soccer is for life

The Hidden Truth Behind Financial Fair Play: Protecting the Game or Protecting the Elite?

By

In 2010, UEFA, the governing body of European football, announced a major set of rules known as Financial Fair Play (FFP). The stated goal was to bring “discipline and rationality” to the chaotic finances of European clubs.

While fans often hear about FFP in the news, usually regarding teams like Manchester City or PSG, the economic reality of these rules is often misunderstood. A study by researchers from the University of Antwerp and the University of Michigan simulated the effects of these rules on major European leagues. Their findings suggest that FFP might not be about
fairness at all, but rather about cementing the power of the biggest clubs.

What is Financial Fair Play?

At its core, FFP requires clubs to obtain a license to play in major competitions like the
Champions League. To get this license, they must meet two main criteria:

  1. Pay Your Bills: Clubs must have “no overdue payables.” They cannot be late on payments to other clubs, players, or tax authorities.
  2. Spend Only What You Earn: This is the famous “break-even” rule. Clubs must prove that their “football expenditure” (wages and transfer fees) does not exceed their “football income” (ticket sales, TV rights, and sponsorship).

Essentially, this rule was designed to stop “sugar daddies”, wealthy owners like Roman Abramovich (Chelsea) or Sheikh Mansour (Manchester City), from injecting unlimited personal cash to buy success.

The “Salary Cap” Disguise

In American sports (like the NFL or NBA), leagues use a salary cap, a hard limit on what all teams can spend on wages. This is done to ensure competitive balance, giving every team a fair shot at winning.

The research argues that FFP acts like a “salary cap,” but a very different kind. Instead of a fixed limit for everyone, FFP restricts spending based on a club’s own revenue.

  • The Result: It forces teams to cut player wages significantly. The study estimates that FFP could reduce wage-to-revenue ratios in major leagues by up to 15%.
  • The Winner: This is great for club owners. By forcing all teams to spend less on players, clubs become more profitable.
  • The Loser: The money that used to go to players (and tax authorities) stays in the owners’ pockets. The study estimates this “rent-shifting” could move over €800 million from players to owners.

Cementing the Hierarchy

The most critical finding of the essay is that FFP likely hurts the excitement of the game.

In an open market, a small club could only challenge giants like Real Madrid or Manchester United if a wealthy investor bought them and spent heavily on new players. This is how Chelsea and Manchester City rose to the top.

Under FFP, this path is blocked. Because spending is tied to existing income, the traditional big clubs, who already have the biggest stadiums and sponsorship deals, are allowed to spend the most. Small clubs are legally locked into spending less.

The researchers found that:

  • FFP reduces the threat to top teams: It rules out challenges from smaller clubs bankrolled by investors.
  • The “Big” stay “Big”: Traditional powerhouses (like Manchester United or Barcelona) are not hampered by FFP because their revenues are already massive.
  • Less Competition: Unlike a US-style salary cap, which helps equalize teams, FFP freezes the current hierarchy. The study shows that a US-style cap would be far moreeffective at making leagues competitive than FFP.

Conclusion: A Legal Risk?

The essay suggests that FFP might actually be illegal under European competition law. Usually, competitive restraints (like salary caps) are allowed only if they benefit the consumer, in this case, the fans, by making the league more exciting.
However, the data suggests FFP does the opposite: it makes the league less competitive and simply helps owners keep more profit. By protecting the established elite from new challengers, Financial Fair Play may be less about “fairness” and more about protecting the status quo.

Bibliography

On the Rules Themselves:

  • UEFA. (2012). UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations, Edition Union of European Football Associations.

On Salary Caps & Competitive Balance (The US vs. EU Argument):

  • Dietl, H. M., Lang, M., & Rathke, A. (2009). The Effect of Salary Caps in Professional Team Sports on Social Welfare. The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, 9(1).
  • Késenne, S. (2000). The Impact of Salary Caps in Professional Team Sports. Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 47(4), 422-430.
  • Fort, R., & Quirk, J. (1995). Cross-Subsidization, Incentives, and Outcomes in Professional Team Sports Leagues. Journal of Economic Literature, 33(3), 1265-1299.

On “Sugar Daddies” and Financial Injection:

  • Franck, E., & Lang, M. (2012). What is Wrong with Sugar Daddies in Football? A Theoretical Analysis of the Influence of Money Injections on Risk-Taking. University of Zurich, Center for Research in Sports Administration, Working Paper 46.

On the Legal Context (Competition Law):

  • American Needle, Inc. v. National Football League, 560 U.S. 183 (2010)