UEFA FPP rules being challenged in the courts

[Big Bad Bob]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/22426733

 

Bosman ruling lawyer Jean-Louis Dupont in Uefa complaint

 

A lawyer who helped win the landmark Bosman case has lodged a complaint with the European Commission over Uefa's Financial Fair Play (FFP) regulations.

 

 

The FFP rules, designed to ensure clubs break even over a rolling three-year period, do not come into full effect until the 2013-14 season.

 

Lawyer Jean-Louis Dupont claims that FFP breaches European competition law.

 

 

"A club owner is prohibited from overspending even if such overspending aims at growing the club," said Dupont.

 

----

 

The Belgian lawyer says the FFP ruling will restrict the incomes of both players and agents, reduce transfer activity and ensure that Europe's larger clubs remain dominant.

 

 

He added that even if the ban on overspending was ruled legal, he would have further grounds to appeal because Uefa, football's European governing body, could achieve its aims by a less restrictive measure such as forcing clubs to makes guarantees on any spending beyond projected income.

 

 

 

 

Case to answer or ambulance chaser.

 

For mine, surely UEFA's rules are part of the condition of membership into it's competitions therefore they can't be challenged legally? Can they?

[Lord Duckhunter]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/22426733

 

Bosman ruling lawyer Jean-Louis Dupont in Uefa complaint

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case to answer or ambulance chaser.

 

For mine, surely UEFA's rules are part of the condition of membership into it's competitions therefore they can't be challenged legally? Can they?

 

I'm amazed it's taken this long for someone to challenge it. Personally I don't think you can go round dictating how people should run private business.

 

I'm surprised nobody has challenged the Transfer Window, a restraint of trade if ever I saw one.

[mcjwills]

I'm amazed it's taken this long for someone to challenge it. Personally I don't think you can go round dictating how people should run private business.

 

I'm surprised nobody has challenged the Transfer Window, a restraint of trade if ever I saw one.

 

Any player can be sold at any time, its just his registration can not be transferred until the transfer window. No restraint at all. Players without a registration can join a club at any time.

[DuncanRG]

I'm amazed it's taken this long for someone to challenge it. Personally I don't think you can go round dictating how people should run private business.

 

Welcome to the real world, where things are regulated

[Saint Martini]

I'm amazed it's taken this long for someone to challenge it. Personally I don't think you can go round dictating how people should run private business.

 

I'm surprised nobody has challenged the Transfer Window, a restraint of trade if ever I saw one.

 

You can do what ever you want with your company but since the UEFA decides who gets to join their competitions they can dictate the terms of those clubs that would want to participate. In the end the decision to adhere to the rules is voluntary.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Welcome to the real world, where things are regulated

 

Perhaps you could point me in the direction of another industry which has similar regulations.

[The9]

Perhaps you could point me in the direction of another industry which has similar regulations.

 

All US Sports have FAR more regulation than European football does, the difference is that they embrace collective bargaining and competition as a selling point of the entire competition and the (private) owners sign up to it as beneficial to the branding. The NFL also has a draft to embrace the competitiveness of the League, and MLS also embraces the draft concept, as well as having star players and wage capping.

 

If you want to relate it to non-sporting examples, how about every franchised business ever ? Private ownership and agreeing to adhere to the regulations of the brand owner or forfeit the right to run as that brand ?

Edited 8 May, 2013 by The9

[B Rabbit]

All US Sports have FAR more regulation than European football does, the difference is that they embrace collective bargaining and competition as a selling point of the entire competition and the (private) owners sign up to it as beneficial to the branding. The NFL also has a draft to embrace the competitiveness of the League, and MLS also embraces the draft concept, as well as having star players and wage capping.

 

If you want to relate it to non-sporting examples, how about every franchised business ever ? Private ownership and agreeing to adhere to the regulations of the brand owner or forfeit the right to run as that brand ?

As a slight side to that.... There is no relegation or promotion in American sports... You are aware (I know you are) that they have basically one division... NFL, NHL, MLB, NBA... And everyone is on a level playing field but there is no promotion or relegation... You are part of the elite group and that's how it is... No pressure of getting relegated or needing to grow... If you suck for 5 years, you know full well that your team will challenge sooner or later through drafting players and freeing up cap space for free agents. The whole system is cyclical... Dominate ... Team gets old... Sucks... Rebuild.... Dominate.

 

So yes... Fair comparison in regulation... But not quite the same unless we completely change our format over here.

 

 

[B Rabbit]

However ^^ I do think a salary cap 'could' be a good idea over here. Every team in the premier league has a budget of X million... Would make it an interesting shake up.

[sotonist]

He added that even if the ban on overspending was ruled legal, he would have further grounds to appeal because Uefa, football's European governing body, could achieve its aims by a less restrictive measure such as forcing clubs to makes guarantees on any spending beyond projected income.

 

think this is the clincher and the bloody common sense approach. actually make it as simple as clubs have to introduce capital into the business to overspend. no added risk to anyone but the shareholder.

[CB Fry]

Perhaps you could point me in the direction of another industry which has similar regulations.

 

How about any industry that makes, sells, buys or offers services in any single facet of human life?

[Lord Duckhunter]

If you want to relate it to non-sporting examples, how about every franchised business ever ? Private ownership and agreeing to adhere to the regulations of the brand owner or forfeit the right to run as that brand ?

 

I would be interested in which franchise dictates to the franchisee how much money they can personally put into the business, and what they can spend it on.

 

If Roman Abramovich invested in a MacDonald's franchise I'm sure they wouldn't start telling him he could only spend x amount of his turnover on his burger flippers.

 

the whole thing is immoral. Why can Man City spend what they like to get amongst the big boys and then vote to deny other clubs that chance. Has FFP rules been in place at the start of the Premiership then Wigan and Fulham would not be in the Premiership to take advantage of them. Because of the date these rules come into effect Bournemouth cant do what Fulham have done, is that really fair? My mate is a Plymouth supporter, if he won the lottery why shouldn't he be able to do a Jack Walker and buy Premiership football for his team?

[eurosaint]

As I see it the biggest problem regarding the FFP will be monitoring and enforcement !

We have already seen inflated sponsorship incomes by owners (£400 mil naming rights for the Etihad stadium !) and I'm sure that owners are clever enough to manipulate the situation to their advantage when it suits ! I don't know how big the compliance dept in EUFA will be but they will have one helluva job on their hands just to keep track of basic (averaged) submissions spread over a three year period !

Also, given the differential of incomes between the likes of Man Utd and Wigan (for example) it's difficult to see beyond the 'rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer' !

[The9]

I would be interested in which franchise dictates to the franchisee how much money they can personally put into the business, and what they can spend it on.

 

If Roman Abramovich invested in a MacDonald's franchise I'm sure they wouldn't start telling him he could only spend x amount of his turnover on his burger flippers.

 

the whole thing is immoral. Why can Man City spend what they like to get amongst the big boys and then vote to deny other clubs that chance. Has FFP rules been in place at the start of the Premiership then Wigan and Fulham would not be in the Premiership to take advantage of them. Because of the date these rules come into effect Bournemouth cant do what Fulham have done, is that really fair? My mate is a Plymouth supporter, if he won the lottery why shouldn't he be able to do a Jack Walker and buy Premiership football for his team?

 

The analogy is between obeying overarching organisation rules, not expenditure. It is also slightly flawed, as the point of business is usually profit rather than winning trophies - which is also why sport generally is a different type of business model. You can make money but not win things, but the criteria for success is (supposed to be) winning things, not making money. People don't support clubs for their bank balances.

 

If Abramovich wanted to plough millions into burgers, the logical way to do that would be to open a lot of businesses to generate profit by scaling up and duplicating the successful model. That's not an option open in sport, where you're trying to gain success with a single entity and you can't create more winners. I should think the Franchise owner would also have some regulation on how much you can pay your burger flippers to ensure the scale isn't skewed and that their other franchises don't go out of business trying to match their wages or not being able to attract any staff.

 

The fundamental concern of the sporting organisers is to ensure that their league's credibility isn't harmed, whether that means by preventing "financial doping" to ensure there's still some level of competition possible, or by insisting on points deductions for those who can't afford to compete and are prepared to dodge taxes etc to get there.