Le Parisien: UEFA considering creating FFP 2.0, which limits net transfer spending to €100m/season

I really hate this trusting the academy shit. I see it with every fanbase as in giving underdevloped or ordinary youth players game time will somehow bring on the new age of the class of 92.
Players will play when they're good enough and are ready to cope with the pressure of a massive club, we don't need to lower the quality of elite squads so McTominey starts for us in the Camp Nou at 20 years old.
We've actually seen a version of this In Europe during the mid 90s when we had Schmeichael and Cantona in the stands away to Barca. Forced to play youth and look what happened, that was with Sir Alex in charge by the way.
 
JPRouve said:
Well Milan broke two world records in 92 with a sugar daddy as owner, it didn't destroy football.
Click to expand...

The inflation in football has raced past the natural inflation in the economy and lapped it twice for good measure. Milan were also a huge club in the midst of Serie A's golden years with earning potential beyond that of most clubs.

It won't ruin football, it will undoubtedly ruin clubs eventually though. If their owners pulled out today and withdrew all outside funding there would be a huge concern of PSG going the way of Leeds. Even with the size of their club we have seen what has happened to Milan.
 
It seems strange to have to argue that artificial cash injections are not a sustainable business model.
 
horsechoker said:
Can't wait for PSG and City to find a loophole in this.
Click to expand...

Right. PSG (wage) and City (revenue) have been mocking at FFP 1.0 all these years so what is the point of creating FFP 2.0. FIFA should adopt the China FA policy - for every 100m spent on player acquisition, another 100m must be donate to the FA. Who is laughing to the bank.
 
Classical Mechanic said:
And what fine financial fettle AC Milan have been in since their sugar daddy pulled the plug.
Click to expand...

That's irrelevant to football as a whole, if you do something stupid you will pay for it but football will be fine.
 
OverratedOpinion said:
It seems strange to have to argue that artificial cash injections are not a sustainable business model.
Click to expand...

And football isn't necessarily a business. Also as an example without artificial cash injections the french league barely exists and its standards are infinitely lowered because the PL, for example, would take every single players for little money.
 
OverratedOpinion said:
There is nothing to be fixed when PSG are buying Mbappe and Neymar in one summer?

Do you think that is in any way sustainable?
Click to expand...
What is the problem with PSG buying Neymar and Mbappe?

And yes, of course it is sustainable. A lot of poor big countries are getting richer and they will pay for football. There is also the commercial thing of football, and clubs will be able to get more sponsorship in the future.

It is like saying is it sustainable for the big blockbusters to earn 1b? Of course, it is.
 
Revan said:
There is a reason why EPL is the most watched league in the world.
Click to expand...
Yes. Manchester United play in it.
Classical Mechanic said:
And what fine financial fettle AC Milan have been in since their sugar daddy pulled the plug.
Click to expand...
Gross mismanagement by both the club's hierarchy and Italian football in general

Abramovich and the Abu Dhabi sheiks could pull the plug tomorrow and their clubs would be perfectly fine and still very much among the 10 richest in the world

With good management, Berlusconi's investments could have put Milan in a similar position as United: their brand is still more valuable than Liverpool, City, Juventus, Bayern Munich, PSG, probably even arsenal and chelsea yet
 
giorno said:
Yes. Manchester United play in it.

Gross mismanagement by both the club's hierarchy and Italian football in general

Abramovich and the Abu Dhabi sheiks could pull the plug tomorrow and their clubs would be perfectly fine and still very much among the 10 richest in the world

With good management, Berlusconi's investments could have put Milan in a similar position as United: their brand is still more valuable than Liverpool, City, Juventus, Bayern Munich, PSG, probably even arsenal and chelsea yet
Click to expand...

Chelsea maybe but City would be in trouble. They are propped up by in house deals, if those disappeared they would struggle to meet their overheads.
 
OverratedOpinion said:
There is nothing to be fixed when PSG are buying Mbappe and Neymar in one summer?

Do you think that is in any way sustainable?
Click to expand...

Its not sustainable and @Revan and @gajender if you keep taking more stones from the bottom of the pyramid and keep piling them on top of it then its going to fall over. You need to develop your own players, you need smaller clubs to develop players, you need smaller clusb to keep existing and you need fans to be able to afford to to go to watch matches. This bubble isnt going to last forever and saving clubs from themselves is the best way to go about it. On top of that I am a life long Manchester United supporter, a club that is synonymous with developing its stars and championing youth so I am of course going to prefer that.
 
Classical Mechanic said:
Chelsea maybe but City would be in trouble. They are propped up by in house deals, if those disappeared they would struggle to meet their overheads.
Click to expand...
They might have to resize a bit, but they'd still be a huge, massively rich club, as those in house deals would largely be replaced quickly
 
they are in this situation because they have already pussy footed around the likes of man city and psg for long enough because they are scared of taking them and their lawyers on, nothing will change until uefa grow some balls, anyone with an ounce of sense knows psg and man city are spending far beyond what they legitimately make in revenue.
 
Ramshock said:
Its not sustainable and @Revan and @gajender if you keep taking more stones from the bottom of the pyramid and keep piling them on top of it then its going to fall over. You need to develop your own players, you need smaller clubs to develop players, you need smaller clusb to keep existing and you need fans to be able to afford to to go to watch matches. This bubble isnt going to last forever and saving clubs from themselves is the best way to go about it. On top of that I am a life long Manchester United supporter, a club that is synonymous with developing its stars and championing youth so I am of course going to prefer that.
Click to expand...
There is still someone to give a non-metaphysical argument about why this isn't sustainable. It is like saying Google and Apple getting richer is not sustainable or Star Wars movies earning a shitload of money is not sustainable, or singers selling millions of albums is not sustainable. Why?
 
Ramshock said:
The money in football has exploded since then.
Click to expand...

It doesn't change anything from Milan's POV, it wasn't more sustainable for them than it is for PSG/City now, and the increase of money in football is actually helping PSG and City. But either way, my point is that PSG and City aren't doing anything special, worst case scenario they both crash and Football continue.
 
JPRouve said:
It doesn't change anything from Milan's POV, it wasn't more sustainable for them than it is for PSG/City now, and the increase of money in football is actually helping PSG and City. But either way, my point is that PSG and City aren't doing anything special, worst case scenario they both crash and Football continue.
Click to expand...

They have the resources of two oil rich cabals behind them? How is that nothing special?
 
Revan said:
There is still someone to give a non-metaphysical argument about why this isn't sustainable. It is like saying Google and Apple getting richer is not sustainable or Star Wars movies earning a shitload of money is not sustainable, or singers selling millions of albums is not sustainable. Why?
Click to expand...

If you counted up the users of Google and Apple products or any other huge brand It would vastly outnumber those who attending football matches week in and week out in the big European leagues. Also using Star Wars as an example isnt ideal as the franchise was only reinvigorated by being bought by a huge media conglomerate.
 
Ramshock said:
They have the resources of two oil rich cabals behind them? How is that nothing special?
Click to expand...

Spending the money of your owner isn't special, it's an extremely common model, Milan being a prime example. Money is the same whether it comes from oil, entertainment or mining.
 
Revan said:
What is the problem with PSG buying Neymar and Mbappe?

And yes, of course it is sustainable. A lot of poor big countries are getting richer and they will pay for football. There is also the commercial thing of football, and clubs will be able to get more sponsorship in the future.

It is like saying is it sustainable for the big blockbusters to earn 1b? Of course, it is.
Click to expand...

No. It is like saying is it sustainable for Hollywood studios to keep making movies with 500 million dollar budgets if they do not bring in that amount through the natural marketplace?

The answer would be no.

The only argument that holds water is whether the artificially backed success and player exposure will be able to increase the club's marketing potential to a level that they can compete without outside funding. There is a hell of a lot of uncertainty about that.
 
Revan said:
We joke with Bundesliga in this forum, let's not suddenly act that the way how they do it, is the right way.

There is a reason why EPL is the most watched league in the world. That has to do with the league being so competitive, and virtually no club being able to dominate it anymore. Take City and Chelsea out of the picture, and it will become an another Bundesliga.
Click to expand...


Would it balls.

Your acting like Liverpool, Spurs and Arsenal aren’t decent clubs, that wouldn’t change with or without City and Chelsea’s money.

I can’t believe someone is actually supporting the sugar daddy mentality to be honest.
 
JPRouve said:
It doesn't change anything from Milan's POV, it wasn't more sustainable for them than it is for PSG/City now, and the increase of money in football is actually helping PSG and City. But either way, my point is that PSG and City aren't doing anything special, worst case scenario they both crash and Football continue.
Click to expand...

Do you not realize that when you are gambling with far higher amounts in relation to GDP percentage the risks are far higher? Even if the money in your marketplace is more substantial.
 
If it really was limited to 100M € net spent it would go a long way to restore some sanity in the market.

Also the punishment for players that go on strike to force a move must be more severe. If a club can prove a player went awol without their permission he needs to be banned from moving clubs for one year. If players intend to use a club only as a stepping stone just sign a 3 year max contract.
 
OverratedOpinion said:
No. It is like saying is it sustainable for Hollywood studios to keep making movies with 500 million dollar budgets if they do not bring in that amount through the natural marketplace?

The answer would be no.

The only argument that holds water is whether the artificially backed success and player exposure will be able to increase the club's marketing potential to a level that they can compete without outside funding. There is a hell of a lot of uncertainty about that.
Click to expand...
Almost all big clubs are self-sustainable. Chelsea is self-sustainable, City is near self-sustainable. Only Paris is spending much more than they earn.
Castia said:
Would it balls.

Your acting like Liverpool, Spurs and Arsenal aren’t decent clubs, that wouldn’t change with or without City and Chelsea’s money.

I can’t believe someone is actually supporting the sugar daddy mentality to be honest.
Click to expand...
They aren't. Liverpool hasn't won the league in 3 decades, and didn't came close to winning EPL even before Chelsea and City came (they actually got closer in sugar daddy era than before). Arsenal who is the richest club (not including sugar daddy City) earn 160m pounds less than us for year (with us not being in UCL, this season it will be 200m+ difference). They just can't compete with us.

Spurs haven't won a title in half a century and haven't competed for a title in my lifetime.

Without sugar daddy clubs, United goes ten in a row.
 
crazylegz said:
they are in this situation because they have already pussy footed around the likes of man city and psg for long enough because they are scared of taking them and their lawyers on, nothing will change until uefa grow some balls, anyone with an ounce of sense knows psg and man city are spending far beyond what they legitimately make in revenue.
Click to expand...
They can't grow a set of ball to actually force FFP (not just threaten to force) because those rules are:

- immoral and force the status quo of Barca, Madrid, Bayern and United being the only competitive clubs in football.
- illegal under European Union rules.

It is all fine threatening City and PSG and making irrelevant punishments to them, but throw them out of UCL and they go to a court in which UEFA loses.
 
Revan said:
Spurs haven't won a title in half a century and haven't competed for a title in my lifetime.

Without sugar daddy clubs, United goes ten in a row.
Click to expand...

Must have been a mirage that they challenged Leicester for the title less than 2 seasons ago. Unless you are only 1 years old.
 
AlwaysRed66 said:
Must have been a mirage that they challenged Leicester for the title less than 2 seasons ago. Unless you are only 1 years old.
Click to expand...
When did that happen? The season they finished third, 11 points behind the champions.

With that logic, Chelsea is challenging City for the title this season.
 
JPRouve said:
Spending the money of your owner isn't special, it's an extremely common model, Milan being a prime example. Money is the same whether it comes from oil, entertainment or mining.
Click to expand...

No it would affect competition and is akin to financial doping if it was allowed to go unfettered. Why are you using Milan as an example when AC and Inter's Chinese owners have both been restricted by new foreign investment laws by the Chinese government?
 
Ramshock said:
No it would affect competition and is akin to financial doping if it was allowed to go unfettered. Why are you using Milan as an example when AC and Inter's Chinese owners have both been restricted by new foreign investment laws by the Chinese government?
Click to expand...
Maybe because Italian football worked under that model from the 1950s all the way to now?(most italian clubs still rely on that model)
 
Ramshock said:
No it would affect competition and is akin to financial doping if it was allowed to go unfettered. Why are you using Milan as an example when AC and Inter's Chinese owners have both been restricted by new foreign investment laws by the Chinese government?
Click to expand...

Like Giorno said, you guys are using the PL as if it was the universal model. Italian and French leagues have a different model, patronage is the norm, we don't have a single broadcaster willing to spend what Sky were willing to pay and even less what sky and BT are currently paying, one of the reasons is that in France for example Rugby is a big competition and since it's far less expensive it drags potential football rights down, I should add that most big cities have relatively big clubs in different sports which means that the attendances are also shared.
 
This won't work at all. Clubs will find all sorts of loopholes. The best way would have been to limit squad size and not than 4 changes per season.

Also switching off the January window altogether while moving the summer transfer deadline for each league to the day before its starting date would also help maintain the integrity of the competitions.
 
Revan said:
Almost all big clubs are self-sustainable. Chelsea is self-sustainable, City is near self-sustainable. Only Paris is spending much more than they earn.

They aren't. Liverpool hasn't won the league in 3 decades, and didn't came close to winning EPL even before Chelsea and City came (they actually got closer in sugar daddy era than before). Arsenal who is the richest club (not including sugar daddy City) earn 160m pounds less than us for year (with us not being in UCL, this season it will be 200m+ difference). They just can't compete with us.

Spurs haven't won a title in half a century and haven't competed for a title in my lifetime.

Without sugar daddy clubs, United goes ten in a row.
Click to expand...

Good id go 50 in a row if it meant United winning every year, id never get bored of that.

I disagree with everything your saying honestly, you name Liverpool and Arsenal, you're right in saying they haven't won a league but they are usually challenging for silverware, both clubs have pretty much won everything but the league, to say the Prem is just like the Bundesliga without City and Chelsea is a mile away from the truth.

Football would be boring though without oil rich billionaire's taking over random clubs and boosting them to the top.
 
Real Madrid want to cap the amount clubs can spend?

Is this the same Real Madrid that wants to spend £150 million on Eden Hazard and £200 million on Harry Kane?
 
instead of pee-ing around UEFA should get the things we have now right such as the extra clowns at CL matches who do nothing while standing either side of the goals, homophobic/racist/anti-semitic chants are just two that come to mind
 
Castia said:
Good id go 50 in a row if it meant United winning every year, id never get bored of that.
Click to expand...

Most of people would get. How many people watch Scottish league nowadays?

If people find a league noncompetitive they don't watch that. In long turn, that harms the league (and so the club at the top of the pyramid).

Castia said:
I disagree with everything your saying honestly, you name Liverpool and Arsenal, you're right in saying they haven't won a league but they are usually challenging for silverware, both clubs have pretty much won everything but the league, to say the Prem is just like the Bundesliga without City and Chelsea is a mile away from the truth.

Football would be boring though without oil rich billionaire's taking over random clubs and boosting them to the top.
Click to expand...

Liverpool challenged twice for the title in the last 15 years, one of those times with United being in suicide mode for a few weeks. Arsenal hasn't challenged since the last time they won the title.

Dortmund has challenged and won more titles in the last 10 years than Liverpool and Arsenal have done that combined. So yes, EPL when United can outspent everyone with 200m difference each year is as competitive as Bundesliga, in fact, less competitive. The difference in money between United and Liverpool is exactly the same as between Bayern and BVB.

With three ultra rich clubs in United, City and Chelsea, the talent gets spread between them and makes impossible for a club to get all the top players they want, and so increases the competition. If it was just United, we would have got the likes of Hazard and co. and kill any competition whatsoever.
 
Revan said:
Most of people would get. How many people watch Scottish league nowadays?

If people find a league noncompetitive they don't watch that. In long turn, that harms the league (and so the club at the top of the pyramid).



Liverpool challenged twice for the title in the last 15 years, one of those times with United being in suicide mode for a few weeks. Arsenal hasn't challenged since the last time they won the title.

Dortmund has challenged and won more titles in the last 10 years than Liverpool and Arsenal have done that combined. So yes, EPL when United can outspent everyone with 200m difference each year is as competitive as Bundesliga, in fact, less competitive. The difference in money between United and Liverpool is exactly the same as between Bayern and BVB.

With three ultra rich clubs in United, City and Chelsea, the talent gets spread between them and makes impossible for a club to get all the top players they want, and so increases the competition. If it was just United, we would have got the likes of Hazard and co. and kill any competition whatsoever.
Click to expand...

It was never like that though even before Abramovich took over at Chelsea, there's only so many players you can have in a squad even with a team of 23 class players there must be hundreds in Europe capable of winning the biggest trophies. Football didn't start when Chelsea and City got rich and we didn't win the league every year either, its such a strange opinion you have on the matter.

Leicester have won the league by the way that completely fecks your argument.
 
Castia said:
It was never like that though even before Abramovich took over at Chelsea, there's only so many players you can have in a squad even with a team of 23 class players there must be hundreds in Europe capable of winning the biggest trophies. Football didn't start when Chelsea and City got rich and we didn't win the league every year either, its such a strange opinion you have on the matter.

Leicester have won the league by the way that completely fecks your argument.
Click to expand...
Before Abramovich got Chelsea, clubs like United were earning like 100m per season, with the second club 80m or so. The league was also the least competitive big league in Europe (United winning 8/11 titles in EPL era before Abramovich).

The money has increase a shitload since then, and so without Chelsea and City, it would be even less competitive than it was during the nineties. Great for some/most United fans, bad for other teams, and unwatchable for neutrals.

EPL even now that big clubs have been sucking big in Europe continues being the most watched league because of how competitive and unpredictable it is. Take it out, and it becomes a hoof the ball predictable league. Not many outside of UK will have interest in Man United league.
 
Revan said:
Almost all big clubs are self-sustainable. Chelsea is self-sustainable, City is near self-sustainable. Only Paris is spending much more than they earn.
Click to expand...

Chelsea are with the reduction in spending. City we have no idea about but they outspend United who have drastically higher revenues. Then of course there is PSG.

This has a ripple down effect on small clubs looking to remain reasonably competitive.

Again I am a little bit in awe that it is not a given that artificial revenue increases are harmful to the long term sustainability of an organisation.
 
Revan said:
EPL even now that big clubs have been sucking big in Europe continues being the most watched league because of how competitive and unpredictable it is.
Click to expand...

If you check the statistics it is actually the most watched league in world football because it happens to be where Manchester United play.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.