BBC Sport: La Liga asks Uefa to investigate Man City's financial fair play

[Brwned]

Nobody said anything about anyone on here. You using the Arab families skin colour as a factor in all this is the pathetic race card.

The reality is that lots of people will say they openly dislike Muslim people - e.g. here you have 1/4 of the American population and almost 1/2 of republicans saying they are unfavourable towards "the muslim people" (Q51a). That's not purely a religious thing either - 1/2 of Americans and 2/3 of Republicans are unfavourable towards "the muslim religion". It's not that much of a stretch to say that dislike will influence their decisions, given the history of discriminatory practices we've seen against gender, ethnicity, religion etc. in much of the world in modern times. Suggesting it is the cause of this issue is irresponsible, but suggesting it isn't a factor either is too...

It's not just Muslims either...

In Kteily’s studies, participants — typically groups of mostly white Americans — are shown this (scientifically inaccurate) image of a human ancestor slowly learning how to stand on two legs and become fully human. And then they are told to rate members of different groups — such as Muslims, Americans, and Swedes — on how evolved they are on a scale of 0 to 100.

Many people in these studies give members of other groups a perfect score, 100, fully human. But many others give others scores putting them closer to animals.

With the “Ascent of Man” tool, Kteily and collaborators Emile Bruneau, Adam Waytz, and Sarah Cotterill found that, on average, Americans rate other Americans as being highly evolved, with an average score in the 90s. But disturbingly, many also rated Muslims, Mexican immigrants, and Arabs as less evolved.

“We typically see scores that average 75, 76,” for Muslims, Kteily says. And about a quarter of study participants will rate Muslims on a score of 60 or below.

 

[Ramshock]

Of course it has a lot to do with the origin of the owners (and contempt for the clubs not belonging to the established football aristocracy). The vast majority of successful football clubs in history benefited from sugar daddies or other forms of financial help. People are acting as if what is happening in Manchester and Paris is something new but it really isn't. The only thing new with these owners is their background.

See how noone complains about the Milan AC transfer dealings.

feck me its catching. Milan have not spent anywhere near the amounts of PSG and City

 

[Lizard]

Ah yes, the La Liga, the ultimate upholders of Fair Play, a league that's so incredibly fair 18 clubs are financially starved to death while the other two haven't earned an honest euro since 1900s, and get bailed out more than Goldman Sachs, just so they can crash every other European market and take away best talent, then waste them on the bench so that the clown on steroids and tax-evading midget can play every minute of every game, being utterly shite.

Man City clearly in the wrong, should get a lifetime ban, to be completely honest here lads.

 

[M18CTID]

Its UEFA that investigate this not the EDL or BNP ffs. What some racist toe rag in the stands thinks about Citys owners has got feck all to do with this.

Calm down sunshine - not for one moment have I suggested that. What I was saying was just an extension of the "owner's companies sponsoring their own clubs" angle. I've already set out my explanation as to why La Liga might be making this complaint and the so-called "race card" wasn't applicable to La Liga's complaint.

 

[Rob]

Yeah, he could.

He’d need to make sure the club was “legitimately” sponsored by the Not-Dodgy-At-All Tourism Agency Of Whatever for gazillions, though. But you can do that easily enough, as proven elsewhere.

Still, if you want to use a football club either as a cock extension or as a means to boosting your reputation (otherwise somewhat dubious because of human rights issues and whatnot) among the general public in Europe, you’d probably prefer a club in a bigger league, one that more people are aware of in the first place.

Alright, thanks. I guess that means that FFP doesn't really mean anything then. With Citys and PSGs spending I suppose I already knew that, though.

 

[Ramshock]

The reality is that lots of people will say they openly dislike Muslim people - e.g. here you have 1/4 of the American population and almost 1/2 of republicans saying they are unfavourable towards "the muslim people" (Q51a). That's not purely a religious thing either - 1/2 of Americans and 2/3 of Republicans are unfavourable towards "the muslim religion". It's not that much of a stretch to say that dislike will influence their decisions, given the history of discriminatory practices we've seen against gender, ethnicity, religion etc. in much of the world in modern times. It's not just Muslims either...

So UEFA are racist in pursuing FFP abusers who both happen to be rich arabs?

 

[Redlambs]

Oh great, the "omg racism!" Crowd are out again.

Personally, I don't think it's about the colour of skin. Seeing as money is money and this is more about where the money is coming from than the colour of those real bad guys providing it.

 

[BBRBB]

People were complaining when Chelsea threw around the money, people were wary about Chinese money, in Germany a lot of people hate RB and their Austrian money and I'm sure a lot of fans in Italy will resent Milan's spending. The only reason the latter aren't in the spotlight is because PSG and their dealings are overshadowing them.
To play the race card here is ignorant and pathetic.

I suggest you do a little research especially on this Javier Tebas guy. Or not if you want to keep your innocence and keep living in a world where racism doesn't exist, especially at the top of football. Ignorance is bliss.

 

[Ramshock]

Calm down sunshine - not for one moment have I suggested that. What I was saying was just an extension of the "owner's companies sponsoring their own clubs" angle. I've already set out my explanation as to why La Liga might be making this complaint and the so-called "race card" wasn't applicable to La Liga's complaint.

Alright Bertie whatever floats your boat

 

[NinjaZombie]

Jesus wept Seriously, where was I playing the race card? I've not accused a single person on this forum of being racist - all I was doing was pointing out that City's owner has come in for a lot of racist abuse down the years from football fans and media alike.

Because people have strong feelings on state funded clubs who artificially make up big sponsorship deals as a way to get past regulations.

 

[Ramshock]

I suggest you do a little research especially on this Javier Tebas guy. Or not if you want to keep your innocence and keep living in a world where racism doesn't exist, especially at the top of football. Ignorance is bliss.

I suggest you wise up.

 

[JASR]

Nobody said anything about anyone on here. You using the Arab families skin colour as a factor in all this is the pathetic race card.

Not really.

Man City : 'Oil backed Arab sheik plaything'
Is often bandied about from rival supporters all the way through to media headlines.

Man Utd : 'debt laden Jewish shopkeepers piggybank'
Isn't mentioned much.

Neither is completely accurate...
Both are seriously out of order...

...But only one of them is the day to day bread and butter of mainstream reportage and comments.

OT:
UEFA (who city fans really don't have much love for), have filed the complaint against City in the bin. If there was anything done by City against the rules of UEFA, it would have been persued. There isn't. PSG on the other hand...clearly have some case to answer to, as UEFA have acted with unexpected alacrity to investigate.

 

[Redlambs]

Not really.

Man City : 'Oil backed Arab sheik plaything'
Is often bandied about from rival supporters all the way through to media headlines.

Man Utd : 'debt laden Jewish shopkeepers piggybank'
Isn't mentioned much.

Neither is completely accurate...
Both are seriously out of order...

...But only one of them is the day to day bread and butter of mainstream reportage and comments.

OT:
UEFA (who city fans really don't have much love for), have filed the complaint against City in the bin. If there was anything done by City against the rules of UEFA, it would have been persued. There isn't. PSG on the other hand...clearly have some case to answer to, as UEFA have acted with unexpected alacrity to investigate.

Where are you getting that description of Man Utd from?

 

[The holy trinity 68]

Of course it has a lot to do with the origin of the owners (and contempt for the clubs not belonging to the established football aristocracy). The vast majority of successful football clubs in history benefited from sugar daddies or other forms of financial help. People are acting as if what is happening in Manchester and Paris is something new but it really isn't. The only thing new with these owners is their background.

See how noone complains about the Milan AC transfer dealings.

What a complete load or rubbish, clutching at straws here.

People had a big problem in the past when Abromovich went on a spending spree at Chelsea. People must have been doing it because of racism then? The difference between the past and now is that FFP didn't exist therefore there was no rule to break. Rules are potentially being broken, and City owners aren't being accused because of their race. They have broken the rules once before and was nothing to do with racism. It was the fact they they broke the rules set in place.

City have spent £200 million plus for a good few years now. That isn't sustainable for a club such as City. Milan spent £203m but for the 3 seasons prior combined, they spent £120m. City have spent £410m in 2 season compared to Milans £323 in 4 season. Big difference. Milan got rid of 23 players from their books in the transfer window, albeit loans or transfers.

Trying to justify the reason that this has everything to do with race and religion and nothing to do with rule breaches is ludicrous.

 

[Ramshock]

Oh great, the "omg racism!" Crowd are out again.

Personally, I don't think it's about the colour of skin. Seeing as money is money and this is more about where the money is coming from than the colour of those real bad guys providing it.

Im guessing when Abramovich was buying all around him and people complained it wasnt racism. When Murdoch was denied buying United on competition grounds it wasnt racism and so on and so on.

 

[M18CTID]

Alright Bertie whatever floats your boat

Bertie? I much prefer bitter blue c*nt

 

[Ramshock]

Not really.

Man City : 'Oil backed Arab sheik plaything'
Is often bandied about from rival supporters all the way through to media headlines.

Man Utd : 'debt laden Jewish shopkeepers piggybank'
Isn't mentioned much.

Neither is completely accurate...
Both are seriously out of order...

...But only one of them is the day to day bread and butter of mainstream reportage and comments.

OT:
UEFA (who city fans really don't have much love for), have filed the complaint against City in the bin. If there was anything done by City against the rules of UEFA, it would have been persued. There isn't. PSG on the other hand...clearly have some case to answer to, as UEFA have acted with unexpected alacrity to investigate.

Complete rubbish

 

[Ramshock]

Bertie? I much prefer bitter blue c*nt

Nah thats racist to Smurfs

 

[Redlambs]

Im guessing when Abramovich was buying all around him and people complained it wasnt racism. When Murdoch was denied buying United on competition grounds it wasnt racism and so on and so on.

You'd think pointing out skin colour and assuming they are different would actually be racist.

But hey, 2017 and all that.

 

[Ramshock]

You'd think pointing out skin colour and assuming they are different would actually be racist.

But hey, 2017 and all that.

Yep a mostly white supporter base at Old Trafford protesting the clubs very white owners and the debt they put on the club...very racist

 

[prateik]

Are City trying to sign Messi? That would be enough for Barca to go crying to La Liga/.

 

[M18CTID]

Complete rubbish

Crikey, I don't want to bring this all up again but the fact is that "Oil backed Arab sheikh plaything" is exactly the kind of term that has been bandied about by some (note, I said some and not all) opposition fans and journalists down the years when referencing City's owner. So no, it's not complete rubbish mate

 

[Ramshock]

Crikey, I don't want to bring this all up again but the fact is that "Oil backed Arab sheikh plaything" is exactly the kind of term that has been bandied about by some (note, I said some and not all) opposition fans and journalists down the years when referencing City's owner. So no, it's not complete rubbish mate

UEFA are anti arab then okay

 

[BBRBB]

I suggest you wise up.

Alright mate, looking away in sight of racism will be put higher on my list of goals to achieve to become a wiser man. It already works for most people thanks for your help.

 

[Revan]

Yeah, let's bring the race into it. Well done. This issue has nothing to do with where PSG/City owners are from but what they do. And it doesn't matter whether top Spanish clubs are hypocrites, we all are when it suits us, the question is whether they are in the right here, and they are.

It was bound to happen, sooner or later. The longer UEFA would ignore this nonsense, the more pissed of clubs would come demanding some action. This summer it's Neymar to PSG, next year they'll go after Messi/Pogba/Hazard, etc. I can understand United fans enjoying Real/Barca misery, still sore after the Ronaldo saga all those years ago, but they wouldn't be laughing when/if City or PSG come after Pogba next summer.

And to those suggesting the CL can't afford to lose PSG/City, you can't be serious. It's the other way around, they can't afford not to be in it. If the likes of Real, Barca, Bayern, MU, Juve, etc. join forces and threaten to walk away and create their own competition, UEFA will have no choice but to take some strict measures.

You support Chelsea, right?

 

[AR87]

Crikey, I don't want to bring this all up again but the fact is that "Oil backed Arab sheikh plaything" is exactly the kind of term that has been bandied about by some (note, I said some and not all) opposition fans and journalists down the years when referencing City's owner. So no, it's not complete rubbish mate

It is rubbish, because your assumption is not the absurd, state funded spending that aggrieves people, but rather the identity associated with the person spending. Do you really think anybody would complain about City's spending if it was in line with how Chelsea have been doing business over the last 5-6 years under Abramovich?

 

[M18CTID]

UEFA are anti arab then okay

fecking hell, how hard is this? Where did he mention UEFA? He was talking about opposition fans and people in the media.

 

[M18CTID]

It is rubbish, because your assumption is not the absurd, state funded spending that aggrieves people, but rather the identity associated with the person spending. Do you really think anybody would complain about City's spending if it was in line with how Chelsea have been doing business over the last 5-6 years under Abramovich?

FFS, this is getting silly now. All that was pointed out was that some people (NOT all people) who have an issue with City's (and PSG's) spending are motivated more by racism than anything else. Others will have issues for other reasons. Is that too hard to friggin' well grasp?

 

[M18CTID]

You support Chelsea, right?

He does, which makes his rantings about City's spending all the more laughable.

 

[KM]

Where are you getting that description of Man Utd from?

It's from Bluemoon obviously.

 

[Hojoon]

Barca and La Liga probably lost it when they heard rumors of City signing Messi. Neymar and Messi, along with Cristiano, are by far the three most marketable players on the planet and losing two of them would be a blow.

 

[Varun]

Maybe it's more to do with Real/Barca/La lige being utter cnuts for years and now when things don't go their way that act like little pathetic bitches at every opportunity?

Don't get me wrong, I agree with the stance, but just not coming from them. It's so hypocritical and ridiculous that they only care now they are at risk.

That's why people may be against this.

Yes, I can understand that as it's true but you gotta expect that really. Everyone's looking after their own interest only.

 

[M18CTID]

It's from Bluemoon obviously.

Link please

 

[redshaw]

Barcelona should sell their cloakroom for 700m, tie them over for a bit.

 

[Revan]

Of course it has a lot to do with the origin of the owners (and contempt for the clubs not belonging to the established football aristocracy). The vast majority of successful football clubs in history benefited from sugar daddies or other forms of financial help. People are acting as if what is happening in Manchester and Paris is something new but it really isn't. The only thing new with these owners is their background.

See how noone complains about the Milan AC transfer dealings.

This is just partially true. While pretty much every club has benefitted from sugar daddies sometime during their existence, what City and PSG have been doing is on a level of their own and totally unprecedented (Chelsea is the closest thing to that, but still a bit off).

People ain't complaining about Milan cause they are still relatively harmless and have been shopping on B list (Juve wanted Bonucci off and he wanted to stay in Italy). When they start signing Pogba and Neymar people will complain.

At the other side, I think that there is a merit on your argument. The debate is more an 'elitist' one rather than a 'racist' one. Barca signing Veratti - business as usual. PSG signing Neymar = the end of the world. So Milan's spending (being near as high as City's vs a much lower revenue) by being a traditionally big club might go unnoticed.

Good news is, UEFA isn't doing anything about it. Not because they don't care, but clubs like PSG and City were never an objective of FFP. FFP was created to help small clubs not going bankrupt, not to stop outside money going into football.

 

[JPRouve]

I though the idea was that a club had to make it's own revenue.

English isn't my first language, so forgive me if you answered this already, but shouldn't those "illegal" rules then take away the ability to take over a club like City and then inject it with a shitload of money?

Does that then mean that an oilsheik could potentially buy FC Copenhagen and buy all the best players in the world and pay them double of what they would get elsewhere?

Yes, a rich businessman could buy the FC Copenhagen and buy all the best players in the world but since the UEFA competitions are invitation based they could subjectively decide to not invite the team. As for the revenue part, the owner of a company/association is free to invest his own money into his property, the means of a company don't stop at their revenues, not all associations have to be profitable.

The UEFA effectively limits the possibilities of investment and therefore development and that's for the sole benefits of the haves against the have nots. I don't mind it because it's a choice for the clubs, they don't have to follow the rules but there is no moral high grounds in that conversation. No one is better than the other

 

[M18CTID]

What supporting evidence do you think they need to suspect or pretty much know that PSG's legitimate revenue couldn't afford Neymar? It requires one or more employee at La Liga to be capable of basic maths.

It's sour grapes yes, but UEFA put the rule in place so they SHOULD enforce it. Having rules and then choosing when they apply and who they apply to is obviously wrong and will just lead to no end of trouble.

I doubt the Neymar deal is why City have been dragged into it. La Liga see the Premier League as a threat, especially with the TV deal money, and you've been picked out because you're the obvious biggest spenders. United probably can justify their spending and the only other target would be Chelsea who have been less consistent with their spending than City in the last few years. They are trying to put pressure on UEFA to protect them from the PL, PSG etc....but to be honest the money you've spent in the last two years is pretty silly so it was only a matter of time before someone whined about it. It's worse than what we've been up to, and in the past few years we've basically bought a new team, then scrapped that and bought a new one again...whilst overpaying for nearly every single player.

It does need to be brought into line (not City specifically, just the inconsistency of these silly spending rules). UEFA either need to come up with something that is self enforcing and consistent to everyone, or just scrap the whole idea. Having something in between is a terrible solution...it allows situations like this where one person can use it as a tool against another and everyone can cry foul play when they are picked on.

Ok, this is a much better post and I agree with quite a lot of it. We're both agreed that it's sour grapes on the part of La Liga. However, they can't just demand that UEFA investigate certain clubs for suspected breaches of FFP. That's not how it works - UEFA do their own investigating and draw their own conclusions from that. I suspect that City have been sniffing round Messi (certain people at our club have had a hard-on for him for years) and that's why we may have been dragged into this as he hasn't signed his new deal and IIRC he's a free agent at the end of this season. If PSG hadn't bought Neymar and City weren't interested in Messi then this complaint doesn't go in, plain and simple. Daft thing is. PSG could've swerved Neymar, bought 6 players for a combined total of £300 million this summer, and nobody would've batted an eyelid but because they bought 1 player for £200 million then suddenly everyone is up in arms. And let's not forget that the Neymar deal wouldn't have happened if Barca had inserted a Ronaldo-esque release clause of 1 billion Euros into his contract. They cocked up by setting the release clause too low - remember United were interested in buying him last year so they should've spotted the warning signs then.

Oh, and yes like you say, there has been a lot of skriking from other countries about the Premier League TV deal. It's quite funny seeing that because I seem to remember when English football was on it's arse back in the 80's and early 90's with most of the big money and best players being in the Italian and Spanish leagues no-one was complaining much about it. God knows what they'll be saying when the next set of PL TV rights is up for grabs and an even bigger deal than the current one is negotiated.

 

[Trizy]

feck City & PSG but also feck Madrid & Barca. Rock and hard place.

Take Neymar, Greizmann, Ronaldo & Messi from La Liga what are they left with? A declining Suarez? Buy them all.

 

[manunited1919]

Maybe this has less to do with the transfer market and Neymar situation than with Manchester City buying Girona. Real Madrid and Barca have had zero competition in picking up players such as Isco, Ascencio etc from other weaker Spanish clubs. Now City is coming into their turf and will upset their canteras.

 

[redshaw]

Also big spending from a historically big club like Milan, Madrid doesn't ruffle many feathers if it's from scrupulous means. When you have the likes of PSG and City it will be seen as winning the lottery and upsetting the status quo.

Would be funny see some billionaires take over Valenica or Deportivo and start pilling in the money to the level of what we've seen at PSG/City and change the TV deals structure.