FFP FFS

"Go on then. One extra year."

The verdict is in. File away Financial Fair Play (FFP) with the 'Fit and Proper Person' test. As Manchester City's two-season European ban was rescinded by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in Switzerland, the big dead albatross that had been hanging over City’s head for a year was chucked into the sea in return for €10m-worth of pocket change. Ergo de Bruyne and Sterling stay, and financial spiral is avoided. As you were. New money 1-0 UEFA *fake crowd noises*. It’ll make for a fun summer at least.

UEFA has claimed that FFP was implemented to prevent big clubs having a significant financial advantage over smaller clubs through financial doping. However, it must be borne in mind that the overarching aim of FFP was never to stop clubs doing a City. It was to stop clubs doing a Leeds. Hence, we find ourselves in a situation where the penalty for spaffing money illegally (insofar as the laws of the game determine) can be circumvented by simply appealing, having king of Lydia-level money to pay for the best legal team and then accepting a punishment of … a €10m fine. A €10m fine for a club that is spending loads of money? That’s akin to telling the local bully who is stealing other kids’ sweets to give the headmaster a packet of jelly babies, origin unquestioned. It misses the point SPECTACULARLY. And we are experts in that particular field so we should know.

UEFA has pointed out that the CAS panel found many of the alleged breaches were 'time-barred' – that is they occurred before the five-year time-period stated in UEFA regulations. They were, however, found guilty of failing to assist the investigation. While undoubtedly a great result for City, total exoneration it is not. City said in a statement: “The club welcomes the implications of today’s ruling as a validation of the club’s position and the body of evidence that it was able to present.” Translation: the allegations were either not founded or were time-barred.

“The club wishes to thank the panel members for their diligence and the due process that they administered.” This was a panel that judged City had shown a “disregard” for the principle that clubs must cooperate with a governing body’s investigations. Translation: Aubergine emoji next to the sweat droplets one and followed by a laughing face just for good measure.

It is easy (and fun) to give UEFA a kicking but the story in German magazine Der Spiegel only broke in November 2018, despite relating to FFP infringements taking place in 2013. Sheikh Mansour was alleged to be mostly funding the £67.5m annual sponsorship of City’s shirt, stadium and academy by his country’s flag carrier, Etihad. City, for their part, repeatedly denounced Der Spiegel's reports as the product of a "clear and organised" attempt to tarnish their reputation.

Oh and while we’re at it, here’s the breakdown of Champions League prize money: €15m for reaching the group stage, €9.5m for reaching the round of 16, €10.5m for reaching the quarter finals, €12m for reaching the semis, €15m for getting to the final and an extra €4m for winning the thing. UEFA has also committed to paying €2.7m for a win and €900k for a draw. So in layman’s terms, City are quids in by simple virtue of winning the court case as they’ll be up €5m just for the decision being overturned. Aubergine emoji. Sweat droplets emoji. Laughing face emoji.

So what now of FFP? With both PSG and Man City overturning serious punishments in recent years, it is essentially dead in the water. In 2017, Arsene Wenger warned of its toothlessness. He acknowledged that big clubs had found a way to get around UEFA’s rules and despite lobbying for their inclusion for years, he bemoaned regulations that “cannot be respected”. And in the summer of 2017, PSG duly broke the world transfer record by bringing in Neymar for £198m from Barcelona and took Kylian Mbappe on a season-long loan from Monaco (splashing out a mere £166m on him the following year).

All of this begs the question — what was FFP designed to do? And is football completely incapable of self-regulation? It certainly seems so – we are now in the shitty situation where at one end of the scale, human rights abusers can financially dope with abandon. At the other, Bury, Macclesfield and Wigan (all in the same catchment area as Manchester City) are going to the wall due to pound-shop versions of sheikhs and oil tycoons thinking that owning a UK football club is a great idea.

The whole sorry episode reeks of, let’s say, a government special advisor retaining the full confidence of the prime minister after being found to have travelled to the north-east in breach of lockdown rules and, while there, checking his eyesight by driving 30 miles to a local beauty spot. Punishment being a) proportional and b) a deterrent to future law-breaking seems to be a fairly distant concept – remember when you had to resign as an MP if you so much as used taxpayer money to build a little moat round your garden for your ducks, or whatever the hell they were all playing at at the time?

It's easy to ignore the 'rich getting richer' and dismiss it as something that doesn't really apply to those of us that are fortunate enough to have clubs, or lives, that remain untouched. But it's pretty hard to stomach – at the VERY least – when the little clubs get shafted and the biggies just carry on doing whatever the fuck they want.