How UEFA's financial fair play rules are destroying football

With the English Premier League kicking off last weekend, we'll no doubt hear the well-worn refrain that foreign billionaires are destroying English football.  But it is UEFA's financial fair play rules, not billionaires, that are sucking the soul out of the English game.

Over the last decade or so, several English and European football clubs have been purchased by foreign owners.  Many fans, commentators and officials argue that the enormous wealth of these individuals means clubs are able to buy their way to success and that this is ruining football.

To combat this trend, European football's governing body, the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA), with the support of the EU, introduced the UEFA financial fair play rules (FFP) in 2011.

In 2013, it introduced the so-called "break even" requirement, preventing clubs from accumulating debt.

While UEFA argues these rules prevent clubs from becoming the playthings of billionaires — who they think will leave them with crippling debt once they grow tired of them — they actually ensure small clubs remain small.  By shackling spending to revenue they effectively outlaw risk-taking behaviour.

For example, a small club on the brink of glory is unable to go into debt to purchase the superstar or two it may need to take the next step, with the intention of covering the debt with the increased revenue success brings.

As Manchester City captain Vincent Kompany points out, these rules simply serve to protect the established order in English football.  They are a form of crony capitalism.

This is obvious to anyone who glances at the list of English champions over the last couple of decades.  Between 1993 and 2004 Arsenal and Manchester United won all but one title.  This was broken in 2005 when, having been bought by Russian oligarch Roman Abramovich, Chelsea won only their second title ever, and their first in 50 years.

In 2012, Manchester City won their first title in 44 years after being purchased by Abu Dhabi United Group (ADUG), having lived in the shadow of their illustrious neighbours Manchester United for decades.

But a better example exists before the fleet of foreign owners made their appearance.  In 1995, tiny Blackburn Rovers — hailing from a town with a population of 100,000 — were champions of England as a result of funding from local Steel baron Jack Walker.

Walker was a local boy made good who wanted to give something back to the town where he had grown up and made his fortune.  He appointed the legendary Kenny Dalglish as manager and provided the finance to purchase stars such as Alan Shearer, Chris Sutton, Tim Sherwood and others.

Blackburn's star burned bright but it burnt out quickly.  Having won the title, many players moved on and the club was relegated four years later.  It was noted recently by Andy Dunn in The Daily Mirror that what Blackburn did wouldn't be possible today because of FFP.

Football is about hope, dreams and glory — not the quiet satisfaction of prudent financial management.

Does anyone seriously think that football would be better had Blackburn lived within its means and finished a solid eighth in the first division every year?  Would Blackburn fans prefer that to that glorious afternoon at Anfield when Jack Walker wept in the directors' box?

How can foreign billionaires be ruining the game when they are giving fans their first taste of glory in decades and when they are breaking up a duopoly that meant only two teams could be champions?

If ever there was a symbol of the dimension of hope and drama that a dynamic financial environment brings, it would be the stunning finale to the 2011-2012 season, when Manchester City secured their first league title in 44 years with the help of ADUG.

In what was probably the most dramatic end to an English league season in history, City scored two goals in injury time to steal the title from Manchester United.

As commentator Martin Tyler famously screamed "Agueroooo!", as thousands of City fans streamed on to the pitch in tears, as people around the world danced in pubs and living rooms, can anyone seriously say that the huge investment brought into the English game by foreign investors hasn't been a good thing?  Would football really be better if Manchester United and Arsenal were 20 points ahead of everyone else every single year?

Creative destruction is an economic term referring to the process whereby new, more efficient and more innovative products and firms destroy existing players.  This is exactly what football should be.

There is unlikely to be a more salient example of creative destruction than Manchester City, Chelsea and others upsetting the English and European football applecart.  FFP threatens to put a stop to the next wave of creative destruction that may well knock City and Chelsea off their perch.

ADVERTISEMENT

Time to take a stand at AAMI Park

The introduction of safe-standing at Melbourne's AAMI Park is a convenient, cheap and safe way to expand the ground's capacity that would enable the stadium to achieve its full potential by accommodating the individual choices of fans.

No one who was at last month's A-League grand final will ever forget it.

It is not an exaggeration to say that while the standard of football in Australia's national league places it firmly in the second tier of competitions globally, the atmosphere generated at the grand final would rival anywhere in the world.

The only negative was that only 29,843 fans were able to attend.  The ground's intimacy provides an incomparable atmosphere, but a limited capacity.  As a result, a grand final may never be staged at AAMI again — a fear expressed repeatedly on Melbourne Victory's internet fan forums since the match.

Safe standing offers a solution to this problem.  Developed in Germany, safe standing consists of new technology involving additional railings and monitoring systems that enables football supporters to stand while watching the game, without the safety risks of the open, crumbling football terraces of yesteryear.

It is a classic example of a simple technological innovation enabling us to undertake activities previously thought unsafe.  Indeed, moves to install safe standing are already underway at Western Sydney's Pirtek Stadium.

A safe standing area almost doubles the capacity of a previously seated area.  If the sections behind each goal at AAMI Park were converted to safe standing an extra 10,000 could conceivably be added to the venue's 30,050 capacity.

This is primarily a matter of individual fan choice.  The fact is, many fans prefer standing.  Melbourne Victory has reached the bizarre situation where the memberships they sell to these parts of the ground have instructions printed on the tickets informing fans they are standing only areas, despite seats being present.

Thousands of fans standing in areas designed for seating is also a minor safety hazard.  The row of seats in front of fans standing act as a dicey 30cm high trip wire, particularly during goal celebrations at the more raucous end of the spectrum.  If these were converted to areas purpose-built for standing they would clearly be safer.

By recognising the individual choice of many fans to stand, AAMI Park would also be assisting those fans who wish to sit.  Currently, many of this group are forced to stand as patrons in front of them stand up and block their view if they remain seated.  This wouldn't be a problem if there were designated standing areas.

Safe standing is also the cheapest way to expand the capacity of AAMI Park.  Australia spends an immoral amount of taxpayer money building and expanding sporting stadia.  Converting seating areas to safe-standing comes at a fraction of the cost of fully-fledged redevelopment.

Indeed, safe standing is really the only option to increase the capacity of AAMI Park.  Unfortunately, the uniquely designed roof of the stadium means that it is cheaper to demolish the whole stadium and start again rather than expand on what is already there.  Victorian taxpayers will at some stage in the coming decades be faced with an exorbitant bill as the popularity of football and rugby grows steadily, unless something like safe standing is introduced.

And safe standing areas can be built to incorporate rail seats, meaning they can be turned back into seating areas at the turn of a key for events where fans prefer to sit.

A debate is currently underway in the UK about the merits of safe standing.  Standing at top-flight football in England has been banned since the Hillsborough Disaster in 1989, where 96 Liverpool fans were crushed to death on an overcrowded terrace.  Opponents of safe standing believe it could cause another tragedy in the future.

This is an emotional argument.  Safe standing in no way resembles the 10-foot high fencing, tinder-box wooden stands, crumbling walls, death-trap staircases, not to mention wild west policing and hooliganism, that caused so many deaths at British and European football matches in the past.

And, like in Australia, many British football fans simply stand in front of their seats anyway.

There is no reason why safe standing couldn't be utilised in other grounds in the A-League which are fan favourites but possibly too small to hold the very largest of games.  Adelaide's Coopers Stadium and Sydney's Allianz Stadium come to mind.

The A-League doesn't have to choose between small, atmospheric venues and deathly silent multi-purpose stadiums that are inappropriate for football, such as Etihad Stadium.  They can have their cake and eat it too by honouring fan choice and technological innovation.

AAMI Park is the perfect venue to introduce safe standing so that the extraordinary atmosphere of last month's grand final isn't a once-off.

ADVERTISEMENT