Clubs to Sue UEFAon FFP

[Bus-Conductor]

Clubs ‘to sue Uefa on FFP’​

The lawyer who was part of the Bosman case legal team in 1995 believes that clubs would have a strong case against Uefa on FFP​

​

John Goodbody Published: 31 March 2013​

• Comment (0)
• Print

​

Jean-Louis Dupont predicts action against Uefa when FFP is put in place (David Maher)​

LEADING lawyers expect legal challenges to the financial fair play (FFP) rules when they come into force next season.​

Uefa has brought in the rules to stop the huge losses made by many clubs, several of which have been underwritten by billionaires. Football’s European governing body claims that this practice has distorted the structure of the game across the continent and warns that if clubs do not observe the “break even” principle, they face being barred from taking part in Uefa tournaments, including the Champions League.​

Jean-Louis Dupont, a Belgian lawyer who specialises in European law and was part of the legal team who won the Bosman case in 1995, believes that although Uefa has been backed by the European Commission, clubs would have a strong case if they went to the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg because sport is not a special case in European law.​

With success in the Champions League worth hundreds of millions of pounds, those clubs bankrolled by billionaires will surely challenge any attempt to ban them.​

Writing in The Wall Street Journal, Dupont argues that the introduction of the FFP rules “constitutes collusion and hence a violation of European Union competition law. FFP may also infringe other EU freedoms such as the free movement of workers and services. The next question is whether the objectives of the FFP are legitimate and necessary. The relevant test for sporting rules, therefore, is that if they distort competition or other EU freedoms, they must do so no more than is necessary in pursuit of legitimate objectives.”​

One leading British sports lawyer said he believed there was “certainly a case” that the FFP regulations infringe competition rules. Much would depend, however, on what accounting standards were implemented in different countries. He believed that any challenge was more likely to be before the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Lausanne because it offered a faster and cheaper route than going to the European Court.​

A third lawyer, Mel Goldberg, the president of the British Association for Sport and Law, has researched the subject with barrister Simon Pentol. Goldberg accepts that FFP remains susceptible to challenge before the European Court but thinks that the rules are “fairly sensible in so far as clubs should not spend more than they earn. It is all about not trading at a loss. If you balance your books, you can spend what you like.”​

He added: “No legal challenge, as ever, will be mounted until a particular club is banned from a Uefa competition for breaking FFP rules and even then, the given club may not bother if it thinks a legal challenge is not commercially viable.”​

Clubs may not decide a challenge is worthwhile if they were barred only from the Europa League rather than the far more lucrative Champions League.​

 

[gilzeantheking]

It's not if but when a challenge will come.

 

[Misfit]

Are the club not already actually technically invited to play in their domestic leagues and any European comp having accepted certain conditions etc? Why can't UEFA have any qualifying criteria it deems proper. It's not based on race, sexual orientation etc. Just a quasi code of conduct it wants - and a very reasonable one at that. Any club must be trying to be solvent, not that it actually has to be solvent at the time, in order to qualify. OMGZ< the fucking monsters.

If players want to guarantee their participation in the CL they should look to choose their clubs more carefully I guess. What next, clubs not in the CL can lose players immediately and without compensation because one of their players wants to play in the CL but is under contract at a non-CL club. We can't be holding the poor ickle bastards hostage and restricting their free movement after all.

I hope this is actually not just the start of the FFP but actually brings in and hastens the bursting of the money bubble. Players want all the freedoms in the working world? Fine, you get paid a substantial but not obscene wage. Clubs/companies dodging taxes, running up massive debts - bang, closed down, people made bankrupt etc.

Welcome to the real world. You wanted it, you'll fucking well get it.

UEFA might have started us down a very useful route here, quite unwittingly, of course but I hope this happens. Unintended consequences.

 

[nailsy]

Wouldn't any legal challenge take years to resolve?

 

[CrazyConrad]

I am UEFA - it is my competition - I set the rules on how to join - simple.

 

[Real_madyidd]

I am UEFA - it is my competition - I set the rules on how to join - simple.

Cool. Can Tottenham have a place next year please?

 

[CrazyConrad]

Cool. Can Tottenham have a place next year please?

When we beat Everton, Chelsea and City I am sure I can almost say yes to that

 

[Sum Monsterism]

Are the club not already actually technically invited to play in their domestic leagues and any European comp having accepted certain conditions etc? Why can't UEFA have any qualifying criteria it deems proper. It's not based on race, sexual orientation etc. Just a quasi code of conduct it wants - and a very reasonable one at that. Any club must be trying to be solvent, not that it actually has to be solvent at the time, in order to qualify. OMGZ< the fucking monsters.

If players want to guarantee their participation in the CL they should look to choose their clubs more carefully I guess. What next, clubs not in the CL can lose players immediately and without compensation because one of their players wants to play in the CL but is under contract at a non-CL club. We can't be holding the poor ickle bastards hostage and restricting their free movement after all.

I hope this is actually not just the start of the FFP but actually brings in and hastens the bursting of the money bubble. Players want all the freedoms in the working world? Fine, you get paid a substantial but not obscene wage. Clubs/companies dodging taxes, running up massive debts - bang, closed down, people made bankrupt etc.

Welcome to the real world. You wanted it, you'll fucking well get it.

UEFA might have started us down a very useful route here, quite unwittingly, of course but I hope this happens. Unintended consequences.

all of this. x 1000

 

[class of 62]

It's not if but when a challenge will come.

course it will as soon as one of europes major clubs don't get there way financially & spits there dummy out.. big clubs breakaway & next step is a European super league.. it will happen !.

 

[tototoner]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2013/may/06/agent-legal-threat-uefa-financial-fair-play

Players' agent launches legal threat to Uefa financial fair play rules



Uefa's financial fair play regulations face a legal challenge in the European courts after a players' agent argued the rules will unfairly restrict the amount of money he can earn. Daniel Striani, an agent registered in Belgium, has lodged a formal complaint with the European commission against the rules, which require clubs in European competitions from 2011 to move towards breaking even financially.

Striani is represented by Jean Louis-Dupont, a lawyer who in 1995 successfully challenged football's contract rules on behalf of a Belgian player, Jean-Marc Bosman, a legal victory which allowed players to move for free at the end of their contracts. Dupont argues that, as in the Bosman case, he will defeat Uefa's FFP rules even though they are supported by the European Commission.

He argues that Uefa's regulations, which prevent clubs making heavy financial losses whether backed by an owner or not, will have five separate consequences he claims are anti-competitive. The first is that they will restrict investment in a club by no longer allowing them to run at a loss.

The second is the key concern being voiced particularly in England, that it will lock in the power of the already rich clubs, whose dominance will no longer be able to be broken by the odd club like Manchester City or Chelsea which has losses supported by a mega-rich owner.

He then argues that the aim of FFP to dampen down players' wage and transfer fee inflation is "anti-competitive", a breach ofEU law. This is because FFP will lead to a "reduction of the number of transfers, of the transfer amounts and of the number of players under contracts per club", and will have a "deflationary effect on the level of players' salaries".

In conclusion, Striani argues that FFP will be "anti-competitive" because it will affect his own ability to earn agents' fees from players' wages and transfer fees.

Dupont will base his case for Striani on the argument that "the 'break-even' rule infringes other EU fundamental freedoms: free movement of capital (as far as club owners are concerned), free movement of workers (players) and free movement of services (players agents)".

Uefa could better rebalance European football and make it more competitive, he states, by greater sharing of money from rich clubs to small, preventing the need for them to overspend.

Uefa responded by referring to the support the rules' introduction had received from Europe's clubs and players' union, and from the EC.

"The rules encourage clubs to 'live within their own means,' which is a sound economic principle aiming to guarantee the long term sustainability and viability of European football," Uefa said in a statement.

"Uefa believes that financial fair play is fully in line with EU law and is confident that the European commission will reject this complaint."

 

[tototoner]

looks like FFP could be doomed before it starts, also in our current stadium the FFP would hinder more than help us, it would only benefit Man Utd and Arsenal in England

Of course that would change for us if / when we move into our new stadium

 

[Misfit]

looks like FFP could be doomed before it starts, also in our current stadium the FFP would hinder more than help us, it would only benefit Man Utd and Arsenal in England

Of course that would change for us if / when we move into our new stadium

True. In the short-term though, it could help us out until the stadium is up and running though. Unlike other clubs, 2 of which randomly became CL and league challengers and have spend eye-watering amounts of money, we don't need to cut our cloth.

Hopefully the stadium by then will be a yr or two away at most and at least that stadium debt doesn't count towards the FFP.

 

[chrissivad]

There have been plenty of teams that have been kicked out of Europe for one reason or another.

Have any of these teams taken them to court and won the right to play in the competition even if they went against UEFA's rules?

 

[absolute bobbins]

There have been plenty of teams that have been kicked out of Europe for one reason or another.

Have any of these teams taken them to court and won the right to play in the competition even if they went against UEFA's rules?

Sion tried and the Swiss Courts told them to Jog on

UEFA should be basing their argument on the fact that participation in UEFA competition is not mandatory for any football club of a member association and the UEFA financial fair play laws only apply to those who want to compete in UEFA competitions.

The fact that all clubs in the UK want to play in the CL and all clubs in Europe want to play in the CL or the Europa League should be irrelevant

 

[talkshowhost86]

It's been a long time coming but I'm not surprised at all that some clubs are starting to kick up a fuss. Presumably if the rules are contested there could be some delay in bringing the rules in.

I've always thought these rules would be hard to enforce and I wouldn't be surprised if this was the first step in them falling apart completely.

Hope I'm wrong though.

 

[Lilbaz]

I am UEFA - it is my competition - I set the rules on how to join - simple.

This is the argument. They are not stopping any business ec... you just have to meet their criteria to be in the competition. Otherwise why can't my semi pro pub team be in the champions league?

 

[nidge]

Surely the argument that UEFA will use is that FFP doesn't stop clubs from running at a lose but prevents them from being invited to play in either the Europa or Champions League if they choose to run at a lose.

 

[absolute bobbins]

Surely the argument that UEFA will use is that FFP doesn't stop clubs from running at a lose but prevents them from being invited to play in either the Europa or Champions League if they choose to run at a lose.

That'll be part of it, the other part is the UEFA are not bound by European Law anyway, everything they do comes from Lausanne in Switzerland

 

[Lilbaz]

But Switzerland have adopted provsions of EU law in order to be in the single market. This must fall into that category if they are going to the European courts?

 

[Riandor]

It doesn't matter what the outcome is, FFP is doomed if you ask me.
Even if they wrestle it into effect, the delay caused by the legal challenges (which will come) will allow the mega rich to consolidate or get their houses in order just enough to continue. It will do nothing. Anything that affects that and the clubs will push it into further legal wrangling to buy time or have it thrown out completely.

At best I fear we will see some lame version of it that is FFP in name but not in real substance.
Money has utterly corrupted the sport and the fat cats will get fatter.