AFTER MAN CITY: IS FINANCIAL FAIR PLAY (FFP) DEAD?
Tue Jul 14, 2020 9:07 am
Manchester City have had their European ban overturned - so is FFP dead?
Dan Roan, BBC sports editor
With Manchester City winning their appeal and overturning a two-year ban from European football, what does that mean for the sport's Financial Fair Play regulations?
'The credibility of FFP lies in tatters'
Over the last decade, City have been the dominant force in the English game, but few results have been as important as this one.
An upheld two-year ban would have been disastrous for the club's finances, their chances of keeping their best players and, above all, their reputation.
Instead, City can breathe a huge sigh of relief, and the uncertainty instead surrounds Uefa and its financial rules.
The credibility of Financial Fair Play (FFP) lies in tatters. After all, how can FFP survive after one of the world's richest clubs, having been found guilty of obstructing a Uefa investigation, a club that was found to have breached the rules in 2014, walk away with just a 10m euros (£9m) fine?
Many will wonder what kind of deterrent that sets for other clubs, especially clubs with such financial resources. It shows how difficult it has become for governing bodies to enforce the rules.
The language that the Court of Arbitration for Sport (Cas) uses is important. Uefa noted that Cas found "insufficient conclusive evidence" to uphold all of its conclusions, not 'no evidence'.
And some allegations were dismissed because they were more than five years old. And, because City were found to have failed to co-operate, this falls short of a full exoneration.
But City are unlikely to care too much about that, and what a story it would be if they can follow this up with a first Champions League success.
European football insiders are adamant City's successful appeal against their two-year European ban does not open the door for "anyone to do what they want".
Whilst City are celebrating the decision by Cas as a total vindication of their decision to fight the punishment, Uefa insiders are taking solace from the small print within the judgement.
They note the so-far unspecified number of time-barred allegations, upon which Cas felt it was not able to offer judgement, has brought an element of vagueness to the outcome.
They also feel Uefa's FFP rules have brought financial solidity to European football. Even City privately say their opposition was not meant to be a challenge to them, or Uefa, but was based solely around a lack of trust in the process by which the case was brought against them.
"Over the last few years, Financial Fair Play has played a significant role in protecting clubs and helping them become financially sustainable, and Uefa and the European Clubs' Association remain committed to its principles," said Uefa in a statement.
La Liga president Javier Tebas remains supportive of the concept, even if his initial reaction to the decision was to attack Cas.
Nevertheless, Uefa president Aleksander Ceferin faces a major dilemma over the regulations.
For a start, it appears Uefa and Cas have different ideas of what 'five years' means. It is thought Uefa felt it was the time between an alleged offence being committed and a charge being brought. To Cas it seems as though the timescale covers the alleged offence and completion of any action.
It is conceivable none of the cases would have resulted in a different decision to the one Cas has reached. However, the fact some were simply dismissed is somewhat embarrassing. It is likely the wording of the regulation will be tightened up at some point.
As for FFP itself, Uefa has already decided financial statements for 2020 and 2021 will be rolled up into a single accounting period because of the huge impact of the coronavirus pandemic.
It now remains to be seen whether Ceferin decides wholesale changes to FFP are required, or if tweaks to the regulations will be enough. No matter which way that goes, it is acknowledged that for FFP to work - and losses have been reduced markedly - it requires an element of trust on behalf of the clubs.
For Uefa, there's going to be a lot of scrambling around now to try and save a bit of face.
City taking the appeal to Cas obviously has meant they've been scrutinised perhaps more than they would have liked to have been, and they'll come out on the defensive now to try and insist that FFP as an idea still has relevance to the whole football industry.
The reality is if City had a two-year ban, they would have been looking at somewhere between £150-200m of lost prize money through the Champions League.
For Uefa, the financial consequences are much lower, of course, but it's what this does now to FFP as a concept across the European football market and whether or not other clubs look to try and use the rules to their advantage to a certain extent.
Uefa has been going after some of these European elite that perhaps had ownership structures that once were not really commonplace in European football at least, and I think Uefa still has a case.
It has still argued that City have done things that it would not really permit under the regulations.
'FFP as a concept works'
Stephen Taylor Heath, JMW sports lawyer
The fact is that the FFP rules clearly serve a useful purpose. Uefa itself has produced statistics to show that in 2011, there was a huge deficit amongst the top European clubs financially as they chased success.
FFP rules are there for financial prudence. An argument is that the better-supported clubs, the most commercially valuable clubs, benefit from the FFP rules because effectively you need to only spend what you earn in terms of commercial revenue, and one of the arguments is that City lagged behind in relation to that commercial revenue.
But clearly, FFP as a concept works and the clubs are in a far better financial position as Uefa has published, and it arguably leads to a more even playing field and greater competition.
Dan Roan, BBC sports editor
With Manchester City winning their appeal and overturning a two-year ban from European football, what does that mean for the sport's Financial Fair Play regulations?
'The credibility of FFP lies in tatters'
Over the last decade, City have been the dominant force in the English game, but few results have been as important as this one.
An upheld two-year ban would have been disastrous for the club's finances, their chances of keeping their best players and, above all, their reputation.
Instead, City can breathe a huge sigh of relief, and the uncertainty instead surrounds Uefa and its financial rules.
The credibility of Financial Fair Play (FFP) lies in tatters. After all, how can FFP survive after one of the world's richest clubs, having been found guilty of obstructing a Uefa investigation, a club that was found to have breached the rules in 2014, walk away with just a 10m euros (£9m) fine?
Many will wonder what kind of deterrent that sets for other clubs, especially clubs with such financial resources. It shows how difficult it has become for governing bodies to enforce the rules.
The language that the Court of Arbitration for Sport (Cas) uses is important. Uefa noted that Cas found "insufficient conclusive evidence" to uphold all of its conclusions, not 'no evidence'.
And some allegations were dismissed because they were more than five years old. And, because City were found to have failed to co-operate, this falls short of a full exoneration.
But City are unlikely to care too much about that, and what a story it would be if they can follow this up with a first Champions League success.
European football insiders are adamant City's successful appeal against their two-year European ban does not open the door for "anyone to do what they want".
Whilst City are celebrating the decision by Cas as a total vindication of their decision to fight the punishment, Uefa insiders are taking solace from the small print within the judgement.
They note the so-far unspecified number of time-barred allegations, upon which Cas felt it was not able to offer judgement, has brought an element of vagueness to the outcome.
They also feel Uefa's FFP rules have brought financial solidity to European football. Even City privately say their opposition was not meant to be a challenge to them, or Uefa, but was based solely around a lack of trust in the process by which the case was brought against them.
"Over the last few years, Financial Fair Play has played a significant role in protecting clubs and helping them become financially sustainable, and Uefa and the European Clubs' Association remain committed to its principles," said Uefa in a statement.
La Liga president Javier Tebas remains supportive of the concept, even if his initial reaction to the decision was to attack Cas.
Nevertheless, Uefa president Aleksander Ceferin faces a major dilemma over the regulations.
For a start, it appears Uefa and Cas have different ideas of what 'five years' means. It is thought Uefa felt it was the time between an alleged offence being committed and a charge being brought. To Cas it seems as though the timescale covers the alleged offence and completion of any action.
It is conceivable none of the cases would have resulted in a different decision to the one Cas has reached. However, the fact some were simply dismissed is somewhat embarrassing. It is likely the wording of the regulation will be tightened up at some point.
As for FFP itself, Uefa has already decided financial statements for 2020 and 2021 will be rolled up into a single accounting period because of the huge impact of the coronavirus pandemic.
It now remains to be seen whether Ceferin decides wholesale changes to FFP are required, or if tweaks to the regulations will be enough. No matter which way that goes, it is acknowledged that for FFP to work - and losses have been reduced markedly - it requires an element of trust on behalf of the clubs.
For Uefa, there's going to be a lot of scrambling around now to try and save a bit of face.
City taking the appeal to Cas obviously has meant they've been scrutinised perhaps more than they would have liked to have been, and they'll come out on the defensive now to try and insist that FFP as an idea still has relevance to the whole football industry.
The reality is if City had a two-year ban, they would have been looking at somewhere between £150-200m of lost prize money through the Champions League.
For Uefa, the financial consequences are much lower, of course, but it's what this does now to FFP as a concept across the European football market and whether or not other clubs look to try and use the rules to their advantage to a certain extent.
Uefa has been going after some of these European elite that perhaps had ownership structures that once were not really commonplace in European football at least, and I think Uefa still has a case.
It has still argued that City have done things that it would not really permit under the regulations.
'FFP as a concept works'
Stephen Taylor Heath, JMW sports lawyer
The fact is that the FFP rules clearly serve a useful purpose. Uefa itself has produced statistics to show that in 2011, there was a huge deficit amongst the top European clubs financially as they chased success.
FFP rules are there for financial prudence. An argument is that the better-supported clubs, the most commercially valuable clubs, benefit from the FFP rules because effectively you need to only spend what you earn in terms of commercial revenue, and one of the arguments is that City lagged behind in relation to that commercial revenue.
But clearly, FFP as a concept works and the clubs are in a far better financial position as Uefa has published, and it arguably leads to a more even playing field and greater competition.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Re: AFTER MAN CITY: IS FINANCIAL FAIR PLAY (FFP) DEAD?
Tue Jul 14, 2020 9:22 am
Absolute joke. It's the clubs with no money who really suffer from this rule.
Re: AFTER MAN CITY: IS FINANCIAL FAIR PLAY (FFP) DEAD?
Tue Jul 14, 2020 9:38 am
My crude understanding is if a club wants to cheat FFP then the best way is to hide the malpractice for long enough so a form of Statute of limitations kicks in.
Which is a bit perverse as City failed to co-operate with UEFA over the investigation and extended the time period from committing the malpractice to the interpretation by the CAS.
You can see all sorts of clubs pulling this trick especially in the Championship.
Which is a bit perverse as City failed to co-operate with UEFA over the investigation and extended the time period from committing the malpractice to the interpretation by the CAS.
You can see all sorts of clubs pulling this trick especially in the Championship.
Re: AFTER MAN CITY: IS FINANCIAL FAIR PLAY (FFP) DEAD?
Tue Jul 14, 2020 10:01 am
Tony Blue Williams wrote:My crude understanding is if a club wants to cheat FFP then the best way is to hide the malpractice for long enough so a form of Statute of limitations kicks in.
Which is a bit perverse as City failed to co-operate with UEFA over the investigation and extended the time period from committing the malpractice to the interpretation by the CAS.
You can see all sorts of clubs pulling this trick especially in the Championship.
Another way of putting it is that UEFA can't expect to be prosecution,judge and jury in these matters either.Another good way of getting away with this is borrowing money from an offshore company that can't be prosecuted by UEFA. That way when the owner is reckless with the clubs finances he can't be liable either.
Re: AFTER MAN CITY: IS FINANCIAL FAIR PLAY (FFP) DEAD?
Tue Jul 14, 2020 11:03 am
Ffp just makes the rich get richer poor get poorer! Man utd get 100m for a sponsor city gets 1m... but problem lies in lesser clubs cannot get enough support from owners to invest in club due to ffp rules? Good suggestion this morning is that an owner puts in a bond to cover players contracts so stopping owner just walking out like wigan thus freeing up owners to invest as much as they like with club safe if owner buggers off..
Re: AFTER MAN CITY: IS FINANCIAL FAIR PLAY (FFP) DEAD?
Tue Jul 14, 2020 2:29 pm
pembroke allan wrote:Ffp just makes the rich get richer poor get poorer! Man utd get 100m for a sponsor city gets 1m... but problem lies in lesser clubs cannot get enough support from owners to invest in club due to ffp rules? Good suggestion this morning is that an owner puts in a bond to cover players contracts so stopping owner just walking out like wigan thus freeing up owners to invest as much as they like with club safe if owner buggers off..
Exactly this. It's to protect the big boys from days gone by to continue to be.
If I was to suddenly be as rich as Jeff Bezos I would obviously buy us and blast 1bn on players to go with it. FFP says I can't.
On the crude level (ignoring agents, corruption, etc) that 1bn is money going in to football. It will indefinitely filter it's way down the leagues.
No harm to anyone... Apart from the Liverpool's and Man United's of the world.
Re: AFTER MAN CITY: IS FINANCIAL FAIR PLAY (FFP) DEAD?
Tue Jul 14, 2020 2:50 pm
jimmy_rat wrote:pembroke allan wrote:Ffp just makes the rich get richer poor get poorer! Man utd get 100m for a sponsor city gets 1m... but problem lies in lesser clubs cannot get enough support from owners to invest in club due to ffp rules? Good suggestion this morning is that an owner puts in a bond to cover players contracts so stopping owner just walking out like wigan thus freeing up owners to invest as much as they like with club safe if owner buggers off..
Exactly this. It's to protect the big boys from days gone by to continue to be.
If I was to suddenly be as rich as Jeff Bezos I would obviously buy us and blast 1bn on players to go with it. FFP says I can't.
On the crude level (ignoring agents, corruption, etc) that 1bn is money going in to football. It will indefinitely filter it's way down the leagues.
No harm to anyone... Apart from the Liverpool's and Man United's of the world.
That was another part of it big clubs money doesn't filter down as it only goes between the rich clubs.. but money put into smaller clubs by rich owners infinitely gets moved between clubs .. even a blind man can see likes of man u getting richer but others getting poorer as this pandemic is going up show..
Re: AFTER MAN CITY: IS FINANCIAL FAIR PLAY (FFP) DEAD?
Wed Jul 15, 2020 7:39 am
Football in any region is as corrupt as the most insane banana republic.
As a free market capitalist (yes its poor but still haven’t seen a better model) if somebody want to buy in, why stop them. I believe to enter each year and play in the competition (league or cup) you should have rules that stop the clubs being used as the asset against 100% of its debt.
If Fosun or any other super rich conglomerate wants to buy a club and drop £100mill into the bank why stop them ? Why have a financial paper trail that states Wolves PLC owe Fosun £100mill plus interest. Its unfair, yes but so is life. It’s the vested interests it hurts the most. Liverpool, Manchester, Spurs, Arsenal, Chelsea and the established big Euro names.
In one sense I am happy with the decision as unless you really have the law and clout to manage FFP then it’s who has the best lawyers and “fixers” (nudge nudge wink wink “is that your envelope” ?)
A club like Derby who have perpetually flouted the rules with little punishment, why should the fans not enjoy the ride ? If their owner has to sell up at a loss and let some other sucker have a crack at the big pot, let them. If it goes pear shaped, well no one has the right to succeed. How many owners have had their fingers burnt at the Villa ? They are still around.
Get rid of FFP and simplify the rules. As soon as the season finishes you have to show your accounts, you cannot enter the next season if you have more than xx% debt against the valuation of the club.
Let Vinny write off the debt if he wants, why the hell would you put rules in that stop that ? A club like ours has a (pure guess) market valuation of say £50 million and debt of £60 mill then don’t let them play unless they can get the debt down to say 80%. So Vinny either loses £20mill or £60 mill. It will stop the mad gambles but favour the new entrants and thus all the sharks involved in football.
As I started with, its corrupt as fcuk.
As a free market capitalist (yes its poor but still haven’t seen a better model) if somebody want to buy in, why stop them. I believe to enter each year and play in the competition (league or cup) you should have rules that stop the clubs being used as the asset against 100% of its debt.
If Fosun or any other super rich conglomerate wants to buy a club and drop £100mill into the bank why stop them ? Why have a financial paper trail that states Wolves PLC owe Fosun £100mill plus interest. Its unfair, yes but so is life. It’s the vested interests it hurts the most. Liverpool, Manchester, Spurs, Arsenal, Chelsea and the established big Euro names.
In one sense I am happy with the decision as unless you really have the law and clout to manage FFP then it’s who has the best lawyers and “fixers” (nudge nudge wink wink “is that your envelope” ?)
A club like Derby who have perpetually flouted the rules with little punishment, why should the fans not enjoy the ride ? If their owner has to sell up at a loss and let some other sucker have a crack at the big pot, let them. If it goes pear shaped, well no one has the right to succeed. How many owners have had their fingers burnt at the Villa ? They are still around.
Get rid of FFP and simplify the rules. As soon as the season finishes you have to show your accounts, you cannot enter the next season if you have more than xx% debt against the valuation of the club.
Let Vinny write off the debt if he wants, why the hell would you put rules in that stop that ? A club like ours has a (pure guess) market valuation of say £50 million and debt of £60 mill then don’t let them play unless they can get the debt down to say 80%. So Vinny either loses £20mill or £60 mill. It will stop the mad gambles but favour the new entrants and thus all the sharks involved in football.
As I started with, its corrupt as fcuk.
Re: AFTER MAN CITY: IS FINANCIAL FAIR PLAY (FFP) DEAD?
Thu Jul 16, 2020 10:52 am
llan bluebird wrote:Football in any region is as corrupt as the most insane banana republic.
As a free market capitalist (yes its poor but still haven’t seen a better model) if somebody want to buy in, why stop them. I believe to enter each year and play in the competition (league or cup) you should have rules that stop the clubs being used as the asset against 100% of its debt.
If Fosun or any other super rich conglomerate wants to buy a club and drop £100mill into the bank why stop them ? Why have a financial paper trail that states Wolves PLC owe Fosun £100mill plus interest. Its unfair, yes but so is life. It’s the vested interests it hurts the most. Liverpool, Manchester, Spurs, Arsenal, Chelsea and the established big Euro names.
In one sense I am happy with the decision as unless you really have the law and clout to manage FFP then it’s who has the best lawyers and “fixers” (nudge nudge wink wink “is that your envelope” ?)
A club like Derby who have perpetually flouted the rules with little punishment, why should the fans not enjoy the ride ? If their owner has to sell up at a loss and let some other sucker have a crack at the big pot, let them. If it goes pear shaped, well no one has the right to succeed. How many owners have had their fingers burnt at the Villa ? They are still around.
Get rid of FFP and simplify the rules. As soon as the season finishes you have to show your accounts, you cannot enter the next season if you have more than xx% debt against the valuation of the club.
Let Vinny write off the debt if he wants, why the hell would you put rules in that stop that ? A club like ours has a (pure guess) market valuation of say £50 million and debt of £60 mill then don’t let them play unless they can get the debt down to say 80%. So Vinny either loses £20mill or £60 mill. It will stop the mad gambles but favour the new entrants and thus all the sharks involved in football.
As I started with, its corrupt as fcuk.
Selling stadium to owners to lease back is blatant cheating of ffp, will it be proved doubt it as efl got no clue when it comes to dodgy and unfit owners criteria.
Re: AFTER MAN CITY: IS FINANCIAL FAIR PLAY (FFP) DEAD?
Thu Jul 16, 2020 11:58 am
pembroke allan wrote:llan bluebird wrote:Football in any region is as corrupt as the most insane banana republic.
As a free market capitalist (yes its poor but still haven’t seen a better model) if somebody want to buy in, why stop them. I believe to enter each year and play in the competition (league or cup) you should have rules that stop the clubs being used as the asset against 100% of its debt.
If Fosun or any other super rich conglomerate wants to buy a club and drop £100mill into the bank why stop them ? Why have a financial paper trail that states Wolves PLC owe Fosun £100mill plus interest. Its unfair, yes but so is life. It’s the vested interests it hurts the most. Liverpool, Manchester, Spurs, Arsenal, Chelsea and the established big Euro names.
In one sense I am happy with the decision as unless you really have the law and clout to manage FFP then it’s who has the best lawyers and “fixers” (nudge nudge wink wink “is that your envelope” ?)
A club like Derby who have perpetually flouted the rules with little punishment, why should the fans not enjoy the ride ? If their owner has to sell up at a loss and let some other sucker have a crack at the big pot, let them. If it goes pear shaped, well no one has the right to succeed. How many owners have had their fingers burnt at the Villa ? They are still around.
Get rid of FFP and simplify the rules. As soon as the season finishes you have to show your accounts, you cannot enter the next season if you have more than xx% debt against the valuation of the club.
Let Vinny write off the debt if he wants, why the hell would you put rules in that stop that ? A club like ours has a (pure guess) market valuation of say £50 million and debt of £60 mill then don’t let them play unless they can get the debt down to say 80%. So Vinny either loses £20mill or £60 mill. It will stop the mad gambles but favour the new entrants and thus all the sharks involved in football.
As I started with, its corrupt as fcuk.
Selling stadium to owners to lease back is blatant cheating of ffp, will it be proved doubt it as efl got no clue when it comes to dodgy and unfit owners criteria.
it is blatant cheating on the part of those that dont want the big clubs being challenged...