What's new

Uefa introduces tough penalties for spendthrift clubs

Geez

Badges? We don't need no stinking badges!
Admin
Oct 1, 2003
14,324
7,399
Source: BBC

Profligate clubs face being banned from the Champions League and Europa League after European football's governing body Uefa approved new plans.

The example of Portsmouth, who became the first Premier League team to go into administration, has highlighted the financial excesses in England.

Uefa president Michel Platini has now passed rules which would force clubs to operate within their means.

Clubs will only be able to spend what they themselves generate.

Big cash injections from wealthy benefactors like the owners of Chelsea and Manchester City would also be restricted under Uefa's Financial Fair Play plan.

The system is being phased in and bans would not be able to be imposed theoretically until the 2014-15 season at the earliest.

Clubs are required to restructure themselves over the next three seasons so they are financially solvent.

Uefa general secretary Gianni Infantino said: "The main rule is the break-even requirement which will be phased in over the next three years.

"It is not as easy to swallow for everyone but everyone understands it is necessary. They are there not to punish clubs, they are there to help clubs. We don't want to kill anyone, this is why we have a phased-in approach."

But money invested in stadiums and youth development will not be included in the number-crunching.

The rules will also forbid clubs owing money to their rivals, players and staff or the tax authorities at the end of the season.

Portsmouth were a glaring example of a club which owed millions in unpaid transfer fees, image rights, tax and VAT.

Earlier this year, Infantino estimated 50% of clubs in Europe were making losses and 20% were in financial peril.

Big transfer fees can still be paid but clubs will need to generate sufficient funds through ticket sales, TV money and commercial revenue.

"If clubs want to spend €50, 60 or 70 million, why not, provided they have the money coming from their revenues, this will continue in the future. The problem is when you don't have the money," Infantino added.

The European Clubs' Association's president, former German international Karl-Heinz Rummenigge, welcomed the move, commenting: "The measures will shape the future of European football into a more responsible business and ultimately a more sustainable one."
 

cwy21

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2009
9,876
8,610
This will lead to a break-away league within 3 years, I predict.

Yep. Manchester United could sell the TV rights to their games for 99p for every game across the world. They might pull in 500 million a year (if not more) just from TV money with how popular they are in Asia.
 

spurdownunder

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2007
1,772
74
Could a Chelski or Citeh just call the cash injection from Roman and the Arab 'Sponsorship Revenue' and get arounsd the rule?

What's the difference between Roman sponsoring the club and Samsung sponsoring it?

Of course he would then have no recourse to recuop any of that cash, but the cash he's put in so far has been burned, so what's the diff?
 

Lilbaz

Just call me Baz
Apr 1, 2005
41,363
74,893
He can just issue more shares to himself. They will lose all value but same difference.
 

MR_BEN

Well-Known Member
Aug 5, 2005
3,164
1,581
its rediculous... a football club is first and foremost a football club. NOT a business! A football club is NOT there to make a profit - if owners want to chuck their millions at a club to make them successfull then why not? This will no doubt be taken through the european courts of law, and be overturned.

YES a club/business should not be able to continue to operate whilst insolvent (ala portsmouth)
YES... i agree with having no football debts, and no debt to the tax authorities etc
But i do not agree that a billionaire chairman should be prevented from investing their own money into a team to make them better? Afterall... this is just capital investment....risk and reward...the key principles of business.

When businesses are taken over, often they are loss making for a number of years while a programme of capital investment is taking place to improve the company and make it more profitable and successful in the future... is this not exactly what roman and the sheik have done?

All this means, is that the rich will stay rich.. and those with low turnovers, will never have the chance to catch up.

There will be many ways around it of course... ie the sponsorship idea mentioned earlier...but imho this wont happen. Not like this.
 

RichieS

Well-Known Member
Dec 23, 2004
11,916
16,436
Does the bit about not owing other clubs money at the end of the season affect Levy's unusually structured transfer payments? Am I no longer going to be able to pay for a player over 24 months on FM?
 

SlickMongoose

Copacetic
Feb 27, 2005
6,258
5,043
Could a Chelski or Citeh just call the cash injection from Roman and the Arab 'Sponsorship Revenue' and get arounsd the rule?

What's the difference between Roman sponsoring the club and Samsung sponsoring it?

Of course he would then have no recourse to recuop any of that cash, but the cash he's put in so far has been burned, so what's the diff?

There'd be a watchdog to make sure sponsorship was at reasonable market rates.
 

danielneeds

Kick-Ass
May 5, 2004
24,183
48,814
There will be about a million loop holes and ways round these regulations. Just like trying to impose regulations on banking, its virtually impossible, they will always hire some high-powered number crunchers to circumvent the rules.
 

Bronno

Member
Jul 11, 2004
541
7
There will be about a million loop holes and ways round these regulations. Just like trying to impose regulations on banking, its virtually impossible, they will always hire some high-powered number crunchers to circumvent the rules.

Football authorities tend to allow themselves quite a wide discretion when implementing rules though. Might open them to accusations of arbitrary decision-making, but would probably deal with loopholes relatively quickly on an ad hoc basis.

I think something does need to be done to curb the crazy spending of rich benefactors, so I'm interested to see how this will work in practice. At least the aim and purpose is there, they'll have to deal with issues as and when they arise.
 

DC_Boy

New Member
May 20, 2005
17,608
5
i support these moves, well done UEFA and platini

and if they led to a breakaway would absolutely love it

at last we'd have a reasonable chance of winning the title again

the breakaway clubs would soone come crawling back and I'd hope they were forced to start in the conference :)
 
Top