The Unofficial TFC Blog | Toronto FC

I think one of the most ironic terms in European football is “Financial Fair Play” – and highlights the corruption in European football and the lack of a movement to change it. The basis of the proposition says this: for a team like Manchester City to outspend opponents and lose money is unfair but for a team like Real Madrid to outspend opponents and not lose money is fair. Why is breaking even the barometer of fairness? Surely it is unfair if you spend tenfold your opponents whether or not you lose money? I think Michel Platini needs to open a dictionary and look at the definition of fairness (I doubt the definition will read: “Barcelona and Real Madrid with all the TV money and Valencia selling their best players and unable to compete”). In fact I think the definition of “Financial Fair Play” for most sensible people is everybody spending the same amount. If anything is should be called “The UEFA Break Even Solution”.

The are two other problems with  the financial fair play rule:

1) teams sometimes lose money over a calendar year even if they aren’t Manchester City or Chelsea or Malaga or PSG – we live in bad economic times and many businesses go through a year with a net loss. To bar them from Champions League play will only further damage the club, which will not be able to sustain that loss. For example, what if Valencia, who develop players like Juan Mata, David Villa and David Silva and yet have to sell them on anyway because they are enduring a period of financial hardship – should they be barred from UEFA Champions League if they suffer consecutive seasons of net loss?

2) UEFA is now meddling into the affairs of European clubs. The best way to get spending in control is to make teams accountable in their own domestic leagues. There needs to be a conference of the European leagues where things are voted upon, not UEFA members who don’t represent the leagues but represent people with their own vision. It is not the Champions League that faces the “unfairness” of big spending clubs, as there numerous clubs that are breaking even that are competing in the tournament – it is the domestic leagues that face the challenge of the lavish spending owners. So it should be the domestic leagues that deal with the problem.

I would actually like to see a “Football Referendum” where fans get to vote on propose changes offered by a coalition of Presidents from all European leagues.

I will go on the record now and say I don’t think a salary cap will work. While it does work in North America spectacularly well in leagues like the NFL or NHL (and even in soccer with MLS) where every team has the chance to be competitive, there is too much of a gap in revenues between certain teams in Europe. For example, you cannot create a cap for both Manchester United and Bolton. Similarly you cannot have a salary cap with Real Madrid and Real Zaragoza in the same league.

The same issue goes with Major League Baseball, where the Yankees and Marlins coexist in the same league. The MLB system is one which I think would work great in Europe, with a few tweaks. It consists of taxing the teams that spend over a certain point and distributing that to the other teams.

I have three versions that work as alternatives to Financial Fair Play: One involves a luxury tax system and one involves a cap to individual salaries only. The third solution revolves around the key area of financial imbalance: the transfer fee.

Note: the tax numbers for both versions are flexible and percentages can be tweaked.

Solution A – Luxury Tax:

Let’s take the Barclay’s Premier League as an example. The league revenues are about 2.5 billion euros. Divide that by 20 and that’s 125 million euros. Now, the rule will be that the untaxed expenditure of a team is %80 percent of League Revenues / Teams. That works out to an “untaxed cap” of 100 million Euros.

Now the tax will have two levels. The first tax will be on the remaining 20% of the divided amount (the 25 million Euros). Every Pound spent will be taxed %50, which will then be distributed to clubs who remained underneath the %80 line. Also, clubs that participate in spending above the %80 line disqualify themselves from the distribution payments.

All spending that goes above the 125 million Euro mark will be taxed pound for pound at a %100 rate. So if Man City decide to spend 100 million Euros over the 125 million Euro cap – they will have to pay out the same amount to the clubs beneath them who are under the %80 untaxed ceiling.

Advantages and causes of this system: Not only will it discourage mad spending, as now Oligarchs and Sheikhs will have to spend double in the transfer market and may perhaps strengthen others squads in the process, it also strengthens the entire league. By these numbers, the bottom 14 in the premier league would be getting a decent payout. Also, this system can be implemented right away.

Solution B – Capping Individual Salaries:

Note: I am not sure about the legality of this. I know in the U.S there is a potential problem of anti-trust (employers conspiring against employees) with caps of any nature, not sure what the laws are in England, Spain, Italy, France etc.

This will possibly mean that no luxury tax is needed, just a maximum player salary to artificially readjust the market. For example, Manchester United can spend as much as they want, but if the max salary per player is 10 million pounds, teams will be able to go in and compete for the same players.

For example, Samir Nasri is at Arsenal. Manchester City would like to get him at all costs. However, Nasri likes it at Arsenal (this is just an example, not a statement about what Nasri wanted) and wants to stay. City are offering him double, so he wants to go. If the maximum is 10 million pounds, Arsenal can say (again we are not saying Wenger would actually do this) “we will match you – now leave us alone”. Then the only incentive is for either Samir Nasri to go there because he loves Man City or because Arsenal want the transfer fees. It gives less financially powerful teams the ability to say: “we want this player, we are going to keep him”. Now other teams will have to increase their transfer bid, ensuring that teams receive higher value for their players which they can then use to re-invest on their own squads.

It also ensures mediocre players will not be over payed. If Cristiano Ronaldo is making the maximum, other players will not request the maximum as well. Once you push down the max salary at the top, everything starts to come down as expectations from players and agents decrease.

Solution C – Regulate Transfers:

There are two things I would like to see done:

1) No transfers in the same league: no poaching of players like Chelsea going after Modric or Man City going after Nasri or Man United going after Ashley Young or Chelsea going after Torres or Barcelona going after David Villa etc.

Benefits: takes away the ability of a team like Manchester City to destablizie other premier league teams: Samir Nasri, Adebayor, James Milner, Roque Santa Cruz. Also, Barcelona would not be able to buy David Villa and he probably would have stayed at Valencia. This would cause Barcelona and Manchester City to look outside of the league to improve their squads. This, in turn, strengthens the domestic league

It will also effectively accomplish what Arsene Wenger talked about when he referenced the loan deal of Adebayor from Man City to Tottenham. In effect, Man City are financing Tottenham to compete against other teams in the league besides them. Loaning would be disallowed inside the same league.

This rule would work extremely well in conjunction with rule 2 regarding capping max salaries. Less financially powerful teams could hold on to their own players, as most domestic players stay in their own leagues. Example: if Man United wouldn’t have bid for Ashley Young I doubt he would have went abroad.

2) Eliminate transfers completely or cap the max transfer fee: only allow swap deals to facilitate player movement. Or, alternatively, in conjunction with proposed change 2 (which puts a max on an individual salary) put a cap on transfer fees. Again, when dealing with potential transfers of Gareth Bale, Luca Modric, David Silva, David Villa etc. – it makes retaining players a much easier task.