revenue, in the region of 70 per cent, on salaries.

Any club in breach of those rules will have to pay a luxury tax where 'the equivalent or more' of any overspend would go into a pot to be shared among other clubs.

I have been saying FFP is unfit for purpose since its inception - on here, on FB and in pub banter, and we nailed that in court, albeit we could have gone much further in exposing FFP as a means of protecting the cartel from us. In effect, we won in court on a first round stoppage - we could have jabbed for twelve rounds and done more to rip apart FFP.


Well-Known Member
15 Jan 2007
If the ESL rebels resubmit a more sensible option which guarantees proper qualification for Europe without damaging national league structures they might win support. Cutting out UEFA would mean a huge increase in broadcast revenues for those clubs in Europe. If they pledged to cascade more cash down to national leagues and allowed clubs to invest sensibly (with debt control) they could get widespread support.
I know there are a lot of "ifs and buts" here but the UEFA position is untenable. It is not reasonable for UEFA to control club's investments while at the same time being commercial rivals for broadcast and sponsor revenues. UEFA have total uncritical support from the media cartels who will lose out if clubs get to control their own broadcasting rights. But it is the clubs who own the product and technology means they don't have to sub-contract it to anyone else. This breakaway league proposal will come back.

Bill Walker

Well-Known Member
24 Dec 2006
Down under
Team supported
So clubs can only spend 70% of their revenue on wages surely this is just another way of helping the big clubs like Real Madrid Barcelona Manchester United pay higher wages and therefore attract the best players.
Thereby making it harder for clubs that have recently come into riches to attract the best players.
Once again it's all about protectionism for the established clubs and making it harder for smaller clubs to pay bigger wages.
This will deter investment into the market such as the proposed takeover of Newcastle.

Newman Noggs

Well-Known Member
27 Dec 2009
Gone fishin'
It's a despicable idea but one which I'd possibly consider thinking about if either a) money from the CL and the consequent sponsorship uplift was put into a pot and divided equally amongst all the clubs in the PL or b) it was discounted for the purposes of the calculation.

As it is, the CL money is the major distorting factor in terms of competition and, as everyone now knows, all proposals are simply to ensure that certain clubs keep it.

I wonder what the arrangements would be if a club receiving, say £100m as a result of being in the CL, suddenly didn't qualify. How would the club be expected to deal with players on a 5 year contract signed when the CL money was incoming ?

The answer, of course, it that, like the old arrangements, the new ones are designed to ensure that that situation doesn't arise.

Don't have an account?

Register now!
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.