No, it really isn't. UEFA can kick anyone they want out of their competition tomorrow and there's nothing anyone else can do about it; it's not a legal issue. Sure, someone can then attempt to take UEFA to court on an 'unrelated' issue, but it won't change anything.
Bye Bye FFP?
There are also plenty of exceptions specifically for football and sport in EU law.
Thats for the courts to decide.
You're talking as if an FA has never applied financially damaging sanctions to a club before, but it's actually a regular occurrence.
The competitions have more clout than the clubs, there's a general will to make FFP work, and UEFA has the relevant powers.
Look fellas I'm not just playing devils advocate here, you're all aware how things work in the real world and how money talks.......
One goal is to get the likes of City and Chelsea to change their behaviour and stop injecting cash freely into the transfer market and making huge losses.
So far they've already changed their behaviour by trying to conceal a proportion of their cash windfalls in faux sponsorship deals.
Take City's 400m Etihad deal which is exactly one of the deals set to fall under considerable scrutiny (to which this UEFA threat refers):
"In order to avoid improper transactions of this kind, Uefa should prohibit clubs from sponsoring themselves or using associated bodies to do so. There is also a need to monitor the 'purchases' of sponsors, who should not overpay for the rights they acquire."
If a rule of that nature is needed, it can be implemented and enforced even if it doesn't end up applied retroactively (although according to what I know about FFP, it already has been implemented, and can be enforced now).
And if UEFA's auditors decide that the real value of the deal is 200m (and let's say the real, real value is 150) then City will be forced to give up 200m and the current situation in football as a whole gets somewhat less insane.
There is plenty of legal precedent for reviews of whether sale value matches real value. Occurs all the time in insurance, property settlements, M&A etc. There are whole branches of industry devoted to the problem of valuation.
The other goal of FFP is to stop financially weak clubs from scuttling themselves with outlandish spending they can't afford. That ought to work very effectively if similar rules are implemented at domestic level.
Football is big money but it's nothing compared to, say, BHP bidding on Potash. No matter how much money is involved, there's an army of lawyers, accountants and assessors on hand to help police it.
Yes but at the end of the day we're talking about a sports association where membership is voluntary, and the law of the land (or several lands) where membership is compulsory and everyone is subject to.
However having said that there is a storm brewing over this betting scandal, so there is every chance that FIFA and UEFA will have their activities put under the spotlight.
As long as the traditional big clubs are behind FFP there's a chance it'll work, or at least have an impact. Uefa's power base comes from clubs like Utd, Madrid, Bayern etc, cos they have the fans to fill out stadiums and sell tv contracts.
As has been mentioned, Fifa and Uefa excel at 'Sabre-rattling', so i would be surprised if they actually did anything.
#Timmeh wrote:As long as the traditional big clubs are behind FFP there's a chance it'll work, or at least have an impact. Uefa's power base comes from clubs like Utd, Madrid, Bayern etc, cos they have the fans to fill out stadiums and sell tv contracts.
Exactly. I very much doubt City, Chelsea and PSG have enough clout to influence UEFA.
Eh? Barcelona and Real are addicts they've been financially doped for decades with cheap loans that are rarely repaid.
Like Tim said at the end of the day it's the big clubs who will decide not the politburo members at UEFA, and I can't see the turkeys voting for Christmas.
The big clubs benefit the most because they've got the most legitimate revenue Biggs - of course they support it.
Biggus wrote:Eh? Barcelona and Real are addicts they've been financially doped for decades with cheap loans that are rarely repaid.
Like Tim said at the end of the day it's the big clubs who will decide not the politburo members at UEFA, and I can't see the turkeys voting for Christmas.
Real make more money than any other team on the planet, if all clubs are forced to spend within their means, I'm sure they'll survive.
As they haven't done it yet I'm sure they'd prefer no to spend within their means.
I'm sure they would happily make that sacrifice if it stops the possibility of more competition.
I have no doubt the rise of clubs like City and PSG and, to a lesser extent, Chelsea have made the bigger clubs uncomfortable.
Speaking of: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/21374699
So you people support the status quo, the"old money" exclusive club- No riff raff allowed.
Nope, but there's pretty much literally nothing anyone here can do about it. It's a closed shop.
Personally, I am against FFP and couldn't give two shits if clubs want to go bust chasing a dream or a billionaire wants to poor money down the drain. That's their choice.
Exactly, fools and their money are easily parted the market will sort it out, no need for for Platini and his Eurocrats to help poor old Real and Barcelona and Man Utd.
Biggus wrote:So you people support the status quo, the"old money" exclusive club- No riff raff allowed.
Only because it'll help us, better the devil you know and all that. Let's face it, if more owners come in with the kind of money that City and PSG are capable of spending, we're the ones who'll disappear off the map faster than Madrid or United will.
Unless they buy us, in which case I'm totally cool with that and I look forward to them building a theme park ride through Islington.