United’s new deals with Chevrolet and
Adidas are the perfect illustration of why FFP is sending us to hell in a
handcart. Clearly, though, others see it
differently.
The FFP debate is monotonously predictable so I thought I’d save everyone the trouble by having it once, by myself, and
allowing you to simply link to it, saving you the trouble of having the futile
arguments yourselves. It’ll save you
time and make Twitter all the less tedious for it.
Here, Person A and Person B take up the
debate:
A: Whoa! United’s sponsorship deals are so
huge, how can we ever hope to compete?
FFP means we can’t invest in top players, or our brand, so we’re stuck
behind them forever aren’t we? So much
for fair play.
B: Nah – you need to do what United have
done and earn it.
A: How?
B: Get bigger like we did. Invest in your academy and grow organically
and that.
A: Well that’s not gonna work. If any of our players are any good, the top
clubs buy them and we’re back to square one.
This can’t be fair. And anyway,
if this is a sporting competition, why should it be “strongest brand
wins”? Why don’t we share the money out and
have some proper competition?
B: Because football’s a business now isn’t
it?
A: So it’s a business but we’re not allowed
to invest. Does that not seem odd to
you?
B: No.
It’s important that you only spend what you earn – it stands to reason,
right?
A: Why?
Football fans keep saying that as if it’s some kind of eternal moral
truth. People invest and borrow in every
other industry and have done in football for over a century. Why do we have to only spend what FFP
defines as revenue?
B: Durr!
Because you’ll go bust if you spend money you don’t have.
A: Fair enough for clubs that spend beyond
their owner’s means. But as long as the
investment isn’t borrowed and isn’t a speculation on future success, it’s safe
as houses, right? If an owner transfers
money into a club’s account, surely that makes them more secure not less?
B: But what if the owner gets bored and
leaves the club with a cost base they can’t support?
A: True, but investment allows clubs to be
more successful and therefore grow their revenue. City’s revenue is miles higher now than it was
when the Sheikh arrived. It also makes the club attractive to other new owners
and we could introduce measures to make sure owners invest in contingency funds
too, if that’s what we’re really worried about.
B: Yeah, but why should you be handed
money? That’s not fair. United earned theirs. It’s just financial doping.
A: Well, United are the most popular club
in the country – fair play. But in the
last twenty years, they’ve worked with the other G14 clubs to make the
Champions League a closed shop that has sent their revenues through the
roof. Being in the Champions League
year-on-year makes you pretty much untouchable.
B: Exactly – they earned a top four place
every year.
A: But there’s hardly a level playing field
each August. It rewards the elite clubs
so much that they can hardly fail to stay there. Players want to be in the Champions League, a
new global generation of fans wants to support the teams in the Champions
League, companies want to sponsor teams in the Champions League. Twenty years later, they’re playing a
different game to the rest of the league, financially. That’s not earned – that’s self-perpetuating.
B: But that doesn’t mean you should let
Arab oil money be used by clubs that haven’t earned it.
A: [Thinks:
Hmm, bit racist…] But what’s the difference between an owner putting money
in and a huge corporate investing?
Chevrolet and Adidas are putting in loads and load more cash than Aon and Nike were. Why? Because they need
United to be successful if they’re going to get value from the deal. So they’re investing in giving the manager
enough money to buy top stars to wear their brands and to bring home trophies
that will be paraded before their brands.
It’s investment in making United successful.
B: Financial doping is still wrong.
A: But we’ve just established that clubs
can’t compete unless they get investment.
So what’s the answer?
B: What’s the problem? All clubs should live within their means and
we’ll see who wins.
A: But you accept that that will always be
the same clubs – primarily United?
B: No – only if they perform and earn it.
A: They just finished seventh – arguably the
most abject failure of any club in Premier League history – and as a result
they’ve just signed the Adidas deal that will push them back to the top. Is that how you define “earning” success?
Under what circumstances could United now fail to be the biggest
“earners”? Do they deserve success forever?
B: Ok. But if this system is so unfair, why
have all the clubs voted for it?
A: Well, that’s a good point, although they
didn’t all vote in favour. But remember
it’s voted for by club owners. If you
own a mid-table club, the reality is, you’re a million miles away from the top
clubs already and you’re enjoying ever increasing revenues due to the
popularity of the league so the value of your investment is going up. FFP domestically means that you’re under no
pressure to invest your own money (a great defense when the fans demand
signings) and it helps keep the clubs below you at bay if they can’t invest to
catch you up.
What it means for fans though is that
they’ll never compete at the top within their lifetimes. Or their kids’ lifetimes. Or their kids’ kids’ lifetimes…
B: Ok, I get the picture. Do you know, the more I think about it, I
reckon you’re right. We’ll only get
financial fair play if we redistribute wealth better and put in absolute caps
on transfer spend and salary bills (not linked to revenue). Then we could invest more in youth, cheaper
ticketing, better facilities etc. Sadly
the established elite will never go for that.
A: Do you know mate, I couldn’t agree more. Fancy a pint?
B: Nice one.
