By Tony Attwood
Why so many articles about Uefa and Financial Fair Play?
Two reasons really. One is that it is just about the biggest thing happening in football at the moment, apart possibly from the issue of corruption. The other is that a full and proper implementation of FFP will cause problems for some clubs and benefits for others. Arsenal is definitely on the benefit side.
So Uefa has said it will look closely at Chelsea, Manchester City and PSG in terms of their sponsorship deals to ensure that no one has broken the rules on investments from related parties.
In effect this means that they may have broken the rule that says that clubs can’t count income from such sources as being exempt from money considered under FFP, unless it is at a “fair market value”.
So if Manchester City (to name but a few) were to sign a 10-year £350million stadium and shirt sponsorship contract (to take a number at random) with airline Etihad (to choose an example at out of the blue), which is based in Abu Dhabi (to choose a country by just opening the atlas and seeing what page we get to), and we find that the ruling family of that country also owns the club (by some wild coincidence), then Uefa has to say if this deal is a deliberate attempt to get around the rules, or is set at a fair market price.
And then again if we take a figure like £200million-a-year (chosen of course by spinning a wheel) and take a club (let’s say, for the sake of example and nothing more, PSG), and note that their owners are the Qatari Investment Authority, and let us say, oh, just for no reason than its there, that the money comes from the Qatar Tourism Authority, which (we might conjecture), handles 23 tourists a year from France, we can say, well, that’s fine then. All straight and above board. Nothing to worry about. Hunky dory. Tickety boo.
Now we won’t know what Uefa thinks, until it has a thought, but basically if they let either of these deals go through, then FFP is not so much dead, as merely a twinkle in someone’s eye which was never born and has never got off the ground.
So what does Uefa think? General secretary Gianni Infantino said, of the clubs, “They have to demonstrate that they can cover their costs with the revenues that they generate without cheating. If the result is that something went wrong then sanctions will be taken.”
In Uefa’s defence we have to note that they have excluded a few clubs from its competitions, including Portsmouth, Malaga and Besiktas for breaking some details of FFP – although not the little details that Man C and PSG are alleged by some wild and thoughtless bloggers to have broken.
So Uefa has set up an independent “chamber” which will impose sanctions if they are needed. And that could start legal action over the true and reasonable meaning of the phrase “fair market value”.
Mr Infantino continued,“We were always worried – and I say this with a smile – with clubs that were telling us, ‘We will sue you if you dare take sanctions against us for Financial Fair Play regulations’, [because] we have the other clubs who will sue us if we don’t take sanctions against those who have breached the rules.”
Uefa has however released the 2011 Club Licensing Benchmarking Report, which shows quite clearly that (to take an example at random) Chelsea and Manchester City would have be expelled from the Champs League two years back if the limited loss rule had been in force two years ago. And to show that it is not just an English thing, so would 18 other clubs that exceeded the maximum €45 million losses over three years.
But what would these sanctions be, I hear you cry. Anything from fines (which are of course meaningless to Chelsea and Manchester City), to expulsion from the Champions League and Europa League, which might make Mr Abramovich pack up his yacht and toddle off to somewhere less boisterous than the King’s Road.
Mr Infantino added that, “Last year… when we published this benchmarking report for the clubs, we were saying that it’s a wake-up call for the clubs. But I think the clubs are really ‘up’, that the Financial Fair Play rules show that they have teeth and that those are biting now.”
So there we have it. Whatever Uefa do, someone is going to sue them. Which by and large should be rather interesting. One might say that the future of European football depends totally on who wins the legal battle.
Recent posts…
EC Demands Reform of the Transfer System
Laurie Scott – Arsenal’s forgotten hero
Gambling, ref fixing, money laundering… all part of English football’s rich pagent
The politics of refereeing; it is not just what you know, it is who you know
The books…
- Woolwich Arsenal: The club that changed football – Arsenal’s early years
- Making the Arsenal – how the modern Arsenal was born in 1910
- The Crowd at Woolwich Arsenal FC: crowd behaviour at the early matches
The sites…
- Referee Decisions - just what are the refs up to this season?
- Parent News - what is going on in schools these days?
- The weight loss programme: The only guaranteed way to stay fit
- The Arsenal History Blog from the AISA Arsenal History Society
Have you ever wondered why it is repeatedly stressed that MCFC is soley owned privatly by one man Sheikh Mansour ??.The club has been bought privatly ,nothing to do with Royal Wealth…….Totally privatly.MCFC will soon be announcing over a billion ,yes billion pounds worth of new sponsorship and once filed in companies house ,UEFA HAVE to accept it or be in court before the inks dry.Sorry to upset you bitter gooners….
The Law is the Law. Anyone can sue but only the side who is right in Law wins.
Mansoor seems to have slammed the lid on Manchester City spending to attempt to at least show it is moving the right way, Abramovich seems to have said ‘sod it’ and spent a fortune. So it looks like it may be Roman taking on the mindlessly incompetent tw&ts at Uefa HQ, one might imagine that by his actions he has been told he has a rock solid case
Green eyed monster
Dumped out of the top three and have won nothing in with years…. Oh you and united cannot wait for FFP!!! Shame it was not introduced 4 years ago as that would have really thrown a spanner in the works at city but I’m afraid it’s a bit too late so suggest you get used to fighting for forth every year 
))))
I got as far as your hypothesis Tony and stopped reading as you claim that the ruling family of Abu Dhabi owns Manchester City F.C. . This is wrong.
Would you fekking drop it and give it some rest! You boring us with your constant rant! Even if it works you wont win feck all, you won’t attract best players and your best players will still jump ship. FFP this and that yawn yawn. When you win the champions league numerous times then act like some kind of European giant. FOR THE RECORD WHO SPINSORS YOUR STADIUM? OPEN THE ATLAS AND TAKE A CLOSE LOOK YOU TWO FACED HYPOCRITE.
Bit of a numpty-fest in the comment section here.
Hardly worth responding to….
Great article – I’m looking forward to seeing whether FFP has teeth.
Deary me, just what exactly is your stadium called? Highbury??? O, that’s right it’s the Emirates or are you too stupid to make that leap?
O and Utd getting their training kit sponsored by DHL, yeah nice and fair eh?
Why don’t you do some correct research and actually find out where City’s owners actually come from instead of writing this dribble.
Mjc
Don’t let your bitterness get in the way of the truth.
Nice work again Tony.
Some commenters seem to be a little concerned, hence the straw clutching and name calling they are indulging in. Can’t do anything about that but ignore them.
I wouldn’t knock city too much in here, they have after all paid a seizable chunk of our stadium, I mean 41 million for a trouble maker and a defender on the wane. And what has happened to nasri?
oh look the big-money supporters are here
Nice article Tony. For those who can understand it
Darren, you can’t even spell ‘fourth’ which renders you opinion redundant and Blueshy, Emirates sponsor our stadium but they have no business links with the owner of our club, therefore it’s a sponsorship deal based on two parties striking an agreement they feel will benefit both of them. Abu Dhabi are using their company Etihad to filter through money to Man City to avoid FFP. That’s the difference and the point the article makes is very valid. It’s not an opinion, it’s fact. An opinion would be that you, Blueshy, are a moron. That’s just my opinion but most people that have met you probably share the same one.
And apparently the big-money supporters want to dictate us what we can write about.
Well we are still living in a democracy (or sort of) so I think we can write about any thing we want. Maybe if the sheikh would be in complete control of the country this could change of course…. after all money talks or makes you shut up…
Nasri is a Champion now ….thats because he left Arsenal
Walter, this article is on City’s Newsnow page, hence the presence of City fans. Does anyone have an opinion on the glaring error I pointed out in the article or are you just going to behave like the schoolyard bully?
If the AAA (so called) get their way, and Usmanov takes control of the crisis club Arsenal, spends the money needed to compete again, will he instruct his lawyers to challenge FFFP regs as well?
Now that would be ironic
If you’re writing about FFP it would help if you understood the concept of Related Party Transactions. They’re not new to UEFa but have been a requirement in corporate reporting for a number of years. The UEFA rules merely replicate, word-for-word, the relevant International Accounting Standard on the subject. Under UK Company law it’s a criminal offence not to declare a related party transaction in your accounts and – guess what – City don’t consider the Etihad deal to be one and therefore haven’t declared it as such. Sheikh Mansour has no influence over Etihad’s business and no one at Etihad is a related party to MCFC under the definition in IAS 24. There is one non-executive director in common but that relationship is not regarded as a related party under IAS 24.
So stop bleating about things you don’t understand and focus on why your own club has sold good players and replaced them with average ones.
“So if Manchester City (to name but a few) were to sign a 10-year £350million stadium ”
£100m for the new academy (capital expense)
£25m for 10 years, sponsorship.
Not out outrageous at all. And, the academy will provide work and facilities for Mancunians.
I read your post, Tony, then started to read the comments. Up to the appalling ranting of the moron “blueshy”…..
I’m all for free speach but do we really have to put up with the regular drivel and abuse from this idiot?
Poor spelling and grammar aside, the guy (a female would have more sense) cannot even construct an intelligent argument.
WalterBroekx, We are indeed still living in a democracy (or sort of) and, I’d suggest you check out the European Unions anti competition laws (known as anti trust law in the USA).
FFP tries to drive a horse and cart through this law and, if ANY club decides to take it to the European Court of Justice, FFP would be thrown out in seconds and UEFA know it.
Enjoy your ‘success’ while it last city fans, your sugar daddies cash will soon be worthless and you’ll be half the way back to where you came from i.e. yoyo battles between the premiership and championship.
I used to like Man City and always supported them when they played against Utd but nowadays they’ve become just as arrogant as their neighbours…. how must it feel to become everything you hate? Is the price of success worth it?
And no, I’m not jealous. I’d rather eat my own faeces than see my Arsenal resort to whoring themselves to some foreign sugar daddy.
We don’t want the likes of Usmanov at our club. We have dignity.
Gunner, what is your opinion in how Arsenal established themselves in the top flight of English football?
Rolee,
Please read this for a thoughtful review of the events of 1919.
http://www.blog.woolwicharsenal.co.uk/archives/5215
That was pre Hitler days!! You can find something dodgy if you go back into any club, or frankly and familes past – it doesn’t justify a free for all now with zero morals!
Arsenal only benefited unfairly by getting promoted once anyway. It was the genuis of Herbert Chapman that really established Arsenal in the top flight of English and world football
Thanks for the link Mark, interesting reading. I don’t think it can be denied however that Norris was a ‘sugar daddy’.
Love how all the dim city fans are coming on here and getting all defensive when this article is about current affairs in football using some examples and not aimed at singling them out in particular. How the hell could you write about this subject without mentioning mcfc?
Gunner, what free for all with no morals? What on earth are you talking about? Did it ever cross your mind that perhaps City made such a huge investment at such an accelerated rate to bridge the gap and thus maximise their revenues before these FFP rules came into effect?
Rolee,
Let’s hear your version of events then
Norris,
A sugar daddy?
A sugar daddy who has saved this club that was going bankrupt.
He then paid all the debts in 1910. And then the first success only came some 20 years later. He surely didn’t act as the current sugar daddy’s didn’t he?
No he build a stadium for his club (would be allowed by FFP rules by the way) and then slowly build a team and a club. And it took him 20 years as said before so the complete opposite of the buy all and everyone of the current sugar daddy’s clubs.
In fact he didn’t was there when the success came along, but it sure was his work that made it possible.
@blueshy — Oh, gee, I hadn’t noticed the name on Arsenal’s stadium, clearly they should not have undertaken such an ethically-dubious move as building and financing their own stadium. Indeed, it would have been far better to have built a stadium using taxpayer money…
Yes Rolee by destabilising a market that had to contend with Chelsea destabilising it. which is something that the EU want to stop from happening again and again and again.
It always makes me laugh when a person justifies actions because the laws were not in place then.
Yes Rolee many a club have benefited from various rules and investment. You seem to be a singular supporter without the best interests of football at the fore-thought of you mind.
As long as your club is OK all is well.
You mention “bridging a Gap” what makes you think in footballing terms your club deserves to be in contention for the league title or have qualified for champions league football at the expense of other clubs?
I would really like to know what sets Manchester city apart from other clubs in deserving to be competitive?
Arsenal pay their directors and executives £50m a year bonuses then blame City because there’s nothing left to buy players.
ManCity fans sure are touchy when people talk about money in football. And certainly when those people dare to suggest that it might end sooner or later
All this talk of “sugar daddies” reminds me of Tony Adams’ reminiscing about how Danny Fiszman the diamond merchant bought success for the “Unbeatables”, this is from Arseblog: –
“Former Arsenal captain Tony Adams has credited late director Danny Fiszman for Arsenal’s development in the last two decades.
Fiszman bought 8% of the club from David Dein in 1992 and Adams claims it was this purchase, and his investment in the club, which allowed Arsenal to attract better players.
Speaking to The Independent, he said “I think that a significant factor, 90 per cent, in why we achieved so much is that Danny Fiszman invested £50m in the club and we were able to go to the next level.
“I got my first decent contract at the club, so did David Seaman, we were able to bring in Dennis Bergkamp – and that was before Arsène arrived – David Platt, Patrick Vieira, Nicolas Anelka, and were able to pay them – top players from around the world”.
Goodness me, can you imagine the Arsenal being able to invest the equivalent of that sum nowadays with FFFP regs? Platini would boot them straight out of Europe wouldn’t he?
Stuart, I’ve no issue with anyone writing about City, I welcome it in fact, my issue is when there are mistruths, whether through ignorance or design, that is the reason I made my initial comment.
Adam, every club deserves the right to be competitive. When the CL was set up it killed any level playing field because of the revenues that were available to those clubs who just happened to be at the top of their domestic league at the time. There was absolutely nothing fair about how the wealth was distributed in European football over the last two decades.
FFP doesn’t have the interests of football at the forefront of its thoughts, if it did it would do something to address existing debt, a wage cap would be introduced and there would be measures put in place to prevent clubs from pricing fans out of attending games. All these rules will serve to do is protect the established elite and deter any fresh investment in the game.
Rolee,
He and William Hall had money and saved Arsenal from bankruptcy in 1910. However, he and William Hall used their nous to lobby and form alliances to benefit Arsenal. Because at that 1919 election one team was going to get elected:- and they made sure it was The Arsenal, as Andy’s article says.
Different times: they were both real football men, both also initilaly on the Fulham board and representing League committees and the like.
This is where you are mistaken. Have you read the lastest reports on the governance of the game? From an EU perspective?
Rolee, the EU wish to address a whole magnitude of imbalances, even suggesting that the current pyramid system which you allude to in your comment is being circumvented by the benefactor model.
I think people like Rolee really miss the point.
The wealthy benefactor model within football has never really been addressed properly. The only reason football has a transfer market is because of wealthy benefactors buying up all the good footballers back in the 1880s which led to player registrations, which opened a market for purchasing player registrations.
The wealthy benefactor model has influenced the background of football for too long and needs addressing.
Rolee,
I would dare to bet quite a bit of money on the fact that before the name of your sheikh was ever mentioned you would have been the fiercest supporter of FFP rules?
And by the way you now are ‘part of the established elite’ you now. Or do you need to invest another billion quid in the team to win another trophy?
Walter, we are part of the elite now be ause we got in before the drawbridge was pulled up. Adam, you are the one that is missing the point my friend, answer me this, why were the FFP rules first mooted?
When this topic comes up club loyalties usually blur everyones vision. How can Arsenal fans say they have financed their own stadium ? Is it called Highbury ?? no EMIRATES like city’s is call ETIHAD . Also the money came from the banks not Arsenals saving account !! i have admired the football of Arsenal under Wenger and applauded them off after watching them give us a good pasting . But lets be honest FFP is all about keeping the old so called G14 clubs at the top of the tree . The real issue is that the business model of these clubs mean they have to stay at the top of the tree as thats what their budgets demand .just remember MUFC cannot pay the debts without champions league football !!
@Rolee, Everey club. Does that include those that are now semi-professional?
An example for you Rolee would be; A supporter of a semi-professional side looking at us moaning at each other and thinking when will my team ever get the chance to play professional football.
This is the true pyramid system where results on the pitch only influence a teams progression and not the financial side of the game which can (if pooled) be shared appropriately and fairly (and I include Arsenal in this).
Too many times we see teams relegated and have to sell players because of the financial indifferences between the leagues this also needs addressing.
When the EU state they wish to address the imbalances they mean across the Pyramid.
Rolee, you miss the point, You cannot separate FFP which is the brain child of UEFA (as a one-upmanship on FIFA after FIFA and the EU could not agree on a way forward) from what is happening behind the scenes.
All the rules in place at the moment can be changed. 2001 Player transfer and status regs were introduced to combat the effect of the Bosman ruling, TMS introduced by FIFA to gain control over the international transfer market to stop the EU from acting. We are seeing the gradual influence of the EU and UEFA & FIFA are trying to stay one step ahead in a game of cat & mouse for control.
Ultimately the politicians (lawyers) will win.
Come on Tony,
how long do I have to be in moderation for????
Fair play for all posters i say, even if they speak uncomfortable truths!
I’d be more interested in seeing the outcome of an English club taking the Premier League version of FFP to court (heard Al-Fayed could be the one to do it) – surely in Britain they are a restraint to free trade which is against the law here? I’m not a lawyer and don’t know how fail-proof these rules are on a European level but even I can see many holes in these rules – and that’s as a supporter of a team that will benefit from them. To me it’s a very transparent attempt to kill off any threats beyond Chelsea and City (and even hinder them to a smaller extent).
Society encourages jealousy and the knocking down of anyone and anything that is seen to be successful. I have read some intelligent points well made on both sides but you cannot honestly think that that You can command the morale high ground just because you have not benefited from significant investment in recent years….. Selling out soles to the Arabs??? If he was British would your sentiment be so borderline racist? Is it the money. The fact city have won trophies and have been the only genuine threat to yoonited in the past few years or isit just that you are now seen as a very bearable team who has won nothing in years??? Love us hate us we have suffered more than most top flight teams in the past 30 years so why not us??? BTW check out the futureproof £200m complex being constructed in east Manchester!!! Best of it’s kind in the world when it’s finished so you better find another rich club to fund your ground or you can always put your ticket priced up:-) happy days…..
Jason,
Nobody forces those rich clubs to step out or stay in the PL. They can do so by writing a letter to the PL/FA and they resign. And then they can invest what they want without any limitations. The problem will be to find teams to play against.
And any organisation can make rules that the clubs who want to join (they can step out as said) can choose between joining and following the rules or not wanting to follow the rules and not join in.
I always wonder why City couldn’t do it on their own? The stadium was the same size as Highbury or even bigger. And yet it didn’t work for them in those days.