FOOTBALL UEFA meets to take stock after the first real introduction of the financial fair play …
This is a progress. One year after the introduction of the financial fair play (FPF), the UEFA president Michel Platini met Monday in Nyon (Switzerland) the main actors. “A constructive meeting” that mashed “wide range of topics, including investment property or the level of debt clubs” that could cause “to discuss possible amendments to the provisions,” said the organization in a statement. Vincent Chaudel, sports economist at Kurt Salmon, speaks for 20 Minutes which may arise from this appointment.
What preliminary conclusions can be drawn from the impact of FPS?
Such measures can not give their full effect in the medium term. For now, we do not see that part namely forcing mainly new players like PSG and Manchester City. Although they still have ways to adapt, as the loan fee that appeared this summer. But it has two perverse short term on which UEFA will examine effects. If the new rich buy less at other clubs, these are the clubs that are the main victims of collateral damage. The transfer market allows a redistribution of wealth, some of which are dependent. The other problem is that this device actually strengthens the already established clubs (Bayern, Barcelona, Real, Manchester United, etc), the first entrants already powerful before starting FPS. Tomorrow they will be more with the FPF which slows the progression of newcomers.
So it is understandable that Nasser al-Khelaifi is the financial fair play “unfair”?
From the perspective of newcomers, the FPS actually generates what is called a distortion of competition. PSG said, “I do not mind that bothers me a bit, but so far at the end of the year I have paid all my expenses and all my taxes and I’m not sure whether If everyone. ” Some clubs in Europe have not not paid their expenses or their players. There was the Salva Calcio in the 2000s, today it is the Spanish football still has a debt of 500 million euros to the tax authorities. Yet these clubs continue to buy players and play European Cups. Not to mention the financial debts to other clubs for transfers partially paid.
The FPS does not endorse yet not indebted clubs, saying that “being in debt is not a problem only “As the club is solvent …
This point is right. Your home, you can buy it cash or credit, as soon as you pay, there is no problem. It is here that the differences between some national and international rules. The FPS focuses solely on the financial results and not on debt. In France, the DNCG look beyond the balance of the income statement.
This meeting can it lead to a reform of the debt?
If the FPS start looking at debt, we may be closer to what you want France and Frédéric Thiriez, something resembling a European DNCG. After that it is always possible to understand the problem in several ways: either we give the maximum debt limit, either accept (and frames) deficits if and only if they are covered by shareholders
<. p> On the other side of the spectrum, German clubs, wishing them instead that the financial fair play maintain momentum and punishes even harder clubs like Paris …
The German position raises a question as to whether there should preserve entrepreneurial freedom or if everyone should grow only in one model. Should we all buy our cash car, you can leave the freedom to each resort to leasing, with a loan or other means yet? The German model is certainly virtuous, but it determines the economic power (ie athletic performance) for a long period of financial stability. This approach has the effect of freezing the positions and nullify the competition.
No comments:
Post a Comment