Twenty clubs came under surveillance by UEFA

Two dozen European clubs at once, including such giants as Barcelona, ​​PSG, Juventus, Arsenal, are suspected of violating financial fair-play (FFP) rules, The Times reports. All of them are placed under the supervision of the relevant structures of the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA). Arsenal, who have lost £213m over the last three seasons, may have the most questions. It is expected that the decision on “Case 20” will be made public in September.

Edition The Times On Tuesday, it was reported that 20 European football clubs were immediately suspected of violating the FFP regulations. It is alleged that UEFA is closely monitoring the actions of these teams. For the time being, UEFA has refrained from further steps, as it has not yet received the most recent versions of their financial statements from the clubs.

In itself, the presence of a certain list of potential violators of the FFP is not something remarkable: UEFA monitors compliance with the rules by the clubs, and therefore there are always some lists of potential violators. Another thing is that the list, according to The Times, includes several very famous teams at once: Barcelona, ​​Juventus, Inter, Roma, Marseille, Arsenal.

Most of the questions, according to The Times, are for the last team. Londoners have previously reported that their “losses” over the previous three seasons amounted to an impressive £ 213 million (€ 253 million). This is almost an order of magnitude more than the €30 million allowed by the regulations. At the same time, the Londoners were very active in the transfer market.

Last summer, Arsenal spent the most in the world on reinforcements, spending €166m on player acquisitions, while selling a relatively modest €31m.

During the current transfer window, Arsenal have already spent €132m, and received only €24m from the sale of players. There is a big imbalance in transfer costs / income. It requires an explanation as to the sources of funding. The Times notes that so far there are no official claims against Londoners. But only because UEFA has not yet received the club’s official accounts for last season.

As for other teams, in some cases, it seems that the decision has already been made. However, some formalities are still required. Apparently, UEFA is in the process of negotiations with the clubs to reach an agreement with them. Those, according to The Times, are prepared with PSG, Marseille, Inter and Roma. The French teams agreed to pay the fine, the Italian teams are not opposed to being fined and having some restrictions on transfers. With the rest, including Arsenal, there are no agreements yet. Not the fact, by the way, that UEFA will be able to agree with everyone. For example, in Barcelona, ​​according to the publication Marca, deny any violation of the rules and generally believe that UEFA has no legally significant grounds for imposing a penalty. Marca’s source in Barcelona drew attention to the fact that sanctions for violation of the FFP regulations can only be applied after the official opening of the case. And this did not happen. It is clear, however, that UEFA may open the case later. Be that as it may, a decision on “Case 20” is planned for September.

It should be noted that the punishment of the guilty clubs, if it takes place, will be one of the last ones adopted under the current FFP regulations. Starting from the 2023/24 season, new rules with a completely different mechanism will come into force.

If now clubs are required to spend no more than they earn, that is, to break even (this is too broad an approach that limits the freedom of doing business by clubs), then under the new regulations, UEFA will track exactly the expenses of clubs directly related to “football activities”. First of all, spending on the salaries of players and transfers, as well as payments to agents. They should not exceed 70% of the teams’ income. True, the transition to the final version of the new scheme will be preceded by a three-year period with an initial 90 percent limit.

Recall that the FFP, introduced in 2010, was noticeably discredited last year as a real tool for controlling clubs’ expenses. It’s about the story of how UEFA couldn’t defend sanctions imposed on Manchester City. The English club for gross violations of the FFP was suspended from participation in European competition. The Manchesters appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport. Without even trying to challenge the authenticity of the documents, the leak of which led to the application of sanctions, they proved that UEFA was not entitled to apply such harsh sanctions. Experts have drawn an unambiguous conclusion from that verdict: elite lawyers, clinging to formalities, easily break the arguments of European football leaders related to the FFP.

Alexander Petrov