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

Revan said:
Yeah, let's limit transfers and wages for players. In that way the owners of United, Bayern and Co. can get home 300m euros each year. That would be great for the sport.
Click to expand...

I think the hope would be that the money gets invested back into the club in more long term ways which are beneficial to the sport. The academies obviously being a good place to start.

The issue is that of course it is hard to legislate how private businesses spend their money. I believe the NFL have a system in place where all the owners in the league have to vote in a new owner and to get voted in you have to demonstrate your commitment to building the club and helping the league.

Not sure if that would work.
 
For all the sugar money in football (that mostly means in England with Chelsea and City) have destroyed football and make it less competitive, I have some stats for you.

In the 11 golden years of EPL when there were not sugar daddies *, only 3 clubs won the league with United winning 8 out of 11 titles (72%). In the next 14 years when the sugar daddy money came, 5 clubs won the league, with United and Chelsea winning it 5 times (36%). So, two most successful clubs in this non-competitive era together win as much as the most successful club in that mythical competitive era.

So, let's be fair. You're either total hypocrites who don't care about competition and just want United to monopolise trophies, or you are mistaking the pre-Abramovich era with pre-EPL year. Because the league before Abramovich was as competitive as Bundesliga is nowadays.

* A lot of people would argue that Blackburn was actually the original sugar daddy club, so if it wasn't for them United would have won 9/11 titles (82%). Since Abramovich, if you don't count Chelsea/City titles, we would have likely won 8/14 titles, all of them in a row. That is something that would make Bayern and Celtics proud.

EPL in particular has benefitted from outside money, and that is one of the reasons why the league is so good and so competitive.
 
OverratedOpinion said:
I think the hope would be that the money gets invested back into the club in more long term ways which are beneficial to the sport. The academies obviously being a good place to start.

The issue is that of course it is hard to legislate how private businesses spend their money. I believe the NFL have a system in place where all the owners in the league have to vote in a new owner and to get voted in you have to demonstrate your commitment to building the club and helping the league.

Not sure if that would work.
Click to expand...
No academy in the world costs 200m per year.

The only way for that money to go back to the clubs is if they build brand new stadiums every decade or so.
 
Revan said:
So, let's be fair. You're either total hypocrites who don't care about competition and just want United to monopolise trophies
Click to expand...
I mean...last i checked, this was a Manchester United forum...

or you are mistaking the pre-Abramovich era with pre-EPL year.
Click to expand...
Leeds, Arsenal, Everton, Aston Villa, Forest and Liverpool over a span of 17 years, with Liverpool winning 10 of them

Not exactly much different from the first 12 years(pre-roman) of PL
 
Yep, wanting Utd to win every title is a deplorable way to look at things!
 
Revan said:
For all the sugar money in football (that mostly means in England with Chelsea and City) have destroyed football and make it less competitive, I have some stats for you.

In the 11 golden years of EPL when there were not sugar daddies *, only 3 clubs won the league with United winning 8 out of 11 titles (72%). In the next 14 years when the sugar daddy money came, 5 clubs won the league, with United and Chelsea winning it 5 times (36%). So, two most successful clubs in this non-competitive era together win as much as the most successful club in that mythical competitive era.

So, let's be fair. You're either total hypocrites who don't care about competition and just want United to monopolise trophies, or you are mistaking the pre-Abramovich era with pre-EPL year. Because the league before Abramovich was as competitive as Bundesliga is nowadays.

* A lot of people would argue that Blackburn was actually the original sugar daddy club, so if it wasn't for them United would have won 9/11 titles (82%). Since Abramovich, if you don't count Chelsea/City titles, we would have likely won 8/14 titles, all of them in a row. That is something that would make Bayern and Celtics proud.

EPL in particular has benefitted from outside money, and that is one of the reasons why the league is so good and so competitive.
Click to expand...

We can't say whether we would have continued dominating in such a fashion as we did in the 90s, moreover City were nowhere near PL winner quality before the money and Chelsea were a top 4 side at best. Our success fuelled more success, we were lucky to have possibly the greatest manager ever in our employ. Eventually our dominance would have stopped like Liverpool's in the 80's and things would become more equal.
 
giorno said:
I mean...last i checked, this was a Manchester United forum...


Leeds, Arsenal, Everton, Aston Villa, Forest and Liverpool over a span of 17 years, with Liverpool winning 10 of them

Not exactly much different from the first 12 years(pre-roman) of PL
Click to expand...
This is a Man United forum, but people should call a spade a spade. Their wish to stop oil clubs is just because they want to remove any competition for United, not because they want EPL to be a fair and competitive league.

Those clubs you mentioned won their titles in pre-EPL era. Since EPL when the league got globalised and the big money entered, United won 8 out of the first 11 titles. Since Chelsea and City entered the scene, no club cannot dream to do that. Not even City with their soon to be half a billion defense guided by Saint Pep the Bald.
 
In the ultimate paradox, money is now worthless. Transfer fees and wages mean nothing. The noise surrounding football is deafening now. The best part of the game these days is when the referee blows the whistle and it's 11 vs. 11 for 90+ mins.
 
horsechoker said:
We can't say whether we would have continued dominating in such a fashion as we did in the 90s, moreover City were nowhere near PL winner quality before the money and Chelsea were a top 4 side at best. Our success fuelled more success, we were lucky to have possibly the greatest manager ever in our employ. Eventually our dominance would have stopped like Liverpool's in the 80's and things would become more equal.
Click to expand...
Of course we would have dominated. We earn 160m pounds more than Arsenal and 200m more than Liverpool. There is no way that any club in EPL can compete against us over a long period of time, without getting outside money.

Before EPL, the dominance was different and was based on a club having a good patch of homegrown players and a top manager at the same time. Now it is all about having money. We have been crap for 4 years, and still earn more than we can spend and won 3 trophies in the last 2 years. A club like Spurs who has been run well, have a good core of players cannot win or compete instead, because they have half the revenue as us.

I can understand people who want to go back at before-EPL era (though I don't agree with them) but people who want oil money are hypocrites. Like that old millionaire who drives a Ferrari but complains about his young neighbour who won the lottery and now drives a Bugatti.
 
Siorac said:
The loan system should be abolished. Its only real benefit is letting big clubs stockpile players without ever giving them a chance.

This FFP 2.0 is somewhat better than the disastrously ill-conceived FFP 1.0 which was just a terrible idea to begin with. But it has obvious flaws, that people pointed out already.
Click to expand...

The loan systems also helps smaller clubs survive in the professional leagues mate.
 
Good news for Spurs if this is enforced - a big IF.

The wealthy clubs will have trouble offloading players due to the high wages involved, so won't be able to bring in much money to offset outgoing transfer spend.

Meanwhile the net spend limit won't bother us at all.
 
Garethw said:
The loan systems also helps smaller clubs survive in the professional leagues mate.
Click to expand...
...at the expense of clubs that can't/won't/don't loan players, who drop out of the league systems because of players in opposing teams that don't belong to them and are surplus to requirements at the club that owns them.
 
Revan said:
Of course we would have dominated. We earn 160m pounds more than Arsenal and 200m more than Liverpool. There is no way that any club in EPL can compete against us over a long period of time, without getting outside money.

Before EPL, the dominance was different and was based on a club having a good patch of homegrown players and a top manager at the same time. Now it is all about having money. We have been crap for 4 years, and still earn more than we can spend and won 3 trophies in the last 2 years. A club like Spurs who has been run well, have a good core of players cannot win or compete instead, because they have half the revenue as us.

I can understand people who want to go back at before-EPL era (though I don't agree with them) but people who want oil money are hypocrites. Like that old millionaire who drives a Ferrari but complains about his young neighbour who won the lottery and now drives a Bugatti.
Click to expand...

If I had my way every club in world football but especially in Europe would have to have at least 7 academy players in the first team squad and of those 3 have to be from a place thats within a certain radius from the stadium. CL group stages would actually be watchable and the competition and leagues themselves would be a lot more competitive.
 
Ramshock said:
If I had my way every club in world football but especially in Europe would have to have at least 7 academy players in the first team squad and of those 3 have to be from a place thats within a certain radius from the stadium. CL group stages would actually be watchable and the competition and leagues themselves would be a lot more competitive.
Click to expand...
That's a point I can respect. Absolutely disagree with it, but respect it.

Let's make rules that United is the only club in England who can actually buy the top players and so outperform everyone by the virtue of having more fans in Asia and US, is something I won't ever agree with. As much as I dislike seeing us not winning titles, I would dislike more EPL being an one-club team because of 'fair-play' rules which allow only one club to win titles.
 
Revan said:
That's a point I can respect. Absolutely disagree with it, but respect it.

Let's make rules that United is the only club in England who can actually buy the top players and so outperform everyone by the virtue of having more fans in Asia and US, is something I won't ever agree with. As much as I dislike seeing us not winning titles, I would dislike more EPL being an one-club team because of 'fair-play' rules which allow only one club to win titles.
Click to expand...

You disagree with clubs developing their own talent and actually playing them?
 
We need the club who gave us and reward people with integrity such as Rummenigge and Beckenbauer to lead football to a new era. Maybe football can be lead to a better era were one club is allowed to cherry pick all the local talent on cheap/free. I've also noticed that Real is involved too? Do they miss the time when Spain bailed them out and the regime helped them do transfer deals?

The FFP is a farce. It had done nothing apart from crippling the Serie A. The FFP2 would be nothing but yet another exercise to accommodate Bayern/Real keeping them dominant in a competition the latter started and they can't compete anymore. No wonder why no one mentioned the FFP when Real were buying galacticos for the fun of it.

If they want true competition then they should look closer to home. Bayern have won 7 leagues in the past decade (5 concurrently). They turned a great league into the new Scottish league.
 
Last edited:
Anustart89 said:
...at the expense of clubs that can't/won't/don't loan players, who drop out of the league systems because of players in opposing teams that don't belong to them and are surplus to requirements at the club that owns them.
Click to expand...
Exactly, thank you. Put it better than I could have.
 
Ramshock said:
You disagree with clubs developing their own talent and actually playing them?
Click to expand...
Yeah, I am against rules that force clubs to play academy players and I think that football has got globalised to the point that United is bigger than Manchester, and Real is bigger than Madrid.

Financial wise, rules like that IMO will cripple football. Hard to identify with a totally local club
 
It's better to enforce a two-three academy players in the starting XI rule than this 100m net spend bullshit. I fully expect clubs like PSG and City to support this 100m net spend rule as it'll ensure less clubs having a chance to catch them up.
 
KM said:
It's better to enforce a two-three academy players in the starting XI rule than this 100m net spend bullshit. I fully expect clubs like PSG and City to support this 100m net spend rule as it'll ensure less clubs having a chance to catch them up.
Click to expand...

Your suggestion should be supported by PSG too since they already have two-three academy players in their starting XI.
 
giorno said:
This is stupid, should just go for a harder FFP on those clubs that use ownership money to work around it

Also new ownerships should be given more leeway on initial investments
Click to expand...

Talking about ownership money, they can go even harder by limiting club to borrow money from bank or something.
 
Revan said:
For all the sugar money in football (that mostly means in England with Chelsea and City) have destroyed football and make it less competitive, I have some stats for you.

In the 11 golden years of EPL when there were not sugar daddies *, only 3 clubs won the league with United winning 8 out of 11 titles (72%). In the next 14 years when the sugar daddy money came, 5 clubs won the league, with United and Chelsea winning it 5 times (36%). So, two most successful clubs in this non-competitive era together win as much as the most successful club in that mythical competitive era.

So, let's be fair. You're either total hypocrites who don't care about competition and just want United to monopolise trophies, or you are mistaking the pre-Abramovich era with pre-EPL year. Because the league before Abramovich was as competitive as Bundesliga is nowadays.

* A lot of people would argue that Blackburn was actually the original sugar daddy club, so if it wasn't for them United would have won 9/11 titles (82%). Since Abramovich, if you don't count Chelsea/City titles, we would have likely won 8/14 titles, all of them in a row. That is something that would make Bayern and Celtics proud.

EPL in particular has benefitted from outside money, and that is one of the reasons why the league is so good and so competitive.
Click to expand...

Competition is great but it's the fact that the two clubs you mentioned did it unfairly. It's not fair on Liverpool, Arsenal, Spurs that these no bodies can leap frog them. Same with Monaco and PSG in France.
 
Just ban State owned clubs from competing in European competition. The last thing European football needs is a state as nefarious as Qatar, and to a lesser extent Abu Dhabi, having football teams as part of their propaganda arms.
 
Revan said:
That's a point I can respect. Absolutely disagree with it, but respect it.

Let's make rules that United is the only club in England who can actually buy the top players and so outperform everyone by the virtue of having more fans in Asia and US, is something I won't ever agree with. As much as I dislike seeing us not winning titles, I would dislike more EPL being an one-club team because of 'fair-play' rules which allow only one club to win titles.
Click to expand...


Well Bayern have done it for years whilst Madrid and Barce have shared the spoils in Spain too, it’s a common thing in football.

We’re a self funded club I won’t feel bad for the other sugar daddy sides no decking way. The reason why we have the fans and sponsorships is because of the success on the field, we have earned our spot.
 
Trizy said:
Competition is great but it's the fact that the two clubs you mentioned did it unfairly. It's not fair on Liverpool, Arsenal, Spurs that these no bodies can leap frog them. Same with Monaco and PSG in France.
Click to expand...

PSG and Monaco aren't nobodies and we historically have a different relationship with patronage, so don't include France in your argument.
 
It's too late now. They should have done it like 10 years ago or something. PSG & City are laughing now.

I can't see this is as disadvantage for United. We have a lot of young players in our squad right now & we got a lot of talented young players from academy and we have tradition to give the youth chances as well.
 
Trizy said:
Competition is great but it's the fact that the two clubs you mentioned did it unfairly. It's not fair on Liverpool, Arsenal, Spurs that these no bodies can leap frog them. Same with Monaco and PSG in France.
Click to expand...
Nobody would have been able to leapfrog us. Even with the unlimited money of City and Chelsea we won 3 titles in a row, then lose one with a point difference, then won the next title, to lose the next one in goal difference, and to win the next one. Without Chelsea and City we would have won all of those titles, and probably even Moyes would have been able to win titles when he would have got the English Bayern.
 
Castia said:
Well Bayern have done it for years whilst Madrid and Barce have shared the spoils in Spain too, it’s a common thing in football.

We’re a self funded club I won’t feel bad for the other sugar daddy sides no decking way. The reason why we have the fans and sponsorships is because of the success on the field, we have earned our spot.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Revan said:
Nobody would have been able to leapfrog us. Even with the unlimited money of City and Chelsea we won 3 titles in a row, then lose one with a point difference, then won the next title, to lose the next one in goal difference, and to win the next one. Without Chelsea and City we would have won all of those titles, and probably even Moyes would have been able to win titles when he would have got the English Bayern.
Click to expand...

It's paradoxical, people on the caf are extremely harsh with the Bundesliga and La Liga but they always seem to favor a world where United would be undisputed.
 
J_Red 11 said:
It's too late now. They should have done it like 10 years ago or something. PSG & City are laughing now.

I can't see this is as disadvantage for United. We have a lot of young players in our squad right now & we got a lot of talented young players from academy and we have tradition to give the youth chances as well.
Click to expand...
Under this rule, we would have not been able to buy Sanchez and Matic this season, Pogba last season and Di Maria in first LVG's season (that would have been good for us though).

This rule would harm us as much as City and PSG. Probably more considering that they are ahead of us.

I just don't see how this rule is gonna help anyone. All it will do is push the money out of smaller clubs to the pockets of agents and players. Player will sign only shorter contracts, and we will see cases of Sanchez and Ozil becoming the norm.
 
Revan said:
Yeah, I am against rules that force clubs to play academy players and I think that football has got globalised to the point that United is bigger than Manchester, and Real is bigger than Madrid.

Financial wise, rules like that IMO will cripple football. Hard to identify with a totally local club
Click to expand...
It would fix a lot of what ails football though. Football isnt just about Man Utd and Real Madrid.
 
Ramshock said:
If I had my way every club in world football but especially in Europe would have to have at least 7 academy players in the first team squad and of those 3 have to be from a place thats within a certain radius from the stadium. CL group stages would actually be watchable and the competition and leagues themselves would be a lot more competitive.
Click to expand...

It would just intensify the arms race at grassroots level. Karomoko Dembele's parents would be offered a very high paying jobs in London and their son would naturally have to move academies and so on.
 
Ramshock said:
It would fix a lot of what ails football though. Football isnt just about Man Utd and Real Madrid.
Click to expand...
There is nothing to be fixed.

The worst solutions are the solutions of things which aren't problems and aren't broken.

And in the world we are living, the only thing that would achieve is to sign very young players (a bit like we did with Pogba, Pereira and Januzaj, but probably even younger).
 
Ramshock said:
It would fix a lot of what ails football though. Football isnt just about Man Utd and Real Madrid.
Click to expand...

What exactly ails football and why it needs fixing , nobody is stopping smaller clubs or for that matter any club from using more players from academy and greater no of local talent why it needs interference from governing body.

It's simply bemusing and quite honestly hypocritical that whenever status quo is challenged so called elite clubs suddenly develop conscious and try to pass their self serving agenda as something greater and beneficial for the game. Football is fine as it is it doesn't need protectionism to maintain status quo and serve few big clubs , just greater transparency .
 
Revan said:
Under this rule, we would have not been able to buy Sanchez and Matic this season, Pogba last season and Di Maria in first LVG's season (that would have been good for us though).

This rule would harm us as much as City and PSG. Probably more considering that they are ahead of us.

I just don't see how this rule is gonna help anyone. All it will do is push the money out of smaller clubs to the pockets of agents and players. Player will sign only shorter contracts, and we will see cases of Sanchez and Ozil becoming the norm.
Click to expand...

I don't see this stopping us to buy Matic & Sanchez though, Sanchez was a straight swap so it's 0 fees & Matic is only 40m means we won't need to sign Lindelof and Mourinho will be forced to trust Tuanzebe and sell more deadwoods like Darmian and etc.

But that's not the point or the problem anymore because we already bought them and we are now have a lot of young age players in our squad. And this will benefit to continue our tradition for giving youth more chances.

City & PSG on the other hand already bought a lot of young players top stars. This means other teams who are still behind for example like Arsenal will find it difficult to catch them.

To me this will help team & manager to start trusting their academy more and team & board will need to be careful in spending their money to the right players instead of splashing it randomly. But the negative side is teams will find it difficult to catch City & PSG who already bought a lot of top players.
 
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...

Well Milan broke two world records in 92 with a sugar daddy as owner, it didn't destroy football.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.