City haven't been excluded from the competition. I think UEFA could also argue that giving clubs several years notice is fairly reasonable.
Manchester City facing Financial Fair Play sanctions
- Thread starter PlayerOne
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
I know, the post was in response to the hypothetical question that would UEFA be able to just prevent City from playing in the Champions League regardless of a successful appeal.
Giving clubs several years notice counts for nothing if the rules are found to contravene European law.
Just been told by a friend that FFP is headed by some Belgium ex-PM who's known to be a tough nut? Sounds absurd but still, any truth to this?
Which European law are they contravening? It's their competition. They set the rules.
Not as simple as that. What if they set the rules stating only teams owned by men could enter? Or only teams with white players? They have to abide by the law like any other business or organisation.
The break-even rule is being challenged in court already:
“We’re challenging one rule, which is the break-even rule,” he says. “This says that the owner of the club can’t overspend even if it is with his own money. This is not in line with EU law.”
The ‘break-even’ rule is perhaps the most fundamental element of FFP, but in the complaint filed with the European Commission in May 2013, Dupont outlines the impact it could have on almost every part of the game.
“The break-even rule prevents football clubs from freely determining their level of expenses, since it imposes a ceiling on their deficit, a limit to their investment, even if such deficit/investment is entirely covered by the owners. In particular, the clubs are limited in their freedom to hire players, since the break-even rule confines the amount of transfer fee and salaries clubs can offer.”
And the impact on the players?
“By the same token, some football players will not be transferred [as such transfers will not take place] and some players will be offered lower salaries. Even more, some players will not be offered a renewal of contract - even on lower conditions - or a first contract.”
Italian agent Striani rasied the complaint believing that he too will be hit by the regulations.
To your previous response. Fair enough. I wasn't trying to nit pick or anything, I just didn't actually know the rules etc
They do but you still haven't told me what law they're breaking.
If you read what I posted you would see that the article quoted mentions it. The break-even rule goes against EU law. I even put it in bold for you.
They're not stopping them from spending what money they want though. Equal opportunities is a part of EU law. How does that work in football?
I see what you are saying, but a business doesn't really abide by any rules though. If a business wants to open within the EU, he does, taking his own risks etc.
A company could say something along the lines of. I pay my staff below minimum wage. I do this because if I can pay two people the same amount that I should pay one person, my business profits from it. You forcing me to pay a minumum effects my business
(That may be a totally bad example, but you get the idea)
So that company is abiding by a rule, which in a way, effects their business in a negative.
UEFA just have their own rules
That must conform to EU law.
Again, read the article.
“The break-even rule prevents football clubs from freely determining their level of expenses, since it imposes a ceiling on their deficit, a limit to their investment, even if such deficit/investment is entirely covered by the owners. In particular, the clubs are limited in their freedom to hire players, since the break-even rule confines the amount of transfer fee and salaries clubs can offer.”
FFP is clearly in place to curtail the spending of clubs like City and PSG as they threaten the status quo.
You seem to think EU law is certain to ride to the rescue. The whole of the game contravenes EU law and it's never been challenged. The clubs can still spend what they like.
What? So you think UEFA can just break European law with no consequence? If Dupont, the lawyer who won the Bosman case against UEFA and FIFA, wins his case then FFP has to be scrapped or seriously amended. It is as simple as that.
Sounds reasonable.
People are seriously overestimating the amount the PSG and City owners are both willing and able to spend. Ludicrous figures bandied about. I've mentioned it in another thread, but what is written on paper is not what is available to hand. I'm sure most people know this, but choose to ignore it to suit an agenda.
A £50m fine is an enormous amount to the City owners, not some drop in the ocean.
I think the point is that Mansour can still spend another billion if he feels like it, there will just be football related consequences. It's a complete minefield this, there's too many loopholes for anything to come of it.
Agreed. People seem to think the City and PSG owners are some crazy bored foreign investors on a power trip or just looking for something to do. Mansour and the Qataris at PSG will not be investing in their clubs just for the sake of it.
You may be getting confused (or it may be me - its complex!).
The CAS isn't a European court. CAS is an arbitration service. CAS is there to check that the sports authority in question applied their own rules correctly, they cant say that FFP is right or wrong. They may say that a fine or any other punishment was unfair or the decision was wrong according to the UEFA's rules, but they cannot say that UEFA should not exclude clubs in principal.
So they cannot say that FFP itself is unreasonable. They can only say that the punishment was too harsh, or wrong altogether, under the rules of FFP was wrong.
Consider it this way. If a runner is caught taking steroids and is banned for 5 years, CAS may say it was too harsh and reduce it to 3. Or they may say that the process for drug testing was flawed and overrule the decision. However they cannot say that runners should not be banned for taking steroids.
Well not really, UEFA can just say to be eligible to play in our competitions you must sign up to these voluntary but binding conditions which include FFP
Yeah I think you're right. Just googled it and Dupont has filed his case to the European Commission. However, I do know that the CAS were responsible for forcing UEFA to provide Gibraltar with provisional membership so I don't if that has any relevance on a potential decision they could make regards City or PSG.
No. Not if FFP goes against European law.
It was a hypothetical situation. Of course in practice they wouldn't, but that's never a good principle to live by.
It was another case the same - UEFA failed to apply their own rules correctly (although in that case there were two sets of rules, old and new, and I think the case revolved around which applied)
Ok, thanks for clearing that up. So if City/PSG appeal the decision and take it to the CAS the CAS could either uphold UEFA's decision or rule they were too harsh and downgrade them accordingly?
Yeah pretty much.
How do equal opportunities apply to employment in football?
?
"Equal opportunities refers to an equal distribution, among individuals, of opportunities for education, training, employment, career development and the exercise of power without their being disadvantaged on the basis of their sex, race, language, religion, economic or family situation, and so forth."
How is this a problem in football?
at the end of the day, how can they stop clubs spending what they like.
It's a free business world, and pretty much a restriction on trade.
Imagine telling Coke what they can spend.
It's a free business world, and pretty much a restriction on trade.
Imagine telling Coke what they can spend.
No it's not. First of all, this has been screened by Eu beforehand.
Secondly, UEFA can make the powerful argument that FFP only curtails participation in competitions arranged by them and by invitation by them and that it does not infringe on any laws that they set requirements for receiving such invitations.
It's very far from clear that Dupont has a case. I'd suggest we don't even know if Dupont believes there is a case. He's probably paid so handsomely by lobbyists (of which I am sure you are one) that he doesn't care how winnable it is. His job is just to make it as winnable as it can be.
Maybe there is something to it. But someone filing suit doesn't mean they have a legitimate case.
I was under the impression, the EU were in favour of FFP and have said it is permitted. I doubt UEFA's squad of Lawyers missed that technicality but BobbyManc spotted it.
They can't stop them. They can only deny them participation in UEFA organised competitions.
The analogy here is - imagine a major shopping centre chain telling coke they have to meet certain standards before they can sell sodas in their shopping centres.
Never claimed I did spot it. Many other people have, Dupont one of them.
Not really. It's like a festival being thrown for financially responsible cola companies and Coke not being invited for being in massive debt and propped up by a billionaire.
Well yeah. But that idea doesn't really impinge on the notion of free business. "we are the coalition of responsible business and we don't want to invite the irresponsible ones to our parties" isn't stopping the propped-up-in-debt-hypothetical-coke-company from making money elsewhere.
People also said Dupont didn't have a case concerning the Bosman ruling. He clearly has a case this time, FFP goes against the break-even rule and their is also no rule that limits the amount an owner can put into his own business.
Again, FFP has to conform to European Law, there is no way round that. If UEFA decline to invite a team over FFP, if it is proved to be against European Law, they will be prevented from doing so.
You don't know he clearly has a case. He might have.
And yes, FFP has the conform to European Law, if it can be shown that it infringes upon it. That's why it was constructed in cooperation with the EU.
Of course lawmakers make laws that don't hold up sometimes. I wouldn't hold my breath for something like this that has been specifically designed, in concert with the powers that be, to withstand such scrutiny. Something that was obviously not the case with Bosman.
That would probably be the word economic that poses a problem
It's pointless arguing he doesn't have a case. Does the break-even rule appear to go against European Law? The answer is yes, clearly, so there is a case to be heard.
It may have been constructed in cooperation with the EU but that doesn't mean that it will hold up in court.
A player has been prevented from moving to a club because of HIS economic situation? First I've heard of such discrimination. Please cite an example. Although I doubt you will be able to because you have jumped on the word economic and taken it completely out of context.
How many opportunities for women exist in the game? What was the recruitment process when United were hiring their management and coaches last season? Do Athletic Bilbao employ on equal opportunities?