6 décembre 2022

What Are the Financial Fair Play Rules

Posted by under: Non classé .

There was also concern about the high debt imposed on some clubs, as the new owners took out large loans to acquire the club and then used future revenues to pay interest, a practice known as buyouts. [44] [45] The richest club in the world, Manchester United, was bought in this way by the Glazer family in 2005, leaving the previously highly profitable club with hundreds of millions of pounds in debt. [44] Since 2005, Manchester United has been deducted from over £300 million that would otherwise have been spent on players, facility improvements or simply as contingent liabilities and spent on interest, bank charges and derived losses. [46] (While Manchester United FC Limited was virtually debt-free, its ultimate holding company, Red Football Shareholder Limited, had acquired a lease on March 30. June 2010 negative equity of £64.866 million on its consolidated balance sheet.) The new financial regulations were announced by UEFA this week. « Owners ask for rules because they can`t enforce them themselves – a lot of them have had to shovel money into clubs and the more money you put into clubs, the harder it is to sell at a profit. » Kaveh Solhekol, chief reporter for Sky Sports News, answers the most pressing questions after UEFA`s Executive Committee approved new financial sustainability rules. For several years, clubs in the other two major European leagues, France`s Ligue 1 and Germany`s Bundesliga, were subject to regulations that were no different from FFP rules. « Cost control » refers to what the FSCLR calls the « team cost rule », meaning that a club`s total expenses for transfers, salaries and agent fees cannot exceed 70% of its revenue. In order to comply with Financial Fair Play rules, the Club Financial Control Authority (CFCB) has determined that only a club`s expenses in the areas of transfers, benefits (including salaries), transfer value reductions, financial costs and dividends are taken into account. UEFA`s Financial Fair Play (FFP) Statute was introduced to prevent professional football clubs from spending more than they earn to succeed, avoiding financial problems that could jeopardise their long-term survival. [1] Some have argued that they were introduced to prevent financial « doping » from external sources that inject money into smaller clubs. [2] They were adopted in principle by the Financial Control Panel of the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) in September 2009.

Financial Fair Play (FFP) was introduced by UEFA to ensure that football clubs do not spend more than they earn, preventing them from having financial difficulties that could jeopardise their long-term survival – and, in their words, « improve the overall financial health of European football ». UEFA President Michel Platini said of the intention to reduce the plutocratic influence of sugar daddies: « When you buy a house, you are in debt, but that does not mean that someone will prevent you from working. But if you only depend on a wealthy benefactor, then the financial model is too volatile. « Violations will result in predefined fines and sporting measures, » UEFA said. The three most important Dutch clubs, Ajax, PSV and Feyenoord, have each been crowned European champions at least once. In recent years, however, their dominance has been challenged by the advent of other clubs such as FC Twente, meaning they can no longer rely on the annual injections of Champions League funds. As in other countries, the global recession has significantly reduced sponsorship and television revenues, turning an Eredivisie profit of €64 million in 2007-08 into a loss of €90 million for 2009-10. [37] PSV posted a loss of €17.5 million, with annual turnover falling by 40%, from €85 million to €50 million, while arch-rival Ajax, the only listed Dutch club, lost €22.8 million. [38] After 11 consecutive years of qualifying for the Champions League and reaching the semi-finals in 2005, PSV turned into losses and began selling the best players, including Heurelho Gomes (Tottenham Hotspur), Mark van Bommel (Barcelona), Park Ji-sung (Manchester United), Johann Vogel (Milan), Alex (Chelsea) and Jan Vennegoor of Hesselink (Celtic).

As the club could only rely on the much lower revenues of the UEFA Europa League (less than €4 million in 2010,[39] it took out a €10 million loan from its long-time benefactor, electronics giant Phillips, and was forced to sell its pitches and training complex to the local council for €49 million in April 2012. Leasing for 2.3 million euros per year. A prominent council member said the move was necessary because of « the idiocy of money and gambling between millionaires and football agents. » [40] Despite the recent report, which showed an 8% increase in La Liga revenue, the highest of any European league, the vast majority of the extra money went to the two dominant clubs, Real Madrid and Barcelona, mainly due to their ability to negotiate separate TV contracts. In the summer of 2009, Real Madrid paid a record £80 million transfer fee for Cristiano Ronaldo. As it is the richest club in the world according to the Forbes list, the high expenses for two other players, Kaká and Karim Benzema, with the associated high salaries, tripled Real`s net financial debt from €130 million as of June 30, 2008 to €326.7 million as of June 30, 2009, such as the signing of Raúl Albiol, Benzema, Kaká, Ronaldo, James Roudiguez, Gareth Bale and some minor players from the 2009/10 squad were added to the 2008/09 season. [22] Madrid`s signing of another big name, Xabi Alonso in August 2009, reduced net financial debt from €326.7 million to €244.6 million as of June 30, 2010, even higher than in the previous eight seasons. On the other hand, net assets/equity increased from € 195.9 million to € 219.7 million. [23] [24] [25] The new rules are about financial stability, not competitive balance.

They are designed to ensure good club management, they are not designed to make competitions fairer or more egalitarian. UEFA has decided to drop the name « financial fair play » because it believes it gives the false impression that it is trying to create a level playing field. They will continue to find a competitive balance, but their main objective so far has been financial stability. The rule for overdue payments and quarterly audits will come into effect in June of this year. The first evaluation period for the football winnings rules will be 2023. UEFA`s new rules are based on « three pillars »: solvency, stability and cost control. Only a club`s expenses related to transfers, benefits (including salaries), transfer amortization, financing costs and dividends are recognized in revenues from goals, television revenues, advertising, merchandising, disposals of tangible assets, finances, player sales and prizes. Money spent on infrastructure, training facilities or youth development is not taken into account. [51] The legislation currently provides for eight different sanctions against clubs that break the rules, in order of seriousness: reprimands/warnings, fines, deduction of points, withholding of income from a UEFA competition, prohibition of registering new players in UEFA competitions, restrictions on the number of players a club can register for UEFA competitions, Disqualification from an ongoing competition and exclusion from future competitions. Some Italian clubs had been losing money for several years; Inter Milan have accumulated losses of around €1.3 billion over the past 16 years,[18] while Lazio agreed to a 23-year repayment plan on 20 May 2005 to repay an unpaid tax bill of €140 million. [19] However, the association recovered and reported its consolidated financial statements as of the 30th. June 2011 amounted to net assets/equity of €10,500,666, while the Group`s net financial debt (Italian: Posizione finanziaria netta) amounted to €9.01 million.

Its rival in the city, A.S. Roma SpA, from its ultimate holding company Italpetroli, the intermediate holding company « Roma 2000 » (the holding company or head of the larger Roma group of companies, holding company of « ASR Real Estate S.r.l. » and « Brand Management S.r.l. ») to AS Roma SpA (or AS Roma [small group]), owed considerable funds to the banks, including UniCredit. On 30 June 2010, AS Roma SpA had negative equity in the consolidated balance sheet (total liabilities greater than the balance sheet total) of EUR 13.2 million[20], which finally led to the sale of the group (« Roma 2000 ») to a group of investors owned by US billionaire Thomas R. DiBenedetto (25%). Before the official handover on the 30th. As of June 2011, the club had a net financial debt of €53.831 million with negative equity of €43.984 million. [20] In terms of revenue, only an association`s expenses on transfers, benefits (including salaries), financing costs and dividends are taken into account via match day sales revenues, TV revenues, advertising, finances, player sales and prizes. Although Portuguese club Porto, for example, generates only a sixth of Real Madrid`s revenue, they regularly reach the knockout stages of the Champions League and have been European champions twice – 1986-87 and 2003-04. Porto are using contracts with third parties and an extremely effective scouting network, particularly in South America, to buy promising young players to develop and play in the first team in the near future, before they are finally sold at a big profit. Since 2004, Porto has covered its significant operating losses with a net profit of €190 million from player sales. [36] A 2011 report by PriceWaterhouseCoopers expressed deep concern about the fragility of Scottish football`s financial situation. Despite a modest gain in five of the last six seasons, SPL clubs` net debt has risen year-on-year to £109 million, with half of the clubs reporting a deterioration in their position and only two clubs being debt-free.

Although Scottish football was the first British team (Celtic 1967) to become European champions, Scottish football has not been able to compete with its English counterpart since the advent of pay-per-view television.[41] In stark contrast to the Premier League`s huge television revenues, after the collapse of Irish satellite channel Setanta in June 2009, Sky ESPN`s joint television rights, which were to be shared among all SPL clubs, amounted to only £13 million a year, a figure that has barely changed from the £12 million it had already received in 1998 in the framework of the Sky agreement. [42] Financial fair play had to be revised and the pandemic accelerated the process.

Comments are closed.