Financial Fairplay 2.0

Lilbaz

Just call me Baz
Joined
Apr 1, 2005
Messages
32,414
Thread starter #1
Thought i'd start a new thread about this as it has been touched on in others but risks derailing them.

On may 24th uefa will vote on new financial fairplay rules.

New rules.

- clubs will only be allowed a net spend on transfers of €100m per season. This means if they spend €300m on players they will have to sell €200m.

- clubs will only be allowed to have 25 players on their books over the age of 21. This includes any players loaned out.

- sponsorships made by related parties will also be looked at again. Example Etihads deal with city.

- how much debt a club can hold will also be looked at. This is a bit vague. I don't think debt for clubs building a new stadium will be a problem but more clubs being mortgaged like utd or interest free loans that are never paid back like chelseea.

This is being pushed through by the likes of byern, real and barca in regards to city and psg being state run. Unlike ffp they have asked the eu to bring in laws to back this so that it cannot be challenged in the courts (one of the problems with the original ffp was that it was on dodgy legal ground).

I think it would be good for the game. But i would love it if the eu went further and did something about the champions league as it is the major contributor to inequality between clubs.
 

robbiedee

Mama said knock you out
Joined
Jul 6, 2012
Messages
2,245
#2
Are these new rules going to be enforced or are they up for debate?

I'd like to see obscene amounts of money for players being capped.

There should be something in there about wages too but hey...you can't have it all...
 

Lilbaz

Just call me Baz
Joined
Apr 1, 2005
Messages
32,414
Thread starter #3
Are these new rules going to be enforced or are they up for debate?

I'd like to see obscene amounts of money for players being capped.

There should be something in there about wages too but hey...you can't have it all...
As far as i'm aware these are the rules that will be voted on may 24th. They are likely to be passed as is. Although there may be negotiation between now and then.
 

Gb160

I could catch a monkey
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
12,098
#4
All sounds good, but the punishment has to be suitable as well.
You can bring in all the rules in the world, but they're pointless if the clubs only get a slap on the wrist or a fine if they're breached.
 

'O Zio

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2014
Messages
2,500
#5
Sounds like a move in the right direction but I'm not sure how much half of it can be enforced. For example, while City's sponsorship with Etihad is quite obviously a blantant way to get around FFP, do UEFA etc. really have any legal right to say that Etihad, a private company, isn't allowed to spend what they like on sponsorships? If they want to pay over the odds, for whatever reason, I'm not really sure on what grounds UEFA or the EU can really intervene unless they try and do them for something like money-laundering but that's going to be a hard case to sell.
 

cider spurs

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2016
Messages
2,484
#6
Well I'm all for change providing the rules are actually adhered to and implemented, with hefty penalties for failure to comply.

Not just minimal financial penalties either, still allowing for money clubs to just continually flaunt the rules.

Heck, we might even see managers at Utd, City and Chelsea having to actually coach players as opposed to just spunking copious amounts of wedge on the elite.

As for the players on loan incuded in the 25 man squad if over age of 21.

Feck you Chelsea.
 

Lilbaz

Just call me Baz
Joined
Apr 1, 2005
Messages
32,414
Thread starter #7
Sounds like a move in the right direction but I'm not sure how much half of it can be enforced. For example, while City's sponsorship with Etihad is quite obviously a blantant way to get around FFP, do UEFA etc. really have any legal right to say that Etihad, a private company, isn't allowed to spend what they like on sponsorships? If they want to pay over the odds, for whatever reason, I'm not really sure on what grounds UEFA or the EU can really intervene unless they try and do them for something like money-laundering but that's going to be a hard case to sell.
They already have a rule in place that the club can't get more than 30% of it's turnover from a related sponsor. The problem is that psg for example have about 6 different sponsors all owned by the qatari government.
The eu could i guess class it as state aid.
Very vague at the moment as i'm sure they are still working out what can be done legally.
 

'O Zio

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2014
Messages
2,500
#8
They already have a rule in place that the club can't get more than 30% of it's turnover from a related sponsor. The problem is that psg for example have about 6 different sponsors all owned by the qatari government.
The eu could i guess class it as state aid.
Very vague at the moment as i'm sure they are still working out what can be done legally.
The question is though, and I'm no lawyer obviously so just wondering out loud, even though they have that 30% rule in place, can that legally be enforced? Like I say, I don't really know how all that kind of thing works, but I find it odd that UEFA can dictate to a private company how much they are allowed to pay someone for sponsorship. Is it a case that they have the rule on paper but in practice it's meaningless?

As an example, I used to have a non-compete clause in my contract at the company I used to work for. But ultimately when I went to a lawyer they said the company has no right to tell me who I work for so it was just letters on a piece of paper and they couldn't do anything about it if I went to a rival company. Is this maybe the case here?
 

Lilbaz

Just call me Baz
Joined
Apr 1, 2005
Messages
32,414
Thread starter #9
The question is though, and I'm no lawyer obviously so just wondering out loud, even though they have that 30% rule in place, can that legally be enforced? Like I say, I don't really know how all that kind of thing works, but I find it odd that UEFA can dictate to a private company how much they are allowed to pay someone for sponsorship.
I'm not sure tbh.

Uefa are not dictating to a private company how much money they can pay for sponsorship though. They are saying that we have a competition (cl, europa). If you wish to take part in it these are the criteria that you have to meet. City and psg do not have to enter the competition if they don't want to. It's their choice. The rules will be voted on by the 90 odd clubs that are members of uefa.
 

cider spurs

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2016
Messages
2,484
#10
Can just ser it now. Player purchasing capped at 100 million net. Each individual sponsor income capped, but numerous sponsors allowed.

End result...players wages increase astronomically from the spare wedge from not now allowed player signings.

Teams with the most cash offer the most wages and luck out to an extent in any case.

I think the new rules would help to an extent, but biggest clubs now already tend to pay the highest wages and i think this is the true crux of the problem.

But in no way can I see any ruling limiting what a player can earn.
 

Lilbaz

Just call me Baz
Joined
Apr 1, 2005
Messages
32,414
Thread starter #11
Can just ser it now. Player purchasing capped at 100 million net. Each individual sponsor income capped, but numerous sponsors allowed.

End result...players wages increase astronomically from the spare wedge from not now allowed for player signings.

Teams with the most cash offer the most wahes and luck out to an extent in any case.

I think the new rules would help to an extent, but biggest clubs now already tend to pay the highest wages and i think this is the true crux of the problem.

But in no way can I see any ruling limiting what a player can earn.
But premier league rules mean that you can only increase your total wage bill by £7m a season unless you increase revenue from other sources than tv.

Also only two teams in this country had a net spend of over €100m this year (both from manchester) so the rest of clubs will not be effected.
 

cider spurs

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2016
Messages
2,484
#13
But premier league rules mean that you can only increase your total wage bill by £7m a season unless you increase revenue from other sources than tv.

Also only two teams in this country had a net spend of over €100m this year (both from manchester) so the rest of clubs will not be effected.

Point conceded to a degree, but Arsenal are going to have to spend some serious wedge soon one would think, what about Chelsea if/when Conte goes.

Add to this player fees ever rising, that continues it'll have to have an impact eventually.
 

Lilbaz

Just call me Baz
Joined
Apr 1, 2005
Messages
32,414
Thread starter #14
Point conceded to a degree, but Arsenal are going to have to spend some serious wedge soon one would think, what about Chelsea if/when Conte goes.

Add to this player fees ever rising, that continues it'll have to have an impact eventually.
Agreed this doesn't do much about spiralling wages (apart from if psg and city are limited on how much sponsorship money they get).
Maybe in a couple of years we will have ffp 3.0.
Doesn't mean that the rules being brought in aren't good for the game though.
Wages are very difficult to handle though as you are dealing with different countries with different currencies, tax rates etc...

Arsenal and chelsea will be limited to €100m net spend on transfers.
 

cider spurs

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2016
Messages
2,484
#15
Agreed this doesn't do much about spiralling wages (apart from if psg and city are limited on how much sponsorship money they get).
Maybe in a couple of years we will have ffp 3.0.
Doesn't mean that the rules being brought in aren't good for the game though.
Wages are very difficult to handle though as you are dealing with different countries with different currencies, tax rates etc...

Oh yes, for sure. Totally agree the look of the new rules certainly seem a step in the right direction. (y)
 

dontcallme

SC Supporter
Joined
Mar 18, 2005
Messages
13,558
#16
Are these new rules going to be enforced or are they up for debate?

I'd like to see obscene amounts of money for players being capped.

There should be something in there about wages too but hey...you can't have it all...
I'm not sure a wage cap would achieve anything.

The players are getting a percentage of the profits. If there is a wage cap then they can just get higher bonuses anyway.

If there was somehow a cap on how much a player can be paid then more money will simply go into the owner's pockets.

The aim is for ticket prices to go down to make the game more accessible but unfortunately simply capping wages will not achieve that.

Demand is high, prices are high. World we live in.
 

rossdapep

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2011
Messages
4,535
#17
Can just ser it now. Player purchasing capped at 100 million net. Each individual sponsor income capped, but numerous sponsors allowed.

End result...players wages increase astronomically from the spare wedge from not now allowed player signings.

Teams with the most cash offer the most wages and luck out to an extent in any case.

I think the new rules would help to an extent, but biggest clubs now already tend to pay the highest wages and i think this is the true crux of the problem.

But in no way can I see any ruling limiting what a player can earn.
That could certainly be a problem but it's likely that these clubs would only be limited to one or two big signings per season and there's enough players to go round (exemp Neymar, Messi, Mbappe). Using Alexis Sanchez as an example and imagining that he's not a free agent in 6 months ; United offer him the biggest salary but have to pay 60m transfer fee for him. They're only allowed to spend a further 40m unless they sell big too and the only way they do that is by selling a big player therefore the squad kinda balances out again. Clubs would have to think extremely strategically and no longer short term as big signings that don't work out could cause huge problems for seasons to come.

I'm all for some of these reasons, what city do is an absolute sham. This would completely prevent it and basically tell them to use their squad and stop stock piling players.

I also hope they prevent clubs from stockpiling young players and loaning them out across the globe. This should be limited too.
 

Lilbaz

Just call me Baz
Joined
Apr 1, 2005
Messages
32,414
Thread starter #18
That could certainly be a problem but it's likely that these clubs would only be limited to one or two big signings per season and there's enough players to go round (exemp Neymar, Messi, Mbappe). Using Alexis Sanchez as an example and imagining that he's not a free agent in 6 months ; United offer him the biggest salary but have to pay 60m transfer fee for him. They're only allowed to spend a further 40m unless they sell big too and the only way they do that is by selling a big player therefore the squad kinda balances out again. Clubs would have to think extremely strategically and no longer short term as big signings that don't work out could cause huge problems for seasons to come.

I'm all for some of these reasons, what city do is an absolute sham. This would completely prevent it and basically tell them to use their squad and stop stock piling players.

I also hope they prevent clubs from stockpiling young players and loaning them out across the globe. This should be limited too.
In the new rules. Clubs limited to 25 players on their books aged over 21 including those out on loan.
 

rossdapep

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2011
Messages
4,535
#19
More a FIFA issue but id like to see all kids under the age of 23 to have a wage restriction of 2k per week or something. Kids will make better choices for their careers as it won't be entirely money driven, they won't be as entitled as some of them are, they'd work harder to improve and they'd still be very comfortable later in life should they get a career ending injury or drop down the leagues.
 
Top