Michel Platini: Uefa to 'ease' financial fair play rules

Drifter

American
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
68,349
European football's governing body is preparing to relax the Financial Fair Play (FFP) rules it introduced in 2011 to stop clubs from overspending.

In an interview with French radio station RTL , Uefa president Michel Platini said FFP was "working well" but would be "eased" this summer.

This followed a report in Le Parisien newspaper on Sunday that said "significant changes" are on the table.

Manchester City and Paris St-Germain were fined last year for breaching FFP.

Platini's right-hand man at Uefa, general secretary Gianni Infantino , later confirmed to the BBC that talks about FFP with Europe's leading clubs were "ongoing", with a "number of amendments" under discussion.

"Financial fair play has proved successful in achieving considerable improvement in the financial health of European football," said Infantino.

"Aggregate net losses of Europe's clubs have fallen from 1.7bn euros in 2011 to 400m euros in 2014.

"Regular review of the regulations is vital to ensure they keep pace with the ever-changing football environment and the new challenges that this often poses.

"Any potential changes will look to encourage more growth, more competition and market stimulation while strengthening the emphasis on controlling spending and safeguarding financial stability."

The guiding principle of FFP is that clubs should stay within their means when it comes to buying and remunerating players: central to this is the so-called "break-even requirement" .

The rules have been phased in to allow clubs some leeway but many have struggled to stay within the criteria and several have been given sanctions that range from bans on registering new players, fines and even exclusion from European club competitions.

But criticism of FFP has grown over the last two seasons as many observers have pointed out that stopping clubs from spending more than they earn cements the status quo - without the ability to speculate with their own money, ambitious owners of smaller clubs can never compete with more established clubs for the best players.

Platini did not go into details with RTL, saying only that the clubs had voted for FFP in the first place but Uefa's executive committee was likely to revise them by the end of June, when it meets in Prague.


But he also alluded to French critics who say FFP has made it very difficult for Qatar-owned PSG to join Europe's elite, a position fans of Abu Dhabi-backed Manchester City share.

"The French press say it is not right that [Chelsea owner Roman] Abramovich can buy many players and in France they cannot buy them," he said.

"But if the Qataris had bought AC Milan, the French would also say we should make financial fair play even tougher. As it is, the Italians wanted it eased.

"The world is two-faced but we will say this openly: I think we'll ease things."

The article in Le Parisien went slightly further, suggesting the changes were a reaction to the "multiple legal actions (against FFP) currently in process, some of which are nearing conclusion".

Those legal actions are being spearheaded by Belgian lawyer Jean-Louis Dupont, who forced Uefa to overhaul its transfer rules with the Bosman Ruling in 1995.

Originally acting on behalf of a football agent, Dupont's challenge to FFP has now attracted support from fans of Manchester City, PSG and other clubs.

Dupont maintains FFP is contrary to basic European Union rules on free markets and he has filed complaints at courts in Brussels, Paris and Switzerland, as well as with the European Commission.

"We welcome the announcement of a change in the rules in line with the demands expressed by our clients in their various legal actions," Dupont said.

"When the exact content and scope of these changes are known, we will consider how this development, which on first sight appears favourable, is likely to meet their legitimate expectations and influence the conduct of ongoing actions."

A spokesman for the European Club Association, the body formed in 2008 to replace the G-14 group of elite clubs, confirmed it has been involved in talks with Uefa since December, those talks continue and a final decision was likely by the end of June.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/32784375
 

BigDunc9

Full Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2014
Messages
4,619
Location
Goodison Park
Supports
Everton
For the best anyway, unless you are Manchester United, Bayern, Madrid and the rest of the status quo.
 

Deleted member 78215

Guest
Pathetic really. Just as things were starting to look better with the likes of Juve, Atletico, even Arsenal's resurgence, it's all just going to go to pot. Feckin' shite club like City being able to spend what it wants... Grinds my gears.
 

Deleted member 78215

Guest
For the best anyway, unless you are Manchester United, Bayern, Madrid and the rest of the status quo.
Yeah, 'cause Chelsea/City/PSG have really been beneficial to other clubs... Getting taken over and bankrolled by a multi-billionaire - which is what is needed, you can't have just any ordinary billionaire - is so, so rare. Allowing oil-rich clubs free reign to spend whatever is not good for anybody. If you think by easing up on FFP a load of white knights are going to ride in and propel middling clubs upwards to success, you're sorely mistaken.
 

BobbyManc

Full Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2012
Messages
7,750
Location
The Wall
Supports
Man City
Pathetic really. Just as things were starting to look better with the likes of Juve, Atletico, even Arsenal's resurgence, it's all just going to go to pot. Feckin' shite club like City being able to spend what it wants... Grinds my gears.
Atletico, Juventus and Arsenal performing well recently has pretty much nothing to do with FFP.
 

BigDunc9

Full Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2014
Messages
4,619
Location
Goodison Park
Supports
Everton
Yeah, 'cause Chelsea/City/PSG have really been beneficial to other clubs... Getting taken over and bankrolled by a multi-billionaire - which is what is needed, you can't have just any ordinary billionaire - is so, so rare. Allowing oil-rich clubs free reign to spend whatever is not good for anybody. If you think by easing up on FFP a load of white knights are going to ride in and propel middling clubs upwards to success, you're sorely mistaken.
Rather see Chelsea and City challenge rather than the same old clubs each year. If I was a United fan I would feel the same way as you but from the way I see it it is to protect the already established super clubs.
 

Tyrion

Full Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2014
Messages
5,197
Location
Ireland
Inevitable really. FFP means that the sugar daddy clubs can't pump so much money into football and therefore, there are plenty in football who will react against it (interesting that Dupont was working for an agent).

Hopefully their greed won't see football go the way of rugby where Toulon win 3 European Cups in a row just because of the money.
And hopefully, the big clubs like Barca, Real, Bayern and United are able to prevent football from being a sport where rich owners just share the trophies between them.

"The French press say it is not right that [Chelsea owner Roman] Abramovich can buy many players and in France they cannot buy them," he said.

"But if the Qataris had bought AC Milan, the French would also say we should make financial fair play even tougher. As it is, the Italians wanted it eased.
:confused:
People on British tv are saying the opposite.
 

Deleted member 78215

Guest
Atletico, Juventus and Arsenal performing well recently has pretty much nothing to do with FFP.
The fact that Juve and A. Madrid have gotten to the CL finals is definitely down to FFP. Imagine if City/PSG/Chelsea had been able to spend whatever these last three years or so.

As for Arsenal, if City and Chelsea are able to spend what they want, with ourselves also having a financial advantage, they'll be bak competing for the 4th Place Trophy before too long.

Basically, it's shit. You're a City fan, you're obviously never going to agree.
 

BobbyManc

Full Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2012
Messages
7,750
Location
The Wall
Supports
Man City
Rather see Chelsea and City challenge rather than the same old clubs each year. If I was a United fan I would feel the same way as you but from the way I see it it is to protect the already established super clubs.
It's incredible the amount of people who deny the point of your second sentence. Platini on record has said FFP was introduced following the requests of owners including Abramovic, yet you'll still get people laughably pointing to the demise of Portsmouth and Rangers as the real reason FFP was established. I have no problem with people arguing FFP is fair and justified, but to deny its origin and purpose is silly.
 

PlayerOne

Part of first caf team to complete Destiny raid
Joined
Mar 22, 2014
Messages
9,664
Location
London
Can't be having PSG missing out on players like they did last summer!
 

BigDunc9

Full Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2014
Messages
4,619
Location
Goodison Park
Supports
Everton
Inevitable really. FFP means that the sugar daddy clubs can't pump so much money into football and therefore, there are plenty in football who will react against it (interesting that Dupont was working for an agent).

Hopefully their greed won't see football go the way of rugby where Toulon win 3 European Cups in a row just because of the money.
And hopefully, the big clubs like Barca, Real, Bayern and United are able to prevent football from being a sport where rich owners just share the trophies between them.



:confused:
People on British tv are saying the opposite.
Instead Barca, United, Real and Bayern can outspend everyone and win all the trophies themselves. Instead of being a sport where all the rich clubs accumulate all the trophies it can be a sport where erm... All the rich clubs can accumulate all the trophies.
 

Hemil

New Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2014
Messages
1,043
Supports
Chelsea
The fact that Juve and A. Madrid have gotten to the CL finals is definitely down to FFP. Imagine if City/PSG/Chelsea had been able to spend whatever these last three years or so.

As for Arsenal, if City and Chelsea are able to spend what they want, with ourselves also having a financial advantage, they'll be bak competing for the 4th Place Trophy before too long.

Basically, it's shit. You're a City fan, you're obviously never going to agree.
What else have Arse done last 3 years?
 

Ole's_toe_poke

Ole_Aged_Slow_Poke
Joined
Jan 7, 2009
Messages
36,846
I must say I agree with Gary Neville about FFP. It should be about stopping a Portsmouth type situation, not about stopping other clubs from coming up through owners who want to build up a club.

I suppose it's a bit of "luck of the draw" with which club gets what kind of owner.

The tranditional powers will remain strong as always. Why stop others from coming up?

If you look at the UCL since Abramovich came on the scene only one of the sugar daddy clubs have actually won the competition i.e. Chelsea in 2012. Even that was when they were massive underdogs.The rest have been won by more established clubs. So the actual landscape of football hasn't changed much.

For me, I find something like the unfair TV deal in Spain far more concerning than a few clubs coming up through spending money.
 

Deleted member 78215

Guest
Rather see Chelsea and City challenge rather than the same old clubs each year. If I was a United fan I would feel the same way as you but from the way I see it it is to protect the already established super clubs.
That's so strange, though, especially when it comes to the detriment of your own club. Take last year for example; remove City and Chelsea and Everton are in the top four. Yes, that is a bit of a silly hypothetical, but my point is that with this almost synthetic advantage provided by Mansour/Abramovich, no club is going to be able to organically compete. It means your Tottenhams, Liverpools, Evertons, all big, historical clubs will have their ambitions cut down to Europa League football, whereas without the oil clubs, there'd be a chance of Champions League.
 

Tyrion

Full Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2014
Messages
5,197
Location
Ireland
Instead Barca, United, Real and Bayern can outspend everyone and win all the trophies themselves. Instead of being a sport where all the rich clubs accumulate all the trophies it can be a sport where erm... All the rich clubs can accumulate all the trophies.
There's a middle ground you know. I'd rather there be a limit on spending and wages that applies to everyone but FFP is better than nothing.
 

Eboue

nasty little twerp with crazy bitter-man opinions
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
61,201
Location
I'm typing this with my Glock 19 two feet from me
Hopefully their greed won't see football go the way of rugby where Toulon win 3 European Cups in a row just because of the money.
And hopefully, the big clubs like Barca, Real, Bayern and United are able to prevent football from being a sport where rich owners just share the trophies between them.
Yeah it would be awful if rich clubs dominated trophies year after year. You might even see one super rich club win 13 out of 20 league titles. If that ever happened, football would have well and truly gone mad.
 

BobbyManc

Full Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2012
Messages
7,750
Location
The Wall
Supports
Man City
The fact that Juve and A. Madrid have gotten to the CL finals is definitely down to FFP. Imagine if City/PSG/Chelsea had been able to spend whatever these last three years or so.

As for Arsenal, if City and Chelsea are able to spend what they want, with ourselves also having a financial advantage, they'll be bak competing for the 4th Place Trophy before too long.

Basically, it's shit. You're a City fan, you're obviously never going to agree.
It's not about being a City fan at all, I fail to see how Atletico's success or that of Juventus is linked to FFP. Atletico overcame Real Madrid and Barcelona, two sides who FFP benefits, not hinders, so relaxing the rules is not going to make any difference to them. City have been defeated by Barcelona in the last two seasons of the CL, I do not think the reason for that is FFP hindering our spending, it was because we made mistakes tactically and the fact Barcelona are just a much superior side. Besides, the article claims FFP rules will only be relaxed, and City's restrictions on spending are set to be lifted at the end of this season anyway, provided we comply with them this year.
 

Tyrion

Full Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2014
Messages
5,197
Location
Ireland
That's so strange, though, especially when it comes to the detriment of your own club. Take last year for example; remove City and Chelsea and Everton are in the top four. Yes, that is a bit of a silly hypothetical, but my point is that with this almost synthetic advantage provided by Mansour/Abramovich, no club is going to be able to organically compete. It means your Tottenhams, Liverpools, Evertons, all big, historical clubs will have their ambitions cut down to Europa League football, whereas without the oil clubs, there'd be a chance of Champions League.
I think too many people fall for that. I remember on Sunday supplement a while ago, one of them said FFP "stopped clubs dreaming". :lol:
There needs to be a way for clubs like Dortmund or Southampton to progress and develop. As opposed to allowing rich owners to just pump a club full of money.
 

Deleted member 78215

Guest
What else have Arse done last 3 years?
Arsenal are in a position now where, with a couple of key signings, they'll be competing for the league, ceteris paribus. If the purse strings at Chelsea and City are loosened, however, they'll have no chance.

It's really convenient (read: obviously dodgy) that this 'easing' comes at a point where City are in need of a massive squad overhaul.
 

Tyrion

Full Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2014
Messages
5,197
Location
Ireland
Yeah it would be awful if rich clubs dominated trophies year after year. You might even see one super rich club win 13 out of 20 league titles. If that ever happened, football would have well and truly gone mad.
We didn't win them because we were rich. We won them because we had possibly the best manager of all time.

Did you notice that the same club finished 7th the year after he left? Did all our money vanish?

Arsenal are in a position now where, with a couple of key signings, they'll be competing for the league, ceteris paribus.
This is off topic but let's be fair: they've been in that position for years now.
 

Deleted member 78215

Guest
It's not about being a City fan at all, I fail to see how Atletico's success or that of Juventus is linked to FFP. Atletico overcame Real Madrid and Barcelona, two sides who FFP benefits, not hinders, so relaxing the rules is not going to make any difference to them. City have been defeated by Barcelona in the last two seasons of the CL, I do not think the reason for that is FFP hindering our spending, it was because we made mistakes tactically and the fact Barcelona are just a much superior side. Besides, the article claims FFP rules will only be relaxed, and City's restrictions on spending are set to be lifted at the end of this season anyway, provided we comply with them this year.
It's obviously related to FFP because, without it, you'd have a much better team and wouldn't be relying in players you bought nearly five years ago. My point is that if your oil clubs are allowed to spend whatever they want - and let's face it, they have almost limitless resources - then we're not going to see a Dortmund, Atletico, Juve near the CL for a long, long time.
 

BigDunc9

Full Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2014
Messages
4,619
Location
Goodison Park
Supports
Everton
That's so strange, though, especially when it comes to the detriment of your own club. Take last year for example; remove City and Chelsea and Everton are in the top four. Yes, that is a bit of a silly hypothetical, but my point is that with this almost synthetic advantage provided by Mansour/Abramovich, no club is going to be able to organically compete. It means your Tottenhams, Liverpools, Evertons, all big, historical clubs will have their ambitions cut down to Europa League football, whereas without the oil clubs, there'd be a chance of Champions League.
Your hypothetical situations are probably true but at the same time it would most likely be a 4th placed finish every now and again. The only sustainable way Everton could regularly compete for a league title again against United is if a billionaire buys us and FFP stops that from happening . OK you get the odd one out like Atletico but that is extremely rare. How can Everton compete when the rules are you spend what you earn and United earn probably sextuple what we do?
 

BobbyManc

Full Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2012
Messages
7,750
Location
The Wall
Supports
Man City
That's so strange, though, especially when it comes to the detriment of your own club. Take last year for example; remove City and Chelsea and Everton are in the top four. Yes, that is a bit of a silly hypothetical, but my point is that with this almost synthetic advantage provided by Mansour/Abramovich, no club is going to be able to organically compete. It means your Tottenhams, Liverpools, Evertons, all big, historical clubs will have their ambitions cut down to Europa League football, whereas without the oil clubs, there'd be a chance of Champions League.
And let's see what happened to the best players of these 'organic' clubs when they showed signs of progress. Bale was snapped up by Madrid. Suarez was snapped up by Barca. United signed Rooney. The fact is, the second the organic clubs become a threat, the established clubs sign their best players, and that is a fact of football with or without the sugar daddy clubs.
 

Señor

Humongous twit who can't read
Joined
Jan 5, 2014
Messages
8,721
I definitely think it needs relaxing but as a United fan, I'd rather see FFP than no FFP at all, as obviously it benefits us more than any other club in the world.
 

Deleted member 78215

Guest
We didn't win them because we were rich. We won them because we had possibly the best manager of all time.

Did you notice that the same club finished 7th the year after he left? Did all our money vanish?
Exactly. Like we dominated because of our money... We weren't even the biggest spenders in the 90s, let alone the 2000s. And we won five of those titles after Chelsea arrived, at which point they proceeded to spend ONE BILLION.
 

Eboue

nasty little twerp with crazy bitter-man opinions
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
61,201
Location
I'm typing this with my Glock 19 two feet from me
We didn't win them because we were rich. We won them because we had possibly the best manager of all time.

Did you notice that the same club finished 7th the year after he left? Did all our money vanish?



This is off topic but let's be fair: they've been in that position for years now.
No other club in the league could have dreamt of spending the amount of money Man Utd did on a defender and a teenager back then. Buying Ferdinand and Rooney was simply a non starter at those prices for every other club.
 

Deleted member 78215

Guest
We didn't win them because we were rich. We won them because we had possibly the best manager of all time.

Did you notice that the same club finished 7th the year after he left? Did all our money vanish?



This is off topic but let's be fair: they've been in that position for years now.
Nah, Arsenal are in good shape. If City were still limited by FFP for next season, they'd have a real job competing for the title.
 

Nanook

Full Member
Joined
May 8, 2014
Messages
2,730
Location
The Horsehead Nebula
We didn't win them because we were rich. We won them because we had possibly the best manager of all time.

Did you notice that the same club finished 7th the year after he left? Did all our money vanish?


This is off topic but let's be fair: they've been in that position for years now.
The money Manchester United had was just as big of a factor in our success as Ferguson.