Is European football in its last breath due to politics?


UEFA: FFP to build up or put down tycoons in the football industry?

The primary debate in today's proceedings was whether the FFP had served the purpose for what it was made for or not. While several clubs had different opinions, the one club that stood up from the rest was FC Barcelona. The representative said, "Although the true aim for FFP was not to create another Leeds Utd., it has altogether given birth to several other Leed's Utd." Leeds Utd is known for going into crippling debt after going overboard with player purchases and ultimately falling due to relegation during 2011-12. UEFA, after retrospecting, had come up with this 'FFP' or Financial Fair Play Regulations. But the real question is, did it help?

According to FCB, "UEFA's FFPs are all talk and no action". While some of us may find it harsh, we can see several clubs following the same things as Leeds did. For example, FC Barcelona had to sell its TV rights due to its financial instability. The representative mentioned that FFPs must be pre-emptive rather than retrospective, as it clearly made no difference. This idea was backed by Leicester city when its delegate said FFPs should rather be to bridge gaps between clubs and not separate them with their policy. One of the policy's clauses stated that after three years, football clubs would only be allowed to spend 70% of their revenue, meaning smaller clubs would never be able to select even mediocre players.

Further, they also wanted the suspension of FSR, as they believe it is the true culprit behind everything. While some clubs just wanted to get rid of the FFP, others truly embraced it. Clubs like Chelsea and SSC Napoli were passionate about the FFP. Both of them mentioned that FFP is booming, but they also said that stricter amendments have to be made, like more point deductions, in case rules are broken, etc. Further, Tottenham Hotspur wrongly stated, "Chelsea were given a transfer ban for breaching FFP", but they were given a ban for 150 rules breaches involving 69 academy players for several reasons, according to the judgment published by FIFA. 

Later, Real Madrid accused PSG of cheating by giving shockingly high amounts of money and attracting most elite players, a breach of the protocol according to the FFP. FC Barcelona stood by PSG's side, claiming no legal evidence that their actions were unfair. Real Madrid further admitted that it was an assumption made on their behalf. Juventus also disliked the FFP as they claimed that it was the reason for the decline of football. The representative said that wealthy backers are overpaying for the players while doing the same. Bayern Munich also expressed their distress over the FFP, as they're a majority fan-owned club, and just using 70% of the revenue will not suffice, which is considerable, as other teams will get unfair leverage over Bayern Munich. Teams like Liverpool, Rangers and Real Madrid also sided against the FFP. They suggested amendments be made in the FFP immediately, or stricter punishments would be implemented.

A point worthy of note is that all of these clubs would be in trouble if harsher penalties took effect. Instead of giving their stance about whether they were for or against the topic, Borussia Dortmund went ahead and talked about how they sold their stars (like Jadon Sancho) and bought young talent to churn them into young stars. Borussia Gladbach later made an interesting point. They stated that the UEFA needs to implement a salary cap for every player. But it is against the law in Europe to limit salaries. Hence a court order said that such ideas weren't looked at well.

Tottenham Hotspur wanted to apologize to the fans for being part of the "HORRIBLE" super league. They also claimed they wouldn't take any more decisions without consulting the Tottenham Hotspur supporter's Trust. They also called out Newcastle United for being state-owned and asked for sanctions to be imposed on them. If possible, a transfer ban because they fear they might breach FFP rules and pose a threat to football. The board questioned him by asking if Newcastle United had done it before, and there was no exclusive proof that this had happened. Finally, the session was closed by Rangers FC, saying that instead of different leagues having different rules, it would be better if they were all under a single set of clauses or a body governing all the leagues. But the latter has failed to understand that the same body will have so much power over everything as a whole in European football.


UEFA: Spain, Italy vs the rest of Europe

Super league kicked off with FC Barcelona accusing the UEFA committee of bringing football to a standstill and mentioned all their comments about the new UCL format were "Tall claims and bare no foot". They say the recent amendments proposed to the UCL by the UEFA are a bit shady and that the super league is better than the current system. Real Madrid and Juventus backed the super league motives despite the outrage shown by fans worldwide. Real Madrid also wrongly stated that "The European super league was a friendly played after the league", which is opposite of its motive, which is to replace the existing UCL format.

Tottenham Hotspur claims the fans are their priority and apologizes for joining the "HORRIBLE" super league. They also called out Real Madrid and Barcelona for boosting their ego because of their economic crisis. Tottenham is in a worse financial situation than Real Madrid and a bit better off than Barcelona. Marseille and Sevilla strongly supported the views of the fans. They didn't want the Super league to be a prevalent force in the future. AC Milan claimed that they are open to rejoining the super league despite withdrawing from it due to the massive protests of their fans. Manchester City also stressed the importance of fans. Still, it conveyed that their club would be open to rejoining the super league if it is reformed. Napoli claims they do not get enough income from the UCL, UEL AND UCL. They also claimed that improving it would not be a good idea and advocated in support of the super league. They also claimed they want their owner to start a similar super league with an investment of 10 billion euros.

Bayern Munich believes the existing UCL system is appropriate and would work well with better reforms in the lower European competitions such as UEL and UCL. They claim the vast advantage of the 50+1 rule implemented in Germany, which prevents clubs from folding and how the fans have veto power in every club decision. They also established that there is internal democracy within the club. Paris Saint-German claimed the fans worldwide were against the idea of the Super League and that football was for the fans. They also stated the super league was illegal.


UEFA: Does a team's performance depend on the owner's ethics?

After a lot of criticism against the state-owned states, the executive board asked the so-called state-owned states, Manchester City, Paris Saint Germain and Newcastle United, to give their stance on ownership issues. Manchester City claimed to be in a transition state from a high-spending club to a club run by transfers with the back of the state. But, the executive board did let the committee know that Manchester City was, in fact, not a state-owned club but owned by a private entity with the help of Barcelona. The board has also asked for the address of Newcastle United and Paris Saint Germain, which is now under the ownership of the Saudi state and Qatari state, which will be addressed in tomorrow's session.