been growing that the CFCB was content
to lay down the law to the modest and
the minnows but reluctant to take on the
big boys with their deep pockets to pay
the finest legal brains.
In 2016 UEFA elected a new president
in Aleksander Ceferin to succeed Platini,
who had fallen victim to a FIFA financial
tangle of his own making. Ceferin was a
comparative unknown, but within a year
he was presented with a major FFP test
by PSG’s record-busting purchases of
Neymar from Barcelona and Kylian
Mbappe from Monaco.
PSG were careful this time around.
They paid €222m for Neymar but signed
Mbappe on loan for a year, which meant
the €140m purchase would figure in the
next year’s accounts.
Had they learned their lesson? Ceferin
said: “I hope so. If that is not the case
then we will teach them.
“I am not talking only about Paris
Saint-Germain. We will apply exactly the
same rules to all of them. If we did not
respect our own rules then we would be
a toothless tiger.”
By now a new word had entered the
football lexicon: sport-washing – the
process through which rich Gulf states
such as Qatar (PSG) and the UAE (City)
were burnishing their national public
image in the west via football.
Javier Tebas, combative president of
the Spanish league, was furious. He said:
“They are laughing at the system. It is not
just about PSG but also Manchester City.
What happens when this money comes
into European football? It brings inflation
of salaries and transfer fees.
“This is damaging football. There is an
incredible risk when such money comes
in from nation states.”
UEFA continued to issue a mixture ofbreaches but Hapoel Tel-Aviv (Israel),
Hull City (England), Panathinaikos
(Greece) and Ruch Chorzow (Poland)
all had to enter into settlements.
One month later Platini was vindicated
when he was re-elected UEFA president,
with FFP working more dramatically than
even he had expected. The total net
losses of Europe’s clubs had fallen^
from €1.7billion in 2011 to €400m.
Platini felt sufficiently encouraged to
ease some transfer-spending rules and
said: “The objectives remain the same but
now we are evolving out of a period of
austerity to one where we can offer more
opportunities for growth again.”
Days later the international game was
engulfed in the FIFAGate scandal and
within months Platini was banished
himself. Not that it mattered as far as FFP
was concerned as the principle, and the
machinery, had not only been established
but, apparently, set in stone.
Proof came in 2016 when Galatasaray
appealed to CAS against a European ban.
The case erupted from a highly complex
domestic tangle involving high-level
political and commercial interests.
Galatasaray thought they had a solid
case but CAS ruled in favour of UEFA.
UEFA, thus armed, imposed an even
heavier three-year ban on Serbia’s
Partizan over unpaid transfer fees, wages
and social and tax debts. Partizan could
hardly complain: they had broken FFP
rules three times in five years.
A new era dawned for UEFA with a
new FFP challenge. Perceptions had
UEFA has lost
three previous
appeals by
clubs to CAS
GALATASARAY
In February 2019, CAS ruled in favour
of the Turkish club, who were found to
have had contravened FFP regulations
but had reached a settlement with UEFA
which limited their squad size and transfer
spending and withheld €15m in prize
money. But when UEFA subsequently
re-opened their investigation, Galatasaray
appealed to CAS, who ruled in the Turkish
club’s favour because UEFA had failed
to meet the timelines set out in its own
regulations.PARIS SAINT-GERMAIN
In March 2019, PSG’s appeal against a
UEFA decision to reopen an investigation
into alleged breaches of FFP rules was
upheld by CAS. As with the case of
Galatasaray, the French champions’
successful appeal was based on a
technicality, namely that UEFA had not
followed the correct procedures when
attempting to re-open its investigation.MILAN
In June 2019 the Italian club struck a deal
with UEFA, who had initially banned the
club from Europe for two seasons for FFP
overspending irregularities. The ban was
overturned by CAS in 2018, only for Milan
to be referred to UEFA’s FFP watchdog
again in April 2019. Milan’s offer to remove
themselves from one Europa League
campaign was accepted by UEFA and CAS
on the condition that they balance their
books by June 2021.bans and fines to clubs from Albania,
Greece, Kazakhstan, Serbia, Switzerland
and Turkey. Finally they went in search of
the big fish, banning Italy’s Milan for a
year and launching investigations into
Galatasaray and PSG.
The investigations were closed and
then reopened at the request of CFCB
chair Jose Narciso da Cunha Rodrigues.
But the reversions were submitted out
of time and appeals on that technicality
by both Galatasaray and PSG were
vindicated by CAS.
By now, however, Football Leaks had
exploded. Initially, UEFA felt unable to act
on material hacked illicitly. But a change
of heart was enabled after judicial
authorities in at least nine countries took
an active interest in suggestions of a wide
range of misconduct including tax evasion
by clubs, officials, agents and players.
UEFA ordered its club finance panel
to investigate “several alleged violations
of FFP that were recently made public in
various media outlets”, while City rejected
“the accusation of financial irregularities
[as] entirely false”.
All of which means that UEFA,
City and financial fairplay are now
in uncharted waters.Financial Fairplay
Appeal...
Galatasaray
(in red)Test case...PSG’s
Neymar (left) and
Kylian MbappeBan...Milan
(in stripes)