FFP: A Cartel in Football?
Keeping the giants gigantic
UEFA’s financial fair play regulations have been involved in Europe’s footballing landscape for over 10 years now, and many at the time saw it as a necessary solution to a problem of overspending and diluting the competitive edge of the world’s game.
However, instead of its intended purpose, this bastion for hope has entered murky waters and has now been twisted and contorted in a way which now looks to threaten aspects of competition and sports law. In this article, I will deep dive into why FFP only helps booster the established tent-poles of Europe’s top 5 leagues.
The reason behind the implementation
Football, or soccer, originally started life as a working man’s game, and only really become a lucrative business venture for investors in around the 90s. This is when the Premier League was founded, and what many consider to be a turning point in whether the beautiful game was for the fans or for the owners/businesses. At this point, many clubs had started spending more and more due to the increased revenue streams from sponsorships, television rights, and merchandising opportunities.
From here, certain clubs had both historical and continued success, such as Manchester United and Liverpool. Whilst they may not have been as rich as other clubs, they had concurrent success and due to this, a larger fanbase than other clubs in the league, whether in this country or another. I will come back to this point later.
As the years went by, and more money was pumped into football, the prices for players got bigger and bigger. Unlike other sports, such as Basketball or American Football, salary caps and transfer caps were not and are not in effect, and so if a team had enough money, they could sign players to improve, at higher and higher rates. This came to a head back in 2009, when Real Madrid and their “Galaticos”, a term popularised in the 00s due to their large transfer sprees, launched arguably one of the greatest transfer windows in history, spending over £200 million on major signings. This was the year UEFA then investigated finances in football.
Upon investigation, it was found that half of the 655 European clubs had suffered a financial loss in the 2008/2009 season. With this in mind, and the ever-growing high expenditure amongst the elites, UEFA introduced FFP in the 2011/2012 season, which meant that clubs could only spend within their means, in an effort to stop this outlandish behaviour from going further into insanity. Many heralded this as the game being balanced out, and stopping clubs from simply buying the competitions they competed in. On the contrary, this has actually increased.
The Dark Side of FFP
As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, and football being stopped for a period, many clubs took a major hit in losses in this period and struggled to recover. We lost Bury, and almost lost Bolton and Sunderland, historical clubs in this country with major fanbases. This did not only affect smaller clubs, but even larger clubs began to struggle. Barcelona were, and still are, struggling to recoup their losses due to wages and bloated transfer fees that did not work out. The European Super League, proposed back in 2021, was saw as a way for these gargantuan clubs across European to earn a steady income stream and earn more money, against many fans wishes. Luckily, this was stopped due to its violation of competition law, but sometimes I wish it had went through.
As an Everton fan, our club has struggled under the weight of FFP. This is mostly our fault, as we have spent lots of money on mediocre players, made a loss on most, and sacked more managers than we had in the previous 20+ years prior to Farhad Moshiri’s ownership. However, we have become a selling club and still cannot sign players due to our stadium build. This angers me, as you see the bigger clubs making major signings with no obvious repercussions. Chelsea’s tactic in particular, signing younger players and offering 7/8 year contracts, seems unfair. This will affect them in the long run, as it means they will still be paying the player’s wages/transfer fee long after they leave the club, but it highlighted an important issue to me.
If we are told that FFP means a club must spend what they earn, and not more, this already gives an unfair competitive advantage to the established. As stated before, Manchester United and Liverpool have fans all over the world, they have the most games shown in the Premier League, and have the most lucrative sponsorship deals.
If a middle table club such as Aston Villa or Brighton decides to spend big, they will either have to sell key players to do so, or have to reach European qualification in order to not breach FFP or get into risk of going bankrupt. This is similar to Leeds’ situation back in 2003, when they began heavily spending and eventually went so far in debt, they ended up two divisions below the Premier League. Meanwhile, larger clubs can spend more than other clubs due to longstanding external factors and not face consequences, in City’s case for 115 potential charges for breaches of FFP, 2–4 years.
If you don’t believe me, look at the Premier League table since FFP came into effect in 2011. Since then, only one club not established in the 2000s’ big six group have finished in the top 4, which was the 2016 season when Leicester defied all odds and finished top of the totem pole. Newcastle finished 4th last time out, however it is likely they will become a 7th added to this elitist dynasty.
We may say that the other top 5 European leagues are “farmers leagues” and have only 1 or 2 potential winners, but FFP has ensured that football will always benefit those who have lots, and step on those who have less, and never allow upwards progression.
