I'm very ignorant about it but it hasn't done anything for PSG, Monaco, Real, Barca, City (not when they keep spending 100m every summer except last one), maybe Chelsea but again not them either if they get Rooney. So it has impacted the Italians, United, Arsenal and Liverpool. My questions is why the difference?
It hasn't done anything about PSG and Monaco because they've chosen flat out to ignore it, and nothing happens for another couple of season. I think that is happening at the moment is that clubs who are looking to comply with FFP are selling these clubs players for huge sums, and using the money to sort out their own finances and rebuild their squad. Look at napoli, they've got nearly £90 million from PSG for lavezzi and cavani, now rafa is using that money to help a profitable, well run Napoli (who ever thought those words would go together) to challenge for a title without a sugar daddy.
Real and Barca don't have any worries from FFP because both are hugely rich, profitable clubs. They have huge stadia that they sell out for substantial sums of money. The Spanish TV contract is small compared to the premiership, however real madrid and barca get a third each, so they have huge money, and because they have no real rivals, and because they have national followings, they divide all of the sponsorship money for the spanish market between the two of them.
City and Chelsea have taken steps to comply with FFP, that may or may not get them there. If you look at chelsea's transfer dealings, they've replaced a lot of older players on huge salaries, with younger players who earn a lot less. Juan mata for example was on a contract in the region of 60-70k. Had he arrived at chelsea five years earlier, he'd have been earning twice as much. Chelsea have been pumping money in for so long, and have built up their income quite a lot. They've reached a point where they just have to cut back their spending a bit, and use the new TV contract to close the gap. If chelsea can get their income to the £300 million mark, then they will actually be able to comfortably afford a wage bill of £180 million. chelsea will probably eventually meet the FFP requirements.
City, have changed their methods of buying players. They now no longer seem to be signing marquee players, but instead signing second rank players, and paying them relatively moderate, performance related contracts.
I think it's important to remember that FFP has a number of distinct aims. The first is to stop clubs from buying titles and places in the champions league just because they have a rich owner. That is going to be the trickiest area. But that's only one part of it. Preventing finacial doping isn't going to suddenly make chelsea a small club, or shrink Ac milan. Big clubs can change their ways and bounce back in the medium to long term.
The second aim is to stop the relentless upward pressure on wages, caused by having some owners who simply don't care what wages they pay players, or that it drives up wages for other clubs. That seems to have taken effect already. the third aim is to introduce stability as clubs collapse, and people don't get paid when a sugar daddy suddenly pulls the plug, like with malaga, or Anzhi.
The fourth aim is to prevent the biggest clubs in a league from financially doping (spending money they don't earn) and once you do that, then Leagues can use their support to implement stricter financial rules throughout leagues. if every club in a league is banned from losing money, then they all have to become stable and slightly profitable. It means that everyone gets paid, and over time it means that the league becomes stronger. If every club has control of its wagebill, and its expenses, and has been able to upgrade its infrastructure and has as big a stadium as they can fill, then you will have a much more competitive league, as no-one has money troubles.
The Fifth aim is to tackle the huge problem of debts that have been run up to pay for excessive spending on players. If clubs can't lose money, then they can't increase these debts, and they can start to pay them back. Once clubs have cleared these debts, they no longer have to make repayments, or pay interest. Look at the example of everton. They spend a little bit more than they earn every year, and as a result have run up a moderate £45 million in debt. However that's more than they can afford, and every year it winds up getting a little bit bigger. They have to come up with cash every year to meet repayments and interest, and that forces them to sell key players at certain times, and not replace them. if you look at their activity over the last couple of years, you can see everton frequently sell a player for a big chunk of money, when it is too late for them to find a replacement in the transfer market.
If Everton could find some way of removing that debt, it would prevent money being sucked out of the club in future, and they would just about be able to afford their wage bill. What is likely to happen this summer, is that they will sell baines and fellaini for £40 million, spend about half of that on replacements. Use the other £20 million to pay down half the debt, and then use a lot of the increase in TV money to pay down the rest. When Everton are debt free, they can then use all the money they earn to spend on players, and to a) buy back their training ground from the council which will improve their balance sheet, and mean that they no longer have to pay rent. b) Invest money in things that will increase their income like a new stadium, or upgrading goodison.
FFP isn't trying to stop clubs borrowing money for things like stadia. For instance there is nothing wrong with Arsenal borrowing £300 million to build a 60,000 seater stadium, that added £60 million a year to their income, while costing only £30 million in repayments.
The reason that we're so in favour of FFP is that a) by reducing wage inflation, it makes it easier for us to assemble a strong squad 'on the cheap'. b) by preventing chelsea and man city from 'buying' a place in the CL by signing a couple of megastars every season just because the year begins with a 2 it will make it easier for us to get back to the CL. c) We have an awful lot of earning potential if we get things right, and if we get back to the CL, and have expanded Anfield, we'll be one of the richest clubs in europe, and be able to afford one of the biggest wagebills, and be able to challenge for major trophies.
and d) in an football system where you can't pump your own money into a team, the value of a club is then just related to the amount of money it earns. If we're one of the richest clubs in europe, with one of the biggest turnovers, and with a fully expanded stadium, then we're much more valuable and FSG stand to make more money.
Now people may be rightly sceptical about whether or not UEFA is actually going to take actions against clubs that simply just break the FFP requirements, but the thing you have to consider is that if Platini looks like he's not going to kick out the two french clubs or man city, then the chief executives of Real madrid, Barcelona, manchester united, Bayern Munich, Arsenal, liverpool AC Milan, dortmund, Napoli, Spurs...... will take him into a room and gently persuade him otherwise. They have all followed the rules, and will want them enforced. These are the big rich clubs, with the huge fanbases that the CL relies on, and they will want it enforced, and if that means kicking out a team with an average attendance of about 5,000, or a bizarre marketing exercise in a bored paris, or the second team in second ranking english city, then fine.
