This summer, football clubs throughout Europe will have to reconsider their usual transfer policies and contract negotiations as UEFA implements the first phase of its so-called Financial Fair Play policy. Designed to curb lavish spending far exceeding turnover and reduce the reliance on rich owners at clubs such as Chelsea and Manchester City, the following three seasons will prove a testing time for football as a whole. By 2014, UEFA President Michel Platini hopes to impose sanctions and limits on clubs who don’t meet the new financial requirements and for the likes of Real Madrid, Manchester United and Barcelona, the three richest in terms of income, this is unlikely to effect their future participation in European Competitions too severely. But what of the smaller clubs hoping to invest and make the step up to the highest level of club football?
Sadly these days football is not just about what happens on the pitch. Whilst the likes of Manchester United have achieved their position through consistent growth and fantastic commercial infrastructure, the likes of Chelsea have managed to invest heavily initially in players to gain a competitive advantage over rivals and build a title-winning side. Admittedly the London club’s commercial revenues have now caught up and, with the exception of the most recent transfer window, huge spending has slowed. But, the club was still able to grow courtesy of a rich benefactor.
In the case of Roman Abramovich, he is one of the richest men in the World and free to do as he wishes with his money. He has brought huge wealth into football which has filtered down through the game. For example, without his £50million outlay on Fernando Torries, Liverpool would not have spent so much on Luis Suarez and Andy Carroll. Similarly, the signing of David Luiz from Benfica allowed the Portuguese club to invest in three further players.
However, for every Chelsea and Manchester City there is also a Portsmouth or a Leeds. These are clubs that tried to invest heavily to progress the club and did, in the short team, achieve success on the pitch. But, without the security blanket of an Abramovich or a Sheik Mansour, the growth was unsustainable, the clubs were liable and eventually crumbled.
There have been clubs to achieve European Football without excessive spending in recent years, however. The likes of Everton and Tottenham both achieved Champions League qualification through merit on the pitch alone. And, following their recent Carling Cup victory, Birmingham look to have qualified for next season’s Europe League.
But, without the financial clout to invest heavily, Everton didn’t make it past the qualification stage in 2005. Spurs have had a fantastic debut season in the Champions League but, even with seven games still to play, Champions League qualification is far from certain next year. And, despite qualifying through their Carling Cup success, Birmingham could still be refused the required UEFA license to participate in the Europa League due to their financial status. But will the new Financial Fair Play laws lessen this gap and reduce the vast difference in the game between the ‘haves’ and the ‘have nots’?
Admittedly it will be a slow integration period as clubs will still be allowed to post losses of up to £38.5m for the following two seasons whilst commitments to transfers, amortisation and wages pre-June 2010 will be excluded from the rules. But, by 2014 clubs must be able to prove financial stability and ensure expenditure is covered by turnover. But with transfer fees and player wages seemingly spiralling out of control, where will this extra income come from? It would be a shame to see fans alienated by even more ticket price increases. And, bearing in mind the money the biggest teams bring into the game through Television revenues, would UEFA really have the clout to prevent the likes of Chelsea or Barcelona from participating in its flagship event?
Financial Fair Play will, hopefully, encourage long-term planning and the building of profitable teams. But, bearing in mind the way wealth is distributed at the top-end of the game, it must be careful not to alienate those smaller teams hoping to achieve Continental status through strong performances on the pitch and, more importantly, the fans who watch the game week-in, week-out.
[bet_365 type='generic' size='468' af_code='365_050711']
Simple fact is that the financial fairplay rules are anything but. If you just sit and think about it for a minute you can see that the only clubs who will be able to invest in the type of players you need to reach the champion’s league are and always will be those who are already in it when the FFPR
kick in. It’s about maintaining the status quo in the face of rich investors who have the means to upset the cosy little cartel at the top of the European game. There’s absolutely no fairness involved.
Ridiculous article. Chelsea had qualified for the Champions League BEFORE Abramovich took over the club. Even a further season before that, Chelsea had been in the Champions League Quarter Finals (losing to Barcelona) under Vialli. They had also won the European Cup Winners Cup just before that. Yet the writer of the article tries to tell us that Tottenham has not spent big to qualify for their lone CL season culminating in a 0-5 defeat and has done so on “merit on the pitch” instead.
The whole subject is a nonsense. One could make the same argument that a team relegated to the Championship has an unfair advantage over another because they have a richer owner, or are receiving lucrative parachute payments. So what? Live with it. It’s 11 versus 11 whoever the owner is. I don’t recall people saying Chelsea were at a disadvantage before Abramovich took over because they had no money. Nobody cared if Arsenal were 20 times richer. Did people say Man. Utd’s spending had to be slowed, to enable clubs with far less money (like Chelsea at that time) to remain competitive? Of course not. The top teams reveled in their cash advantages. Platini is out to ensure the old order prevail at all costs. Teams like Chelsea, City and Spurs are wanted by Platini only as fodder for the long-established giants. Abramovich should actually be seen as a saviour of the game, bringing in his own money and challenging the power of the “big corporation” teams and their spokesman and pal, Platini.
I agree, Sir Cecil.
I think it’s hilarious that Spurs are so highly praised for getting into the Champions League on footballing merit alone, never mind the fact they have spent more money than Liverpool, Manchester United and Arsenal – it doesn’t make them good, it just makes them the top flight’s biggest underacheivers.
Sport is competitive, so if someone like Abramovich wants to invest in it then he should be free to do so.
After all is said and done, Platini is trying to look like a champion of the smaller nation for votes and nothing more, and with this rule he can appear to look out for the interests of all whilst looking out for the interests of the Manchester Uniteds and Real Madrids at the same time. The jumped up little ponce that he is.
seemed a fair and balanced piece up till the point where you fall down badly. tottenham “achieved Champions League qualification through merit on the pitch alone” ?? what the fek are you on about ???? Levy and his cronies have pumped huge amounts into spuds and appy arry the artful(tax)dodger has been appy to spend it on triffic triffic top top top players. I assumed you were a chelski fan, ffs you should know a little bit abaht yer lahdan neighbours.
I’ve often thought that UEFA have something against English clubs, Chelsea in particular.
As far as I can tell, UEFA’s ‘financial fair play’ ruling is anything but fair. Clubs like Chelsea will be forced to raise already high ticketing prices and the only ones who stand to suffer are the pockets of the loyal fans.
Fair indeed. Thanks for nothing, PRATini.