da bet7k： In 1973, Pink Floyd accidentally stumbled upon a trend that would become prevalent in football 37 years down the line. “Money, get away, Get a good job with more pay, And you’re okay; Money, it’s a gas, Grab that cash with both hands, And make a stash; New car, caviar, four star daydream, Think I’ll buy me a football team…”
da betway： What Roger Waters couldn’t possibly have foreseen while he penned the track in the early seventies was that one of the then AS Nancy players would go on to lead European Football’s governing body and set about an attempt at imposing rules to their competitions that would all but end the hopes of winning (or even entering) those competitions for anybody who wishes to fund a football team that they have bought with their own money.
On the face of it, Michel Platini’s financial fair play rules would be a good move for the sport. It makes perfect sense to every right thinking person that no company, business or individual should constantly spend more money than they are bringing in and rely on loans from banks, other companies or individuals. Regularly borrowing money to fund your latest purchases isn’t a sensible way to stay out of the red.
But football doesn’t really work like that.
UEFA is currently considering whether or not clubs that don’t live “within their means” should be allowed into the Champions League and Europa League from the 2012/13 season. Just to put that into context, should this rule have come in for the coming season, fourteen of last year’s Premier League members would not be allowed to play in Europe next season. That would mean one Europa League placed would go to a Championship team…
This would mean the competition for the best teams in Europe would contain six of the twenty best teams in England and one team from below that. Which is just complete madness – this is clearly not only going to apply to England; it’ll apply to the rest of Europe, too. Would millions of people tune in to see a Serie B side face a lower Premier League team in the Champions League, both of which only qualified because the league winners and subsequent teams in lower places of their respective countries were banned for not living within their means?
The problem is that this is a system that shouldn’t be enforced on clubs, certainly not now. The clubs that have been playing in the Champions League for the last fifteen or so years, for example, have had a much higher income than those that haven’t been involved in the competition during that time. These clubs, therefore, can afford to spend more money on transfers and wages than others, if those others aren’t allowed to use money provided by cash injections from wealthy owners.
Given that this system, should it come in, won’t start until 2012/13, it gives those teams who are regular qualifiers for the Champions League two seasons to sort out their finances to allow them to qualify. Assuming that they do, they will, inevitably, be the only teams who can afford to qualify in the future: they will have the best income in the league and, therefore, will be able to spend the most in the league.
How can Michel Platini congratulate a club the size and stature of Fulham for reaching the Europa League final in one interview and then, in another, outline measures to ensure that they wouldn’t be able to spend enough money on transfers and wages to be able to reach a league position that allowed them to qualify without simultaneously disqualifying them from qualification?
This rule just seems to be a veiled way of maintaining the status quo. It would do nothing but exclude teams with relatively small gate receipts, fanbases, merchandise sales and other income streams and preserve the income of those at the top.
I can fully understand the reasons why these rules are being discussed; as I said, spending within your means makes perfect sense. But it is totally unfair to allow clubs to spend whatever they want and be financed by sugar daddies for over a hundred years, then suddenly force them to have to stop in three seasons’ time (with an extra three year cooling off period, too).
Teams have previously been able to build up an income stream by spending money they didn’t have to get them to the top: attracting more fans, more merchandise sales, more gate receipts and even more TV money. Now, should this ruling be passed, it will take that opportunity away and slam the door of potential success in the face of those clubs who may not have been successful in the past.
The romantic idea that a team can be built up from youngsters from a club’s academy and go on to win the league has been ruined by the influx of money into the game. It’s right that clubs should have to put a certain amount of money into their youth policy; but limiting the amount of money being spent on transfers and wages to that which a club earns isn’t the way to do it.
It might seem that I’m dead set against this scheme because my supported football team has a rich owner. For that reason, I do have a vested interest in this proposed rule change, but I’m not especially worried for my own club should it be passed.
Clubs like the one I support – Manchester City – for example, actually wouldn’t be as badly hit by this system as many would think. Since money spent on the academy and training facilities wouldn’t count towards the money spent in the “living within your means” system, clubs with rich owners can use all of their income on transfers and wages and take the cash injections to fund every other part of the club.
A club without that rich owner would have to spend their income on everything else in the day-to-day running of the club as well as transfers and wages, further disadvantaging them when it comes to attracting players to help them increase their stature.
This financial fair play ruling is anything but fair play.
Written By David Mooney
[youtube IEu_5sP9F0Q]