da premier bet： When UEFA’s Executive Committee approved the Club Licensing and Fair Play Regulations in May of 2010, the move was heralded as imperative for rescuing football’s financial integrity. Too long had clubs overextended in pursuit of success; too long had the financial landscape been grossly exploited by Europe’s richest. Something had to change.
da 888： Analysis of Premier League club’s accounts provide unnerving reading. Manchester City recorded the highest ever monetary loss in English footballing history in 2011, as their £197million eclipsed Chelsea’s erosion of £141million in 2005. Since the Glazer’s takeover of Manchester United was enacted, the club have hemorrhaged in advance of £500million. As a general trend, clubs in England have been expending sums far beyond their income capabilities for many years. Outside the wealthy elite, the hyper-inflation of wages and widening of the gap between top and bottom leaves mid-ranging clubs in fatal peril: Portsmouth’s financial capitulation can partially be attributed to a desire to spend money the club simply does not have in an attempt to close the increasing gulf.
The introduction of the various regulatory measures has brought a stinging sense of reality to the European game, a sobering reminder that procuring an endless string of debts is no longer a viable or sustainable option. Clubs still endure losses of course, but above all the legislation has forced many to reassess their absurdly excessive spending habits, with a more rational approach adopted. Undoubtedly, UEFA’s intervention has curbed the ludicrous debt accumulation which has afflicted the European game in recent years. Clubs are perturbed by the treat of elimination from UEFA competition and the subsequent loss of revenue this would bring. Football’s finances appear set to regain at least a smidgen of the respectability lost in the globalized era.
However, there is a potential adverse consequence of UEFA’s increased involvement in dictating finance in football, one which may becoming alarmingly apparent in the coming seasons.
Let’s look at the elite of European football, the wealthiest and most influential clubs, as a group of spoilt little brats. Also for the purposes of this analogy, let’s view UEFA as a stuck-up, haggled old disciplinarian of a headmaster wanting to take all their toys away. They have so many that they don’t know what to do with them anymore, so the headmaster restricts the little brats to just a few each. Bad move. These little brats have rich and powerful parents, who are disgusted at the treatment of their precious ones. The parents group together and form a plan. They get their little brats together, pull them out of the school with nasty old headmaster and form their own school, one where they can indulge their gluttony without an overbearing presence watching their every move.
Can you see where this is going? The further UEFA extend their domineering arm into the affairs of Europe’s biggest clubs, the greater the prospect of a breakaway league forming. A notion of a ‘European Super League’ has been whispered and speculated upon for many years now, yet has never seemed an attainable option. The authorities would never allow it, the fans would never allow it. But what does that matter nowadays?
Clubs in the modern era display abhorrent disregard for the wishes of supporters and national associations, instead seemingly doing all they can to arouse conflict. The Premier League’s idea of a 39th game has fostered the prospect of clubs becoming further disconnected from their cradle in search of profit. Real Madrid have recently signaled their intent with the construction of a club theme park in the UAE, whilst Lionel Messi being propelled to the status of world icon suggest La Liga clubs are increasingly creeping in on the Premier League’s territory. Likewise, clubs already play friendly matches abroad – what is to stop Europe’s biggest sides embarking on a year round tour of exhibition matches, extracting maximum earnings in far flung climates?
To move Manchester City from Manchester would be of little distress to the club’s owners. There would be protest, there would be uproar, but ultimately money speaks loudest. As Manchester United claim that a third of the world’s population are supporters, the Glazers must surely be wishing to take their brand into supplementary markets, the confines of Salford no longer satisfying their profiteering hunger. Impulsive aspiration is replacing common sense and clubs are looking for new avenues to enhance revenue. With their power and influence now supplanting that of the regulatory bodies, there exists feasibility in the idea that top teams may seek to slowly configure a ‘Super League’ independent of FIFA, UEFA or national associations. The inclination has always been present; now clubs have the grotesque sums necessary to initiate such a change, it moves one step closer to reality.
Above all, this leaves UEFA in a precarious position. Enact the regulations any deeper and risk the loss of their most profitable assets or take a softer approach and allow clubs to re-engage with their rampant financial frenzies once more? Michel Platini’s reign has been characterised by the insistence on the reformation of modern football’s ills, and there appears to be no let up in his desire for remedy. He is right to address football’s most disturbing developments in such a forthright manner, yet walks a delicate tightrope in doing so.
If you want to discuss UEFA’s Fair Play regulations or any other football debate, tweet me @acherrie1
[ad_pod id=’unruly-2′ align=’left’]