Didn't realise it was him, thought it was a bit more obscure, but hey, anyway, yeah they've already done itLe 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.
Didn't realise it was him, thought it was a bit more obscure, but hey, anyway, yeah they've already done itThat's exactly my point. People seem to think that PSG just appeared with QSI and it doesn't help when QSI seems to think the same. PSG is a big french club, while it's true that ASSE are historically bigger, only Marseille is definitely above, if you have more than one french club in a super league then PSG are one them, not only because it's a huge market but there is no way the government doesn't do everything to see the club of the capital in the biggest club competition, they will bribe everyone.
UEFA has always been very vigilant on "subsidiary" teams because of their obvious potential for exploiting them to work around the rules. There's no chance of City selling 40 yo Kompany to NYFC for £100m for example. And there's no chance of them having NYFC sign Leo Ronaldo for €500m only to immediately re-sell to City for £1. Even as it is owenerships owning multiple clubs can work around the rules somewhat, but not to the extent that it becomes a game breaker
Yep. Richest sheikhs should have the best teams, it's only natural.
This is a great idea and a long time coming. Were at a stage where clubs are signing 30m plus players just in case they need them and stockpile them. The ways around it being touted are not as simple as people suggest (multiple loans, multiple ownerships etc) and if this rule came into effect tomorrow it would be great.
Bit rich from Madrid after years of glaticos spending, basically created their latest superteam in two windows.
The CL should be like the World Cup: lots of variety but perhaps some weak teams. Only allow a maximum of two teams (if that) from the big nations and make it so the champions of mid-tier nations (e.g. Scotland, Belgium, Denmark) automatically qualify. The selling point would be the variety, not that it's an elite, elite competition. I, for one, would enjoy this.
Transfer fee's are insane at the moment and something has to be done to stop them from inflating even more. If UEFA really wanted to do something about clubs spending money they don't have, don't let them spend. Cap transfers per season to 2 outfield players, unless the players are aged under 21, introduce a foreign player rule in all leagues and make the number of homegrown players higher than what it currently is.
It would force all teams to invest in youth and their own youth academies more. I still have no doubt we'd see very young players moving around a lot for bigger fee's than we see now but you wouldn't see clubs buying a whole new team and spending money they definitely didn't generate by 'clean' means just to try and be the first Prince in the Middle East to have a Champions League. Also, Pep would be fecked.
It would force all teams to invest in youth and their own youth academies more. I still have no doubt we'd see very young players moving around a lot for bigger fee's than we see now but you wouldn't see clubs buying a whole new team and spending money they definitely didn't generate by 'clean' means just to try and be the first Prince in the Middle East to have a Champions League. Also, Pep would be fecked.
I wonder if it wouldn't be a better idea to have the overall budgets capped with the possibility to rollover a part of the unused cap?
Real Madrid has a 66m net spend in the last 5 years I think. It's not even in the top 10, with teams like Liverpool clearly ahead.
It's not a private owner club. If there is big spending one year, then there is austerity.
Yeah because they have already built the super team, their spending over the next few years is going to be big again as they rebuild
As if that's not whats happening already with FFP. It's about as effective as the war on cannabis use.
Yes, because they spent an incredible amount at that time on several superstars and have only needed occasional big signings since.
feck Madrid, PSG and City
A grey cap would work better.
For every penny spent over €100m per season, tax them an extra penny.
Then use that money to support small clubs and local areas
So Real Madrid are supporting this? this'll come back and bite their arse if implemented.
While City already have a "brother" club in US which They could sell whichever irrelevant players They want for big fees.
While City already have a "brother" club in US which They could sell whichever irrelevant players They want for big fees.
Last edited:
Set everyone an initial first year cap of £100m, then every year after £30m + player sales revenue from past year.
At some point you have to ask if UEFA wants to run club finances, though. It's fine to set some boundaries, but you can't really regulate them too much. Otherwise you'd be impacting how they are run.
If they introduce this cap... the money will get spent on wages instead. Players will earn twice as much and you'll find agents agreeing shorter contract lengths and a lot more players moving on a free when their contract is up. Then we'll need Financial Fair Play 3.0 where they introduce a wage cap as the wealthiest clubs will still snap up the best players as they can pay the highest wages. It's all a bit pointless.
im not a fan of clubs being told what they can and cant spend but at the same time something needs to be done about the increase in transfer spending. The money required to get a half decent player is unbelievably high at the moment and i cant see it ever falling unless something like this is brought in to action. It would be interesting to see how the prices of players levelled out after a rule such as this, there is still a big incentive to demand extortionate prices for players as it would add to the selling clubs overall net spend budget. but obviously buying clubs wouldn't be in a position to splurge just on one player as we have seen in the last few years. I hope for the sake of football that this more than anything just lowers the level of actual transfer activity, while its exciting to see new players come in i don't think its sustainable to be buying 5+players per season.
There needs to be some kind of cap in football. A good starting place would be to cap agent fees, then salaries and ultimately transfers
Pretty sure the MLS have their own rules in place that decide how much their clubs can spend on transfer fees. MLS transfer fees have always been pretty low.
The best teams helped invent FFP to ring fence success for only themselves. Without it any club would have the chance of success as long as they got some billionaire to buy into they idea of them as a good toy to play with...Which for me is fair.
We can add the 5 years before that. So the numbers grow up to 469m pounds. 46.9 millions in average per year. 4th place. Man city is 964m in comparison.
Real Madrid Net Spend
09- 150m
10- 77m
Thats when they built the team which is currently dominating europe, 150m in 2009 was an insane amount of money. They got both benzema and alonso for 30m(both would easily be 60-80m in the current market), kaka for 60m and ronaldo for 80m.
Adjust that for inflation and it would be more than what city has spent. After building this team over two years their net spend was relatively low, with another splurge to acquire bale.
After that they kept balancing the players in and out which is something the likes of city would probably do once they have a ready made team.
Madrid figures are also distorted by last year when they sold 100m worth of players while acquiring noone.
Oh sorry there was Mix Diskerud too, maybe you're thinking of him?
Or maybe the big clubs can just turn their back at UEFA and just let Real, Barcelona and Bayern play with one another. The current CL is already like that already.
And in practice too. It achieved what it was supposed to achieve.
Stopping sugar dady ultra-rich clubs like PSG or City was never a goal for the original FFP, but some people convinced themselves that it was so, and then got disappointed when it didn't happen, and so again convinced themselves that FFP failed.
With a 100m limit on net transfer spend, we will see an increase in wages and youth transfers. Works well for PSG and other french teams long term.
A better idea would be to establish an Atlantic League, in other words a league competition that contains the best clubs from Scotland, the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Portugal. That way they would be part of a "domestic" competition that can potentially rival the "Big 4" major domestic leagues in Europe.
Man City have kind off already gone down this road with Frank Lampard (signed up to Man City, ended up getting loaned out to NYCFC) in the past, likewise I have suggested in the recent past (back when I was still on the Bluemoon Forum) that Man City use Girona FC in a similar way as well (i.e. buying the likes of Kane and Isco on high fees and sell them on the cheap/loan them out to Man City).
So I would be very keen on the club using its counterparts in the CFG to bypass FFP.
You know what would help end the El Classico Monopoly over the Champions League, scrapping FFP to enable the likes of City/PSG to (financially) outcompete with them over obtaining the best players in the world. Because when you look at it, it is pretty much the only way that monopoly can ever be broken anytime soon.
Why would do Real Madrid have to worry about the likes of City/PSG when they (and Barca) are busy monopolising European Football (as they have done with La Liga) for the last decade or so. Besides if they are that concerned that they can no longer buy the best players of the world at the click of a finger, then they could always go cap and hand to the Spanish Government for fianancial support (would not be the first time they did this...).
Would they not have the largest potential market since PSG kind of have the Paris Metropolitan Region (which is home to around 13 million people) whereas the province that is home to OM (Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur) to around 5-6 million people, an area which football wise is shared by both AS Monaco and Nice.
Agreed, it is nothing more than a cynical attempt to try and preserve the monopoly of the big clubs (Especially the El Classico ones) over both their respective domestic competitions and of course the Champions League. I mean if they want to actually improve the financial health of football clubs as a whole, setting caps on their overall debt levels would be a much better and effective idea...
So what powers do UEFA have to enforce their rules on clubs located in other football confederations such as NYCFC?
Besides even if City used Girona FC (a club which CFG do not officially own a majority share of) to sign up Harry Kane, what could UEFA do to City if they don't technically own it in the legal sense? I mean they could fine Girona FC (which CFG would cover) and ban them from European competition (which would be pointless in their case), but apart from that what else could they do?
Nothing stopping other consortiums of billionares (or even governments) from financially backing other teams though...
I would suggest that the Qataris do the following things to overcome this FFP issue:
1: Resume bribing UEFA officials as they did over their sucessful bid for the 2022 World Cup.
2: Use the legal system to harass UEFA (over FFP) though the courts.
3: Make an offer UEFA cannot refuse to make Qatar Airways a major sponsor of the CL/EL, in return for backing off over PSG...
4: Encourage the French Footall Federation to support PSG (against UEFA) by having the latter sign the best of France's footballing talent, which would help France's world cup chances by having all their best players play side by side on a regular basis thoughout the season (1).
You do realise that Bayern Munich now boast Qatar Airways as one of their sponsors these days, so perhaps a good way of getting them to keep quiet about PSG is to bump up their sponsorship deal with the airline. Likewise lets not forget that the same company also sponsored Barcelona till recently as well, so reviving their sponsorship deal with them would perhaps keep them quiet as well..
Note
(1) For a country that has a huge amount of footballing talent, what has surprised me is that very few of these players (Kimpembe, Mbappé and Areola) actually play for PSG, I mean if the club actually made an effort in signing all those talents in question you could end up with both a 1st and even 2nd team like this:
Lloris/Areola
Alves/Meunier - Varane/Marquinhos - Umtiti/Silva - Mendy/Kurzawa
Lemar/Fekir - Kanté/Verratti - Pogba/Draxler
Dembélé/Di Maria - Mbappé/Griezmann - Neymar/Martial
Alves/Meunier - Varane/Marquinhos - Umtiti/Silva - Mendy/Kurzawa
Lemar/Fekir - Kanté/Verratti - Pogba/Draxler
Dembélé/Di Maria - Mbappé/Griezmann - Neymar/Martial
Subs: Trapp (GK); Kimpembe (CB); Ben Arfa (CM); Rabiot (CM); Pastore (CM); Cavani (ST)
All you would need to complete this team is another Left Back and another Right Back, which if you also get would make this team more than strong enough to win both the Domestic Treble and the Champions League.
Maybe they should have limited the spending when Real Madrid and Barca were crushing the transfer market every summer and turned the champions league into their own domestic cup competition for a decade. Go feck yourself UEFA, I hope we spend 2 Billion in the next 10 years and never see those cnuts win it again.
100% agree with this post apart from one thing, any club that is going to break their monopoly will have to spend £2 billion over 4-5 years instead of 10 due to the stupidly high transfer fees we have these days.
City/PSG spending is not the issue. The problem was there way before them and Chelsea. Teams like United, Bayern, etc have been monopolizing domestic and European football for a long time. Even this summer you took our most promising prospect for peanuts. Clubs from minor leagues have zero chances of competing because we can never hang on to our players and build a solid foundation. Every year there's a revolution in the squad and start all over from scratch.
Ronaldo left Sporting and became a legend in his own right but Pele didn't leave Santos and it turned out alright. Eusebio didn't leave Benfica and gave them 2 champion leagues. Nowadays money has much more influence and it's a shame for overall diversity of football.
You think it's tough competing against Citieh? Try supporting a club in a minor league. We used to have club legends now any standout player leaves after a couple seasons.
The only solution would be to reduce the number of transfers allowed or a global wage cap like in America.
Ronaldo left Sporting and became a legend in his own right but Pele didn't leave Santos and it turned out alright. Eusebio didn't leave Benfica and gave them 2 champion leagues. Nowadays money has much more influence and it's a shame for overall diversity of football.
You think it's tough competing against Citieh? Try supporting a club in a minor league. We used to have club legends now any standout player leaves after a couple seasons.
The only solution would be to reduce the number of transfers allowed or a global wage cap like in America.
Which would be virtually impossible to achieve considering the number of leagues/clubs/FA's that need to agree to this as well as the amount of lobbying against such a move. So for a club like FC Porto, a better option would be either having the Portguese Football Leagues merge with their Spanish counterparts of have something like the "Atlantic League" proposal actually be set up with the Big 3 Portuguese being a part of it.
That way the finances of a club like FC Porto would improve enough to enable to keep your best players.
No, Marseille are supported everywhere in the country which isn't a french thing, fandom is localised. Monaco, Marseille and ASSE are the historical exceptions.
Don't think joint leagues such as Iberian or Atlantic ever made any sense tbh. The cultural aspects of national leagues are the core of football and there's a reason every single country bar micro states play their own league.
Was it not the case though because they where one of the few French teams to achieve any major sort of success both at home and in Europe? A situation which is no longer the case sadly, I mean one would question is OM is even the best team in their home region with the recent rise of AS Monaco.
Thus with the combination of PSG having a large potential "home" market of all the French teams alongside their recent sucess, I would not be surprised if they end of being the "biggest" (in terms of support) club in France in the near future, if it is not the case already.
I don't disagree that there need to be some changes to make leagues more competitive. With regards to Dalot in particular, didn't he have a release clause?
I think the solution is not necessarily in a general wage cap (even if I'm for it, I just don't think it's workable as an international thing) but rather in regulation for a minimum number of homegrown players in teams, not Brazilians pinched at 14 but actual homegrown players.
Like someone said here earlier, the FFP should allow a % of TV money, match day income and prize money to be spent on transfers, not money from commercial deals and sponsorships (which could go into training facilities, youth academies etc.). That way, it doesn't really matter if a club owners' pockets are deep, it's about the club's ability to generate strictly football related income (which would of course also significantly impact United, but make the playing field more level).
that. Both girona AND city. Although, more to the point, those owners treating clubs as subsidiaries for their bigger and better club would likely not last long. First, they'd lose allfan support, and their participation in whatever league would be a farce. If Girona sign Isco for half a billion and then send him to city for 1 pound the following day, Tebas and the Rfef kick them out of the league and their fans would even support that decision. Anything to get the cancerous owners out
You would have a case to ban Girona from European competition (which would be largely pointless since the prospects of them even getting into the Europa League are not that high), but since Man City themsevles would have not violated FFP (1) there are no grounds to ban them as well. Especially when UEFA seem to change the rules on multiple club ownership on a case by case basis.
Note
(1) Since they themselves did not spend the £230 million on buying Kane not do they technically own a majority stake on Girona, so they have neither directly bought him nor indirectly bought him but merely loaned him from Girona instead.