No barrister will every give you more than 70% chance of success in even the most one sided case.
That said, the guy did put unarguably, which is plainly not true.
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.
No barrister will every give you more than 70% chance of success in even the most one sided case.
That said, the guy did put unarguably, which is plainly not true.
Opps.
Im going blind. Though he posted arguably. Still suffering from food poisoning at the weekend.The following laws are all ones that FFP appears to break.
a. the EU rules on the free movement of workers, Article 45 of the Treaty on the Functioning
of the European Union (TFEU);
b. Article 101 TFEU, prohibiting anti-competitive agreements and decisions of an
“association of undertakings” (which includes sporting bodies such as UEFA); and
c. Article 102 TFEU, prohibiting anti-competitive abuse of a dominant market position by a
sporting organisation controlling a major sport.
And I'll add this:
all sporting rules that have any significant economic impact
on sportsmen or women or sporting clubs: even where such rules pursue a legitimate objective,
the sporting body must show that the rules go no further than is necessary to achieve that
objective – i.e. they must be proportionate to the identified aims.
All this is taken from an article by Rhodri Thompson 'a specialist silk in EU and competition law, appearing regularly in the CAT, UK and EU Courts. He has advised a wide range of sports and media organizations on issues arising out of the Bosman ruling and competition law, including the BBC, the Premier League'
You are missing the point completely. UEFA run their competitions on an invitation basis. They invite the clubs based upon criteria set out by themselves and each national association - the 'qualifying criteria'. This is the top four in this country.
All of this is why they are only charging City and PSG with fines and limitations from THEIR competitions. They have no ability do anything else. They are not impacting City's core business which is as an English football club.
Think of it like the Oscar's. Its not like you can just turn up and demand entry is it? You get invited.
Mostly I am making a functional, not a moral argument.
United was the best managed club for two decades, but still, if they feck up 2 more seasons, they´ll end up like Liverpool in the past. The success has big influence about the money they are able to spend. Surely, after such a long period of great management, one terrible season doesnt throw you off. Even a second bad season would be bearable, but if they dont get it right after that, they are in trouble. United has to make good decision to stay on top. Chelsea/City dont have to make good decisions to stay in the top4.
In sports performance/ability should be rewarded; competition gets meaningless without it.
The circumstances surrounding the Bosman ruling are different were they not?
The fact clubs used to be able to keep players registrations and still demand compensation after their contract ran out was a part of football for years before the EU employment and freedom of movement laws came into affect was it not?
So the Bosman ruling was a case of new laws making something that had gone on for years illegal.
The FFP regulations were set up after the advent of the EU laws and the EU were actually consulted about the regs and agree with them, so i suspect they are unlikely to contravene those same laws since they were set up to adhere to them.
Erm the new PL winning money will wipe all of this out if they win, which they will. Its null and void operating at a loss of 50m this season and winning 170m for winning the PL with appearances and places in the league.
How much of an increase is that on what they earned last season?
Just saw, thats about £35M more than last season's winners (not sure how much more than second).
Bear in mind that £50M is what their accounts say, not what UEFA are using for FFP.
I don't know how many times I have stated this but UEFA cannot take any action against City based on criteria that contravenes European Law which City may decide to argue it does. UEFA works on an invitation basis but they need to have reasonable grounds to not invite a club and FFP, if illegal, would obviously constitute that. If FFP is agreed to be in line with EU law then fine, City & PSG must adhere to that criteria, regardless of the immorality of it which is an entirely different argument for another time. But the point that you are missing is FFP must be in line with EU law and if it isn't they cannot punish a club based on their failure to comply with it.
UEFA claims they have worked WITH the EU on FFP, so I don't think legal challenges should be a problem.
They came and went through bad management. You've acted like Utd spent vast, unmatched funds for years and cherry picked players from all their rivals. They didn't. You've painted a completely inaccurate picture of what actually happened. Plenty of clubs had the funds to compete with Utd. They just didn't have a great manager and so those clubs fell away due to the nature of the sport. For City and Chelsea it matters not if they spend badly. They'll buy their way out of it regardless of how well run they are.
They have less risk. Not zero risk that Chelsea an City operated in for years. That's the big difference.
It's strange that all these clubs you're crusading for don't agree with the benefits of billionaire owners given they have voted in favour of FFP.
When are the EU intervening and making UEFA give the same qualifying opportunity to Cliftonville that they do to Barcelona?
But what are you arguing with? Restriction of squad size? We all have that, you will just face more. The money is irrelevant.
And City have been saying for years that they will comply and that they want to. Should have argued its legality four or five years ago when it was coming into existance. Not only once you have failed it.
Well that's because the news coming from City is that they were in constant dialogue with UEFA who gave the impression they were happy with the attempts we were making to conform to FFP and our progress and as such, we were not expecting any punishment.
That's just a ridiculous statement that I think you know is silly.
Why is it silly?
You can easily argue that Cliftonville have less competitive opportunity that Barcelona in UEFA club competitions. Barca go straight to the group stage whereas Cliftonville have to qualify.
Because Barcelona qualify courtesy of their position in a league with a higher coefficient ranking. Therefore, to win La Liga is deemed harder than it is to win the Northern Irish league. So UEFA can argue that winning La Liga is still a harder process than it is to win the Northern Irish League and then progress through the qualifying stages of the Champions League.
It's a comparison. How does having clubs have to play 6 games to get to the group stages not as much a contravention of EU law as your example?
But those are UEFA's qualifying criteria to an invite only competition. How is it different to their other criteria?
I'm still not sure what you are arguing. FFP appears to contravene European law. The coefficient ranking system does not.
It's great to see so many experts in here, on both sides.
The bit I bolded in your quote would suggest allowing clubs to enter a stage at a higher rate of income because of where they are based is a greater breach of the EU law you think is rescuing you than FFP.
Bollocks. Utter bollocks. There is no EU law being breached with the coefficient system. If Cliftonville were good enough to progress from the qualifying stages then the Northern Irish League's ranking would progress. If Northern Irish teams therefore started performing well in Europe then they would overtake other countries and they too would benefit from progressing straight to the Champions League group stages. It is not because of UEFA's criteria that Cliftonville and the other NI teams fail to perform in Europe. If somehow Barcelona, Madrid etc. all started playing crap in Europe they too would lose the benefit of progressing straight to the group stages.
They are entered into the competition but due to their chosen qualifying criteria they don't have the same economic possibility. Explain the difference between that and FFP on relation to what you posted above.
Its not a question of whether it breaches EU law per se. There are many occasions when that happens in life, the EU is vastly complex and doesn't have the same simple laws we use everyday. What matters is whether the objectives behind doing so are acceptable & the method is proportionate. A good example would be the way that fishing is restricted in the EU. Granted that has its own policy, but the principle is analogous - wrecking the fishing industry through rampant consumerism is bad, so it's restricted, even though fishermen lose out on trade.
So Dupont will be challenging FFP on the basis that it restricts trade between clubs and as such is preventing his client making as good a living as he otherwise could. In this case the grounds that UEFA will be claiming in response is that football across Europe is an essential part of the way of life for so many people (unarguable I think) and therefore it needs protecting.
The next stage is to prove that FFP will do this, that the way it does it is proportionate and that there isn't a way to achieve the same result by different, better, more fairer means. We can argue all night (and have) about whether this is the case. That fact alone tells us the issue isn't black and white.
Dupont's case is certainly interesting. The fact that there's a lawyer challenging the case doesn't mean much by itself. You want a lawyer to challenge something? I can get you a lawyer by 3 o'clock. Since the European Clubs Association (formerly the G14) has already agreed to abide by FFP, none of its members are able to mount a legal challenge. This is why City can't do a legal challenge themselves. As a result a third party is doing it.
Given the insane complexity of EU law its hard to say yay or nay to a successful claim with absolute conviction. However what we can say is this is unlike the Bosman case & the success of that shouldn't influence the success of this. In the Bosman case the basic point was that sports were found to be subject to EU law the same as every other industry. In this case its already accepted that sporting activity is subject to the same laws as the rest of us use. Instead its just about testing whether the implementation of newly introduced rules breach the very complex trade laws of the EU.
However its worth pointing out a few things. Firstly the case will run for years, particularly given the appeal/counter-appeal shenanigans that come with any case. And even if FFP is found to breach trade laws, as far as I understand it UEFA will still be given the opportunity to tweak it rather than ditch it. So its probably not something that will change City's summer transfer plans, for example. They'll have to continue assuming FFP is there for a while yet.
[/wall of text]
For one, they do have the same economic possibility, they just have to win games. It is nothing to do with EU Law or UEFA that Cliftonville are not good enough to win their qualifying games.
There is a reason FFP is being challenged and the coefficient system isn't. You know what you are arguing is tedious.
They set their qualifying criteria using coefficients and they are setting it for FFP. Both effect clubs economically. In the very unlikely scenario that Cliftonville or any club of their ilk became as good as Barcelona they still wouldn't be guaranteed the same money because there is always a chance they might lose on the way.
Here's another scenario. Everton are more than likely a better team than a number of clubs who will play in the Champions League this season. They don't qualify because of the criteria set by UEFA. How does that fit in with EU law?
As a law student/prospective lawyer, I think it will probably will come down to proportionality. I.e. how proportional is the response to the action.
A fine of €45m is not really proportional to City and PSG's respective breaches and I can see the ECJ overturning such a punishment. However, the idea of FFP is not prima facie contrary to EU Law.
It is not illegal to have regulations if there is a legitimate aim and it is proportional to the potential loss of not doing it.
True and you will obviously know more than me on the subject but I have read that even if the aim is legitimate then there still cannot be a blatant contravention of EU law?
The ECJ won't have the opportunity to review their specific cases, as far as I can tell. The Dupont case will be challenging it on behalf of the impact on his client, a football agent. So they may look at the range of punishments available in order to see whether they are proportionate, but not individual cases, other than as examples.
They wouldn't be guaranteed the same money because they might lose? There is your answer. It is an issue down to the team's ability, not its location. No EU law is breached. You're basically arguing UEFA must award every single possible team a chance to play in the Champions League in order to comply with EU law, a point that is completely untrue. It's worth noting the EU don't let any nation in Europe join them, they have criteria themselves. Same way Everton have to match UEFA's criteria (achieving top 4 or winning EL), nations have to meet the EU's criteria. Can we stop this argument now because it is truly ridiculous?
Interestingly in the link I posted one of the stated aims of ffp according to uefas website is to stop wages increasing at the rates they have been... Now im not a lawyer but would that be a bit of an own goal putting that on your own website... That wouldnt constitute a legitimate aim would it?
http://www.soccernomics-agency.com/?p=469
The EU laws we're talking about here are general ones, right? There aren't EU laws that pertain specifically to sports and tournaments? So, the laws would be the ones ensuring the famed free flow of goods and services, plus well nigh generic laws which protect against the emergence of monopolies and whatnot.
If the above is more or less right I can't see how FFP would violate EU laws. It's a restriction or regulation imposed by the host of a certain event, one that is designed for a specific purpose, namely to combat what is deemed an unhealthy trend. And that trend isn't sugar daddyism, but rather overspending. Seems legit to me.
EDIT Didn't see Habeas' post above. Yes, this is what I was getting at. You can have regulations and restrictions - that in itself isn't contrary to the laws.
If the above is more or less right I can't see how FFP would violate EU laws. It's a restriction or regulation imposed by the host of a certain event, one that is designed for a specific purpose, namely to combat what is deemed an unhealthy trend. And that trend isn't sugar daddyism, but rather overspending. Seems legit to me.
EDIT Didn't see Habeas' post above. Yes, this is what I was getting at. You can have regulations and restrictions - that in itself isn't contrary to the laws.
Any team can lose a game. It wouldn't matter if in the pre season Cliftonville and Barcelona swapped squads. One would still be guaranteed income the other isn't. You know, because of the qualifying criteri
Everton have less chance of making Champions league because of where they are based than others. Not sure where that fits in with the laws you keep going on about.
City will earn big TV money in the next years. But that is still behind the money the owners put in. Since 2008 they paid over 1,1 billion!!! That is crazy. UEFA has any right to stop this.
They started the CL competition, they make the rules. And they have money too. Their lawers will be ok.
City and others get what they deserve. Shameful spending.
They started the CL competition, they make the rules. And they have money too. Their lawers will be ok.
City and others get what they deserve. Shameful spending.
It is hard to tell and it depends whether it really does contravene EU law. No one really knows for certain though. You cannot take EU laws too literally. If you did, only allowing six teams to play in Europe from one country would mean that they are contravening free movement of services. The problem is that football clubs and the football market in general is so different to any other type of business market. In few other markets do you have a Europe wide organisation like UEFA who have such a control over the teams. Also the exact product of football teams is difficult to determine.
On the one hand, UEFA have been speaking to the European Commission throughout, so would feel confident that they are in the right. Also, the rules are not blatently anti-competitive as they could impact upon any team.
On the other hand, and although not directly relevant, the ECJ has very often tended to strike down rules which, in fact, have a negative impact on competition/importers.
To be honest though, considering the extent to which the EU has endorsed FFP and continuously stated the extent to which FFP progresses EU aims too (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/sectors/sports/joint_statement_en.pdf), I am inclined to think that whilst it will be argued and there is the chance that the court will overturn it, it is most likely that the EU will uphold FFP.
I still think it will come down to proportionality of the fines.
Dupont, as far as I'm aware, is challenging the whole idea of FFP. These punishments are a key part of it and will be used to show that FFP is not proportional to they aims. So, if he wins and FFP is deemed illegal, then it will have an impact on City, etc.
Nope, Everton have an incredible chance compared to others as England has 4 Champions League places, 3 of which are automatic. The chance to qualify for Europe all boils down to the quality of the league and the performance of the teams from that nation. In turn, that nation suffers or benefits. But there is nothing against EU law. If there was, do you think Everton and the likes would have shrugged their shoulders and ignored the injustice?
City will earn big TV money in the next years. But that is still behind the money the owners put in. Since 2008 they paid over 1,1 billion!!! That is crazy. UEFA has any right to stop this.
They started the CL competition, they make the rules. And they have money too. Their lawers will be ok.
City and others get what they deserve. Shameful spending.
Whilst it is their competition, they have the monopoly over competitive European football, therefore any action to potentially stop competitors from competing could be illegal in EU law as abuse of their monopoly position.
Football is different to every other form of business though, so who knows what will happen. Most lawyers definitely do not.