Wouldn't that be near impossible to implement? How would performance related clauses work?
Le Parisien: UEFA considering creating FFP 2.0, which limits net transfer spending to €100m/season
- Thread starter United_We_Stand
- 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.
The start of more and more players running down contracts to move to the big boys.
Not only would it not weaken the likes of PSG, Chelsea and City it would make them stronger. It would make the big boys even more cemented at the top.
You were just the lucky team who had their success when the money involved meant others would then never be able to compete again
Look if your money was all from tv rights shirt sales etc. I'd agree. Spend what you win.
The problem I have is you probably make more than some clubs budgets from ridiculous things like a mattress sponsor and the like
If we are talking about sporting fairness that's barely any fairer than what city do. You're actually asking for even less competition. No Chelsea, no city. Football is already completely uncompetive and you're asking for even less. You're 1 of a few super rich club and now complaining cos there's a couple richer. Try supporting anyone else outside th
When they talk about 100m, are they talking about amortised costs?
"As soon as PSG and City have finished buying whoever they want, we will make the rules stricter!!" - UEFA, 2018
That sounds like Nokia or Alcatel being angry and sour at Apple and Samsung for making better phones and saying that they should not increase their costs in spite of making more money in profits because that is not fair. I am very sorry but that sounds ridiculous...
The new rules would reduce transfers fees but wages would sky rocket. With players routinely running down their contracts.
This would be exasperated as selling clubs would have little or no incentive to sell for what would be a very low transfer fee.
At the moment for example a really good player might cost about £70m in fees plus £12.5m pa (£250k per week) in wages, £120m total, over 4 years that £30m pa.
All this will do is shift the £120m away from the selling club so they might get £30m with the player getting £22.5m pa (£450k per week)
This would be exasperated as selling clubs would have little or no incentive to sell for what would be a very low transfer fee.
At the moment for example a really good player might cost about £70m in fees plus £12.5m pa (£250k per week) in wages, £120m total, over 4 years that £30m pa.
All this will do is shift the £120m away from the selling club so they might get £30m with the player getting £22.5m pa (£450k per week)
I don't think I can agree with UEFA on this. It will affect United the most, I mean, United is only one of the legitimate club that spent 150m net per season, unlike City and PSG. No legitimate club like Bayern, Real Madrid, Juventus came close to United in net transfer spending in last 4 season, only Barcelona came in second and net £200 million behind United.
I think Bayern, Barcelona and Real Madrid are really selfish but when something that doesn't goes their way and risk becoming version of Benfica and Ajax, etc that were big club couple of decades ago, right now, look at look at what happening to them, when they couldn't catch up with big club for financial because they can't compete with the top 5 leagues for revenue and popularity. Europe has witnessed the Premier League's revenue soo booming which put Real Madrid, Barcelona and Bayern under pressure because their league don't generate much as EPL does, EPL's TV rights (domestic and international) generated revenue more than La Liga, Bundesliga and Ligue 1 combined. They probably worried Premier League may become big NFL of football, and the gap between England and Europe is only likely to grow if it continues like this
Real Madrid and Barcelona’s financials came under threat after La Liga ruled out that all team in La Liga will not sell their individuals broadcasting rights anymore which will affect Real Madrid and Barcelona, because only individuals broadcasting rights can keep them to stay completive with a wealthy club like United, City, PSG. I can guarantee you if Real Madrid and Barcelona were allowed to sell individuals broadcasting rights, they won't back this rules. Bayern Munich wants to stay competitive in the market and attract big stars but they can't do it cos they are unable to compete with the likes of club spending over the £150m net a season. I can see if they ignore this issues for next decade, they'd be ending up like Ajax and Benfica.
Now Barcelona, Bayern and Real Madrid crying out for UEFA to stop PSG and City who were financed duped by the states but ignoring United who spent their own money and matches PSG/City in net spending last 4 season? If UEFA were smart, they could find a way to stop PSG and City from being duped. like for an example, they won't be allowed to get sponsorship if it is connected to their owner/states.
All they're doing is trying to protect Madrid, Barca and Bayern from being overtaken as the financial powerhouses
I don't think I'd be happy with that.
I think Bayern, Barcelona and Real Madrid are really selfish but when something that doesn't goes their way and risk becoming version of Benfica and Ajax, etc that were big club couple of decades ago, right now, look at look at what happening to them, when they couldn't catch up with big club for financial because they can't compete with the top 5 leagues for revenue and popularity. Europe has witnessed the Premier League's revenue soo booming which put Real Madrid, Barcelona and Bayern under pressure because their league don't generate much as EPL does, EPL's TV rights (domestic and international) generated revenue more than La Liga, Bundesliga and Ligue 1 combined. They probably worried Premier League may become big NFL of football, and the gap between England and Europe is only likely to grow if it continues like this
Real Madrid and Barcelona’s financials came under threat after La Liga ruled out that all team in La Liga will not sell their individuals broadcasting rights anymore which will affect Real Madrid and Barcelona, because only individuals broadcasting rights can keep them to stay completive with a wealthy club like United, City, PSG. I can guarantee you if Real Madrid and Barcelona were allowed to sell individuals broadcasting rights, they won't back this rules. Bayern Munich wants to stay competitive in the market and attract big stars but they can't do it cos they are unable to compete with the likes of club spending over the £150m net a season. I can see if they ignore this issues for next decade, they'd be ending up like Ajax and Benfica.
Now Barcelona, Bayern and Real Madrid crying out for UEFA to stop PSG and City who were financed duped by the states but ignoring United who spent their own money and matches PSG/City in net spending last 4 season? If UEFA were smart, they could find a way to stop PSG and City from being duped. like for an example, they won't be allowed to get sponsorship if it is connected to their owner/states.
All they're doing is trying to protect Madrid, Barca and Bayern from being overtaken as the financial powerhouses
I don't think I'd be happy with that.
Last edited:
I agree with your premise but I don’t think this will help the long term health of the sport. It just means more financial doping. Instead of questionable sponsorship deals it will be questionable transfers between clubs.
Not when it’s blatantly used to circumvent the attempted “fair play” system in place.
There is no “fixing” the sport without some sect of fans crying fowl. The current landscape is unfair considering company’s would rather partner with bigger clubs, such as United, than smaller ones like Bournemouth for example. But FIFA’s attempts to level the playingfield but also tiptoeing around the fans of bankrolled clubs (as in, attempt to convince them it isn’t selective enforcement) rings hollow. It can’t be done.
"We signed this new player for €5m and 5000000 Bugattis"
fecking stupid idea! FIFA should focus more on limiting the backhand brown envelop corruption fair play rule.
Net spend wouldn't affect every club equally, look at the number of players that have come through academies that clubs like United have out there. Our net spend must be pretty low even now after we have spent big the last few years?
And then all it takes is one Bale / Kane esque player to come through a clubs ranks to completely upend the entire rule.
FIFA are knobs!
Net spend wouldn't affect every club equally, look at the number of players that have come through academies that clubs like United have out there. Our net spend must be pretty low even now after we have spent big the last few years?
And then all it takes is one Bale / Kane esque player to come through a clubs ranks to completely upend the entire rule.
FIFA are knobs!
Remember that time New York City FC signed Frank Lampard on a 2 year deal, and he played more games for their parent club, Man City, than he did for them?
Yeah, more shit like that.
Yeah, more shit like that.
There's not much in the news on this, only papers who are reporting it are the shit ones (Daily Star/Express/Marca and a couple of blogs).
Is it just bullshit and reporting off each other or something really in it?
Is it just bullshit and reporting off each other or something really in it?
That's how stuff starts though. They leak to tabloids to see how the public react. Since they're tabloids there's nothing to risk.
Half of it comes from a Ceferin interview to La Tribune de Genève (behind paywall). Looks to me like UEFA has been talking to journos but I wanted to post a topic yesterday about it and was surprised to find no good English source.
I've said it for years, I think the loan system should be completely abolished. Clubs should have a limited squad and that be the end of it. Every player you want to sign, is a player you must release. It would allow a larger spread of talent, as a big club would have to think hard before scooping out every possible next big player if it meant they'd have to release a reliable but unspectacular option.
Exceptions made for integrating youth players in the squad of course.
Exceptions made for integrating youth players in the squad of course.
This will be a wrong move by UEFA. First of all, it is struggling to implement it's original policies let alone bring another one without much clarity.
If UEFA indeed bring this version, I think the owners of majority of big clubs will be happy that it would give them excuse for spending less.
Restricting club to spend sum specific amount of money for one season is rather lazy approach to ensure clubs have healthy financial position. There comes time when some clubs want to spend a lot in one season and try to jump to higher position than their usual rank like everyone did this season. So, UEFA risks angering those clubs as well as the likes of City and PSG and even United that might want to spend what we earn if needed.
If UEFA introduces many regulations, it might some teams to push for super league.
If UEFA indeed bring this version, I think the owners of majority of big clubs will be happy that it would give them excuse for spending less.
Restricting club to spend sum specific amount of money for one season is rather lazy approach to ensure clubs have healthy financial position. There comes time when some clubs want to spend a lot in one season and try to jump to higher position than their usual rank like everyone did this season. So, UEFA risks angering those clubs as well as the likes of City and PSG and even United that might want to spend what we earn if needed.
If UEFA introduces many regulations, it might some teams to push for super league.
Limits on mass loaning is good. It bothers me that loaning effectively outsources youth development now and does little long term good for the clubs who get the loaned player. A limit on net spend would be good but it's probably going to be legally unenforceable.
Having a fixed cap like that makes little sense to me, it means those playing catch-up are likely remain playing catch up for a long time. Whereas teams who already have a very good squad can continue to supplement their already good bunch of players every season with the odd player and replace ageing ones.
Teams who need big changes won't be able to do so and will therefore continue to struggle to keep up.
Also, how do you put a cap on what a players worth effectively? Say for example a once in a generation type of talent comes along and a club would happily sell him for an appropriate fee in this market (over €100m) to balance their books or for whatever reason. They either have to sell him below what they deem market value or let his contract run out at which point they lose him for free.
Teams who need big changes won't be able to do so and will therefore continue to struggle to keep up.
Also, how do you put a cap on what a players worth effectively? Say for example a once in a generation type of talent comes along and a club would happily sell him for an appropriate fee in this market (over €100m) to balance their books or for whatever reason. They either have to sell him below what they deem market value or let his contract run out at which point they lose him for free.
I know this is an easy thing to say as i'm a Utd fan but i dont like the idea of limiting clubs like us, clubs that have made their money through good management, success, and good club running. I agree with doing something to limit sugar daddy clubs as its not money 'earnt' if you know what i mean.
Having said that, the transfer market has gone out of control to a ridiculous level the last couple of years so maybe something does need to be done.
Having said that, the transfer market has gone out of control to a ridiculous level the last couple of years so maybe something does need to be done.
UEFA considering creating FFP 2.0, which limits net transfer spending to €100m/season....Unless there are brown envelopes or anonymous cash donations to secret offshore accounts passed to UEFA..!!
All they need to do is audit PSG and find a reason to kick them out of EPL for a year.
Seems like a stupid idea
I don't see how this suits anyone (without cheating).
It literally wipes millions off a company''s assets, too.
This would likely see a breakaway league created.
It literally wipes millions off a company''s assets, too.
This would likely see a breakaway league created.
I don't think there's any real intention to curb spending. If there was, it wouldn't have gotten out of hand the way it has. To me, they appear to be taking little measures here and there to appear to imposing restrictions.
Look, all UEFA needs to do is force PSG and City to transfer to playing rights of Neymar, Mbappé, Verratti, Rabiot, Di Maria, Dani Alves, Thiago Silva, Marquinhos, Meunier, Lo Celso, Pastore, Ederson, Walker, Mendy, Fernandinho, Silva, De Bruyne, Sane and Sterling, to Real Madrid CF. Then we there'll be no need for FFP 2.0
Look, all UEFA needs to do is force PSG and City to transfer to playing rights of Neymar, Mbappé, Verratti, Rabiot, Di Maria, Dani Alves, Thiago Silva, Marquinhos, Meunier, Lo Celso, Pastore, Ederson, Walker, Mendy, Fernandinho, Silva, De Bruyne, Sane and Sterling, to Real Madrid CF. Then we there'll be no need for FFP 2.0
Feck off, it should be us. With Woodward as chief, if he has given two choices to choose Neymar or all other players you mentioned above, he'll only choose Neymar, for marketing commercial reason.
The sheer cheek of Real.
And feck this nonsense about "we earned our money".
And feck this nonsense about "we earned our money".
That’d be preferable to me. Rather the players get the money than the clubs/owners. They’re worth what the market dictates. As long as they limit agent fees. Would hate to see those explode.
I can the beginnings of a 10 year loan contract for players.
Under the pressure of the likes of Real Madrid 
They're taking the piss surely?
They're taking the piss surely?
Well one way around the proposed transfer limitations is by using indirect means to transfer money to the clubs/owners outside the "official" transfer fee, for example having the buying club "donate" (1) money towards the the stadium/property facilities of the selling club or have the owner of the buying club invest money directly towards any of the businesses the owner of the selling club owns.
(1) Or have the player in question "donate" some of his signing on fee instead.
If they are going to be spending £200 million on buying Harry Kane (1) while following this rule, then it is going to end up f**king the club up badly (2), firstly because they will have to sell players they cannot afford to lose to meet the rules and secondly because they would then have no money to afford the massive rebuild (3) they need, without which would make the Kane transfer pointless in the first place (4).
(1) A possible transfer which I am absolutely opposed to due to my strong dislike towards Real and the way they (and Barcelona) have monopolised both Spainish and European football while seeming to think they have a god given right to any of the best players in the world no matter how big the club is and no matter what the consequences are. Especially for a player which both Manchester clubs need quite frankly.
(2) While yet again failing to follow the most important rule to winning trophies, which is that you need a great squad overall (and take strength in depth seriously) rather than a few Galacticos alone to actually win the League and Champions League (or both for that matter). A rule which they violated this season by selling/loaning a lot of their 2nd XI and getting no one to replace them.
(3) In other words 1-2 Goalkeepers, 2-3 Fullbacks, 2 Centre Backs, 2 Strikers (1 if Kane is one of them), James returning and backups/replacements for Ronaldo and Bale.
(4) No matter what Striker/Front 3 you have, they can do little unless they have a strong team behind them as well.
Yeah, because FFP v1.0 was so successful.
Well to be fair, it did kind of help enable Real Madrid and Barcelona to monopolise the Champions League (1) while City's progress as a club certainly slowed (although not stopped) because of the trasnfers we were unable to do thanks to this policy.
Which goes to show that for all the fears about the "oil clubs" monopolising the European game (2), it is the Spainish giants that have done exactly that instead and thus any attempt to provide proper competition to these clubs should if anything be welcomed. Not only because of the amount of additional broadcasting/commerical revenue it would bring, it would also mean that the Champions League would be more entertaining and appealing than it currently is for fans in general.
I mean if both Chelsea and City did not get the investment they ended up getting, then we would end up with United monopolising the league, which might sound nice at first but would ultimately end up screwing the club financially and in turn make it far harder for them to do well in Europe. Thus we end up in a situtation which benefits no one domestically with an uncompetitive league (3), terrible performances from English Clubs in Europe and a lack of ambition across the league.
(1) And thus European Football as a whole, I mean when you look at the last 9 Champions League Seasons, 6 of them have been won by Real or Barcelona and at least 2 of them (Inter in 2010, Chelsea 2012) only won the Champions League after getting past Barcelona though the skin of their teeth.
(2) If the fears and issues of both PSG and City monopolising the European game (and in City's case the English game) where actually true, then they would have signed endless world class players from their European rivals (including Real, Barcelona, Jueventus, Bayern, United and Chelsea), won mutiple Quadruples, monopolise the Champions League since the early 2010s and in City's case, win the League and Domestic Cups over the previous 5 seasons. But the fact is that they have not even though their owners have the financial resources to enable them to do so.
(3) And before you bring this season into the mix, bear in mind it is far from guaranteed that we would do equally (or better) as well next season. In fact I feel we are far from certain from even winning the league this season as well.
To be fair, for all the money both City and PSG have spent in recent years. The likes of Barcelona, Real Madrid and United have not exactly struggled to compete with both those "oil" clubs over the last few years or so. I mean when you look at the Top 25 transfer fees (1) of all time, only 4 of them where done by PSG (2) while City only did 2 of them (3). In contrast Real have done 6 deals (4), Barcelona have done 5 deals (5), United have done 3 deals (6) and Chelsea have done 2 deals.
Long story short, while transfer fees are far, far too high. It does not mean that the "established" clubs are struggling to match the sort of transfer spending that City and PSG have been doing of late.
(1) For the record I am counting the Mbappe trasnfer as a done deal, even if it technically is not the case.
(2) Cavani, Di María, Neymar and Mbappe. Although to be fair the last 2 are the 2 most expensive of all time (though it also shows it is only this season that PSG have been willing to go the levels the Spanish giants have been willing to reach).
(3) Sterling and KDB, although both Walker and Mendy do come pretty close to the Top 25.
(4) Figo, Kaka, Zidane, Rodríguez, Ronaldo and Bale.
(5) Ibrahimović, Suárez, Neymar, O.Dembele and Coutinho. Of which the last 2 were done this season.
(6) Di María, Lukaku and Pogba.
(7) Torres and Mortata
The only way you can make sure that the big clubs produce that academy talent in question (and I would be the first to say my own club has been terrible at this in recent years) is to give the academy graduates a "safe space" (1) which allows them to thrive and develop. Simply because dumping them on the first team is going to lead them nowhere (since managers under pressure to win leagues/trophies will always pick the safe option) while dumping them on short-term loans at random clubs is not going to help them make progress either.
Certainly it is more effective than whatever club football policies both UEFA and the FA have done of late.
(1) In other words either having your own B Team competing as high as the 2nd tier or giving players long term loans at clubs (Like Tottenham) with the right facilities/youth policies and while ambitious are realistic enough to know their limits against bigger clubs and thus allow their managers to give the youth a chance rather than always pick proven talent above all else.
The only way you are going to have a "true" level playing field is though adopting practises from the North American Sports Leagues such as having a draft system, strict salary caps, some sort of franchise like system (to allow the league to manage and control the clubs, including how many of them), gate sharing and luxury taxes. The problems with going down that road are of course, would the big European clubs agree to this, will clubs in Asia and the Americas's agree the first 2 policies and more importantly is it the sort of road we want club football to go down on? If the big European (or even the Asian and American ones) object to all these policies, then forget any chance of achiving a "true" level playing field in the world of European Club Football.
There is nothing stopping him going to the Madrid and Spanish Governments cap in hand for addtional cash/favours, certainly the club (and even Perez himself) have not exactly shown a lack of reluctance to go down this road.
To be fair, the only way you can get big sponsorship deals (i.e. ones that don't come from your owner) is to have a strong and continious record of success on the field, which in turn requires talented players and which either requires spending big on transfer fees/wages in the first place or make sure those dozens of world class academy graduates (1) you have don't end up signing for other clubs by matching whatever wages/ambition those other clubs are already able to offer.
So in other words if you want a club to be in a position to properly earn big sponsorship deals, you need to invest and invest big in the first place. Otherwise you face an impossible task just to avoid falling behind the big clubs, let alone catch up with them.
Likewise while a fair amount of our sponsorship does still come from companies linked to our owners, the proportion has fallen in recent years. Of course we are not at United's level still, but at least we are trying to get there...
(1) Asumming you do have an academy that is producing endless numbers of world class players in the first place than can fill up an entire squad, something for all their successes on this front neither Tottenham, Manchester United or even Barcelona have managed to do in the modern game. I don't mean this as a criticism (if anything I admire all 3 for the number of graduates that have developed into great players for the clubs in question over recent years) but rather stating the limits of relying on academy graduates alone in this day and age.
Real Madrid has thoughout various periods in its history benefitted from direct/indirect government support (1), which has helped generated the sort of success which has in turn brought the fanbase, broadcast revenues, merchandise revenues and matchday revenues which drives the vast revenue they generate.
United on the other hand is a different story of course when it comes to government support...
(1) Most recently from the favours the government gave in relation to the sale of their old training ground, which enabled them to purchase the first wave of galácticos in the first place.
It would and considering the state of United's (and to be fair City's) squads at the moment, this rule would be a good away (unless one is to bypass it) to screw both our clubs.
Last edited:
IMO, this proposal would hurt United more than it would hurt city.
Would make more sense to cap net spend at a % of club revenue instead of some random absolute number like 100m. 100m is nothing EPL, but can get CL football if the club is playing in some other league.
The only long-term solution to stabilise clubs is to mandate fan ownership. Clubs will then spend what they genuinely earn.
The only long-term solution to stabilise clubs is to mandate fan ownership. Clubs will then spend what they genuinely earn.
City and PSG have already been created, but thanks.
Given the limitless wealth some clubs have, weirdly in order to regulate spending, inacting rules which focus on non-financial aspects of the game may be more effective.
City and PSG would, will and have found loopholes in every FFP rule to date. As posters have already suggested, multiple club ownership would surely be used in this new instance. Honestly, if fifa really want to stop clubs monopoliesing football, having a limit on the number of players from each country (bar homegrown) may be more effective and improve international football. This would almost certainly never happen, and be unfair on the prospects of non-elite foreign players but something like this would be much easier to regulate.
City and PSG would, will and have found loopholes in every FFP rule to date. As posters have already suggested, multiple club ownership would surely be used in this new instance. Honestly, if fifa really want to stop clubs monopoliesing football, having a limit on the number of players from each country (bar homegrown) may be more effective and improve international football. This would almost certainly never happen, and be unfair on the prospects of non-elite foreign players but something like this would be much easier to regulate.
This in isolation wouldn't help much. As the poster above suggested that the restrictions on number of foreign players can be a way towards somewhat normalizing the transfer fees. That will incentivize clubs to improve their academies and invest in bringing more players through rather than look for ready made solutions.
If they want a spending limit, then it has to come with a wage limit too. Otherwise, players will sign shorter term contracts and hold out for more in signing bonuses and wages by moving for free. A chunk of the money will instead go to agents instead of the players current club. Which harms smaller clubs more than it will affect the big boys.
If they want a spending limit, then it has to come with a wage limit too. Otherwise, players will sign shorter term contracts and hold out for more in signing bonuses and wages by moving for free. A chunk of the money will instead go to agents instead of the players current club. Which harms smaller clubs more than it will affect the big boys.
Last edited: