Backs to UEFA

Backs to UEFA

After another round of Champions League fixtures we once again find criticism directed toward UEFA. My own contempt for the corrupt and hypocritical organisation is well noted. Now some Manchester City fans are canvassing for supporters to turn their backs during the Champions League anthem at the next three European games. Whilst I support any movement against UEFA and their ideology, City fans have to be clear on the reasons why they are turning their backs, and why they are choosing to do it now.

Every time I have written about Financial Fair Play the strong undercurrent has been a dislike toward UEFA. That particular system is anything but fair, they weren’t acting as caring overseers, the system wouldn’t even have prevented a Leeds or Portsmouth situation. It reeked of corruption, ensuring the status quo in football for the European “Big Boys.” They traversed the boundaries of sport and business, failing to ensure clarity or complete legality with either.

When they issued fines, this captured cash wasn’t distributed into grass root schemes, struggling lower league clubs, or even charities. It was fed back to the compliant clubs playing at the top European level. They should have already been filtering money from their vast profits, across all of Europe, to the smaller clubs that facilitate emerging players within the lower leagues. Instead of being a benevolent group they have edged ever closer to a Fascist regime bordering on evil Totalitarianism. They dangle high prize money for their premier competition whilst threatening handcuffs for those that can compete with healthy cash.

It’s only now, after the event and sanctions imposed on Manchester City and PSG, that UEFA have even considered clubs, such as Manchester United, facing questions over loans that form part of their finances. These help highlight that UEFA doesn’t care about fairness. In a democracy, argument and counter-argument are heard equally, then an agreed system is formed. UEFA rule with an iron-fist. Bully and ignore as they please. If they cared about the health of the sport, of the people within the game, they wouldn’t have allowed Poland and Ukraine to spend billions to host the European championships, then face ruin. There should be a moral obligation to protect clubs or national associations from such grotesque overspend. But as long as UEFA are dangling the carrot they’re hardly likely to tire of the tease.

It’s ruling with such an iron-fist which makes remarks made after the “behind closed doors” CSKA Moscow v Manchester City Champions League tie, all the more ridiculous. CSKA were the ones facing a punishment for racist behaviour. Yet, on the night, they somehow had around 600 fans in the stadium. As City captain Vincent Kompany asked: “You say no fans, all of a sudden you turn up and the team that has no fans is Man City. So who’s getting punished? Who’s being done for racism, Man City or Moscow?”

MCFC Mos

It’s almost a rhetorical question. Clearly the punishment also affected Manchester City, perhaps to a greater degree. I am not suggesting, nor is anyone associated with the club even as they launch a complaint, that the Moscow fans swayed the match. But the principle of the matter is what makes it note worthy. It’s almost a sick joke when UEFA claim there was no breach. That club delegations, media, security staff, UEFA and guests of sponsorship partners are allowed into behind closed door matches. It’s that last one on the list that tells the story: Sponsorship Partners. Greedy UEFA. Always money over morals.

They claim they can’t dictate who those guests are. They make the rules and shirk the responsibility all too often. If UEFA stated only people in pink shirts could enter, guess what, we’d all be wearing pink shirts or face being ejected from our seats. They obviously need clubs, media and security there. But they could have prevented guests of sponsors. They may have lost some cash, but is money from one game’s set of guests more important than a solid stance against racism?

UEFA No racism

To UEFA it probably is. This is an organisation that threatened action against players if they walked from the field of play during racist chants, then applauded that action when the world supported AC Milan for doing just that. They are so out of touch with public opinion and common decency that their judgement can no longer be trusted. City shouldn’t have been playing that came in Moscow in front of 600 CSKA fans. It should have been in a neutral country’s stadium filled to the rafters with Blues.  But they don’t really care about racism, half the time they come across as if the subject is an awkward annoyance to them; and they don’t care about Manchester City, we’re like the one-legged ginger step-child that needs glasses.

So as a City fan (I also happen to have been a step-child, ginger, and a wearer of spectacles) we face the decision to turn our backs when UEFA play their anthem. I agree with the sentiment. The debacle in Russia is the straw that has broken the camel’s back for many a Blue. However, I’m worried it puts City fans on dangerous ground. Surely the time for a stance against UEFA was at the first Champions League game. The droplets of faeces we’ve had on us this week are just spray from a larger, on-going, shower.

To make a stand now we risk looking bitter. That our disappointing result is more to do with the turning of backs than UEFA’s actions. Too much focus is placed on the Champions League. For me the measure of a team’s greatness is domestic success. When both Liverpool and Chelsea last claimed UEFA’s top prize they failed to secure a top four finish at home. However, the world sees it different. City’s owners see it different. Had City already secured a Champions League trophy, a stand against UEFA would hold much more weight. Instead there’s a risk our positive defiance will be pushed away with nonchalance.

MCFC Backs UEFA

Over the coming weeks we need to articulate all our grievances regarding UEFA to prevent our protest appearing two-faced. At the moment UEFA stand unopposed, everyone is bending to their rules, the rules bending further to support the evil regime. If people do take notice we need to have a clear message: That UEFA needs to change or be replaced entirely.

Empty Seats, Empty Gestures

Empty Seats, Empty Gestures

Much has been made in the aftermath of Roma’s visit to Manchester City about the number of empty seats at the Etihad Stadium. Lead by former Manchester United players, Ferdinand and Scholes, the atmosphere – or lack thereof – and City’s passion for European competition has been called to question. It’s easy to lead a charge of criticism, fuelled by sour grapes, when you conveniently ignore the overriding factors. The loyalty of City’s masses should not be doubted, the course of the modern game should.

First off the bat, I’m not here to make excuses for the poor attendance at the Etihad last night. It was disappointing. Normally when I write these articles I try (but probably fail sometimes) to keep my blue side suppressed and present an opinion based on the good of the game. Today, my opinion will understandably sound like it is coloured blue, the defence of the crowd last night has widespread issues serving as an undercurrent.

It’s all too easy to cast judgement over the lack of support and paint a picture that Manchester City fans care less or lack the passion of rival teams. It almost seems that the way to chip away at City’s rise to the top is to question if the people at the heart of the club – the fans – deserve to be there. I didn’t hear what the United old boys said last night, I was at the game and don’t record substandard broadcasts to watch when I get back from the ground. But I get the gist of it. From what I have read today, Scholes questioned why fans weren’t in the ground early. Well, we have City Square which provides entertainment before kickoff within our stadium complex. I’ll forgive him this oversight because there wasn’t room for such a thing when he worked at his outpost in Trafford Borough.

City Square

The low attendance has obviously been jumped on from all quarters. To tie this to the passion or dedication of City fans is absurd. I am fortunate enough to be able to afford a ticket to all home games in every competition. This doesn’t make me a better fan than a father of four on the minimum wage, struggling to make ends meet, who decides £35 for a ticket was a stretch too far when he could watch it for free on television. Remember, this is a club that kept its support in the third tier of English football, with an average attendance back then of 28,780.

Pollock

There is clearly a loyal core. City is new to the game of attracting global fans, new to the Champions League. With this is mind, they should be incomparable to Liverpool and United, yet, last night the clubs were slotted side-by-side to further demonstrate the low turnout. Years of worldwide exposure will gain any club the tourist fans, the glory seekers, the more fickle fans. In heavy numbers these fill empty seats. If City stay in the upper echelons of European football for the next decade these fans will migrate to the Etihad. That’s why the stadium is undergoing expansion – it is future proofing.

Scholes must also have a short-term memory. It wasn’t that long ago Manchester United only managed to fill 47,000 seats for a Champions League game against Cluj. Were the United fans not taking the competition seriously that year? The difference being, United sold a full allocation but fans still failed to travel. This brings us to another factor: United force season ticket holders to commit to Champions League games, City have a separate cup scheme.

This brings us to the main problem with the modern game. Cost. I have spoken out against FFP for a long time, and yet again I get the opportunity to here. Not that I take pleasure in doing so because this time it’s not to highlight how UEFA are attempting to protect the established big clubs. Unfortunately this anti-FFP observation is how the by-product of the unjust system affects the fans. Clubs are attempting to break even, the way they are accomplishing this is higher ticket and merchandise prices. Those empty seats at the Etihad were physical reminders that FFP is bad for the game on many levels.

Manchester City is the perfect club to place this issue in the spotlight. Unlike some teams, they aren’t run by debts or loans. Sheikh Mansour can pay for all wages and transfers upfront. FFP isn’t protecting a club like City from ‘doing a Leeds.’ FFP wouldn’t have even protected Leeds, they would have complied. It protects the European giants from being caught. But let’s say for a minute UEFA were genuinely worried solely about the rising costs within the game, if so, FFP was a weak attempt at a soft wage cap. They must have hoped clubs would, over time, lower wages to comply with the break-even rule. This hasn’t happened.

Since FFP’s introduction wages have continued to soar. Manchester United isn’t even playing in the Champions League and offer weekly wages in excess of £300,000. This leaves UEFA – if their intentions are genuine – with a few remaining options. The first would be to introduce a hard wage cap that all clubs across Europe adhere to. Observations would have to be made for certain areas (I.E. Teams in London can have a slightly higher one to counter the cost of living; Monaco, or teams in lower taxed countries like Spain, offer less so players can only take home the same amount after tax). Tied into this would be a new law on ticket prices. Just as clubs can’t offer high wages, they’d no longer be able justify high ticket prices.

The next would be to copy Baseball’s Rich Tax. I discussed this in the past (Financial Fair Prejudice) so won’t labour the point, but a similar method could be adopted in football. Instead of a set budget like baseball, we keep the break-even method, but when a team exceeds it they pay a tax as punishment on every penny over the limit. Rich clubs that have no debts could still operate safely. It would act as a deterrent rather than a way to stunt growth. Again, if a team is paying the rich tax it has no excuse for high ticket prices, the fans should be put first in the UEFA directive that would monitor the rich tax. In baseball the tax also increases for every cumulative year spent over the budget marker (or break-even in football’s case).

Mansour

The final way to help fans would be the most direct and charitable method. As mentioned, Sheikh Mansour doesn’t need a dime from the City fans. He could comfortably pay for everything without needing to worry about his accountant. He has to charge the fans more to comply with Financial ‘Fair’ Play. His fines disappear to other European clubs who are also charging fans high prices to break-even. There should be flex in the break-even for ticket prices. Just as things like stadium expansion and youth development are left off the books for FFP purposes, there should also be an allowance to wipe losses when a club voluntarily charges less for tickets. City could sell tickets for £10, making it affordable again for the working class man, and sparing UEFA the blushes of empty stadia. If a generous owner can afford to invest at a loss, then is there a better way to do? Rather than higher wages to line the pockets of millionaire footballers, they could help make ends meet for the loyal masses.

It should be noted that in Germany they do offer cheaper tickets. It seems that here, the trend is to take from every source and ignore the fans. We have a product that commands high revenues but isn’t sustainable. Greed is dictating the game. Sky and BT fought and paid higher revenues for TV deals than ever seen before. The main reason was to wrestle control of the UK broadband market. However, I have been quoted as saying before: The value of something is only what someone is willing to pay. Whatever the motive, the price for TV deals has once again been set high. Perhaps UEFA, because we know they like to dictate, should place a rich tax on clubs that make more than a predetermined limit on such revenues. The tax would be paid by lower prices on the gates accordingly. Fine, take your Sky money, but it’d mean only being able to charge a tenner on match day.

Some of these suggestions would be legally difficult to implement. But when you think about it, FFP itself should have faced many more legal challenges but we now live by it. It seems what UEFA says, goes. It’s about time they did something to protect the fans from escalating prices. Without the fans, it’s really not a sport at all.

Fair and Three

Fair and Three

The season is well underway again, as we enter October let’s take a look back to the summer transfer window, and forward to how English football can better equip itself for the future. Much has been made of the transfer spend this summer. A whooping £200M more was spent by Premier League clubs compared to the same window twelve months earlier. Approximately £400M of that net spend went abroad, only £60M to Football League clubs. The increase in expenditure isn’t surprising – everyone is trying to keep up with the Joneses – it is a slap in the face for FFP though.

The Premier League does enjoy increased television revenue so many clubs will feel comfortable spreading the cash further. Also, clubs like Southampton reinvested the income of their sales to Liverpool straight back into the team. However, the overall trend is clubs stretching the limits of FFP in order to compete. I take no pleasure in any club suffering at the hands of Financial ‘Fair’ Play but it is slightly amusing that the very vocal Liverpool, a club that made great efforts in highlighting Manchester City’s non-compliance, are already under UEFA’s microscope. Rumour has them facing a £16M fine.

It’s absurd that these collected fines will now be redistributed to the compliant teams playing in European competition. It’s as if Michel Platini is Robin Hood in reverse. The fines should go to grass roots and lower league teams, not to the elite that already has placed a protective shield around their hierarchy with the invention of FFP.

It’s ironic that FFP was designed to protect the repeats of Leeds and Portsmouth, they both would have passed under current FFP guidelines, and fines a club like Manchester City whom are safe financially and require no loans or financial restructuring to pay for transfers and wages. Furthermore, after deciding to comply with the punishment, City’s FFP restrictions helped them perform a much needed spring clean of fringe personnel. It must be witnessing the strengthening of City’s finances that has opposing managers discuss them so much. A system that should have suppressed the rise of a Blue Moon has enforced it this summer.

Further irony comes from the borough of Trafford in Greater Manchester, just outside Manchester itself, from the Red Devils. Alex Ferguson once said: ‘We know City are going to spend fortunes, pay stupid money and silly salaries. We know that happens. We can’t do anything about that. We are not like other clubs who can spend fortunes on proven goods.’ Guess that message wasn’t passed on to the ‘genius’ that is Van Gaal. In one transfer window the blueprint has been screwed up and discarded in the bin. Suddenly it’s okay to have an accelerated growth period if you’re one of the existing established big clubs. What’s good for the goose should be good for the gander.

The disturbing element with the Manchester United summer spend is the way it signifies the end of home grown talent coming through the ranks. The class of ’92 was a long time ago now. All top clubs in England are guilty of neglect in the youth department. It’s not that they don’t invest; it’s that they daren’t give them game time when every single minute of every top flight game is so important. Gone are the days of twenty minute run outs every few weeks for upcoming players. Nowadays we either burn them out by the age of twenty-three with over exposure or lose them entirely.

MCFCACR

There is an over-reliance on the loan system to develop players. Chelsea alone has twenty-six players away on loan. Clearly not all of these – if any – will arrive back at Stamford Bridge and get a shot in the first team. That’s fine, somebody has to be the Robbie Savage in a good bunch, but any players returning to the top flight after loans away and making it are few and far between. It’s damaging youth development in this country, and as I mentioned at the start of this article, means clubs are going abroad with their money.

The FA Chairman, Greg Dyke, did propose a good alternative to combat these issues. Sadly the Football League clubs vetoed it. It is an idea that deserves further review. He suggested a League Three, placed between the Conference and League Two, compromising ten Premier League B Teams and the ten best non-league sides. The B teams could only ever progress to League One, so even if they finished first to tenth in that league the eleventh placed side would be promoted, to prevent them mingling too far up.

The benefits would work both ways. Currently young players are leaving their parent clubs primarily for game time. Experience of competitive matches seen as the best way to aid development. This is clearly an important factor. However, they are leaving superior training facilities, better coaches, and the ethos and tactical beliefs of their parent clubs. If they stayed within the hub of the family and played for the B teams they could be assessed and developed firsthand, making the transition to the first team more likely.

Whilst B teams would mean less loaned players to the Football League clubs that look forward to free talent, they would benefit from higher gates. A B team of Manchester City players would increase revenue compared to one loaned City player in a Rochdale team. Also, it stands to reason that these B teams would improve the overall quality in the lower leagues. Playing against better teams will only raise the game overall. Players get better if they play regularly at a higher standard.

The Football League players would benefit from the increased exposure: It would act as a better scouting method. Recently players have come up to the Premier League with teams like Norwich that played through a couple of the lower leagues, proving there is quality down there. At the moment there is an over reliance to spend on foreign talent when if we dug a little deeper we could find it here in England. A League Three would end the now ridiculous loan system, allow young players to fully benefit from an attachment to a club with state of the art facilities, and accelerate the progression of players from the Football League to the top flight.

We need to embrace changes like this before we find English football set on tracks that allow no room for manoeuvre. If FFP is to be an unnoticed backdrop we need to improve the way we develop the future generations, and currently the systems in place are failing them.