The UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations have been implemented by UEFA since the season 2011/12 with the aim of encouraging responsible spending by clubs for the long-term benefit of football. However, the enforcement of the break-even requirement as defined in Articles 62 and 63 of the Regulations (arguably the most important rules of FFP) has only started this year. Furthermore, UEFA introduced recently amendments to the Procedural rules governing the Club Financial Control Body (CFCB) allowing settlement agreements to be made between the clubs and the CFCB.  

On Friday 16 May, UEFA finally published the nine separate settlement agreements between the respective clubs and the CFCB regarding the non-compliance with the Financial Fair Play (FFP) break-even requirements. The nine agreements are summarized in the table below:  

Tablewiththeninesettlementagreements.jpg (325.3KB)

Interestingly enough, unlike the other clubs, Manchester City, who had a deficit of €180m in the past two seasons, agreed with the CFCB to have a maximum deficit obligation imposed on them this season already. According to the statement on their website, they are on course to financially break-even by 31 May 2014: “rather than having an accumulative allowance of €30m of losses over the next two reporting years, Manchester City will have specific stipulated allowances for 2013/14 and 2014/15 of €20m and €10m respectively.  Significantly, Manchester City plans to be profitable in 2014/15 and in the years that follow.” 

Official statements by the other clubs express a similar view that the imposed sanctions will not bear negative consequences. For example, PSG got caught by the FFP Regulations due to the overvaluation of the sponsorship deal with QTA. [1] The financial numbers for other clubs are a very well kept secret, in practice it would be highly relevant to know why some clubs had to settle for €60m, others for €12m (FC Zenit), and some for only €200K. Thus, it is of paramount importance that UEFA be transparent and releases the full reasoning and facts leading up to the specifics of the settlements. 

The nine settlement agreements provide for more open questions than answers. For example, why can FC Zenit register up to 22 players for UEFA competitions for 2014/15, when Manchester City, PSG, FC Anzhi and Rubin Kazan are only allowed to register 21?  

Unless a third party decides to challenge the agreements in accordance with Article 16 (2) of the Procedural rules governing the CFCB[2], which is highly unlikely at this stage, we will not get to know more about the reasoning and the factual circumstances of the different cases. Furthermore, we will need to wait for at least another year to get the chance to have the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) pronounce itself on the break-even requirement and the new settlement procedure. Taking into account that the clubs concerned do not appear to be substantially affected by the sanctions, it remains very much unclear whether UEFA’s aim of encouraging responsible spending by clubs for the long-term benefit of football is achieved by the break-even requirement and more particularly by these settlements.

[1] Article 61 (2) of UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations states that the acceptable deviation is €5m

[2] Article 16.2. of the Procedural rules governing the UEFA Club Financial Control Body, edition 2014 foresees that: “Any decision of the CFCB chief investigator to conclude a settlement agreement or to apply disciplinary measures within the meaning of Article 14(1) (c) may be reviewed by the adjudicatory chamber at the request of a directly affected party within ten days from the date of publication of the decision.”

Yesterday, the press revealed that the European Commission decided to reject the complaint filed by Jean-Louis Dupont, the former lawyer of Bosman, on behalf of a player agent Striani, against the UEFA Financial Fair Play (FFP) Regulations. The rejection as such is not a surprise. The Commission had repeatedly expressed support of the principles underlying the UEFA FFP. While these statements were drafted vaguely and with enough heavy caveats to protect the Commission from prejudicing a proper legal assessment, the withdrawal of its support would have been politically embarrassing.

Contrary to what is now widely assumed, this decision does not entail that UEFA FFP regulations are compatible with EU Competition Law. UEFA is clearly the big victor, but the legal reality is more complicated as it looks.

UEFA’s Austerlitz

UEFA, which most probably leaked the decision to the press, must have been enchanted by it. At a time when Europe is buzzing with rumours on the potential illegality of the UEFA FFP Regulations, it is fully vindicated by this decision. Indeed, at least in the short run, the UEFA FFP regulations will not be legally threatened anymore. Basically, for the time being, FFP is here to stay.

The European Commission’s Death Sentence to the Striani complaint

The Commission’s decision to reject the complaint is less far-reaching than one would think. The decision does not enter into the substance of the compatibility of the UEFA FFP regulations with EU Competition law. Rather, the EC has chosen the easy way out of what it must have perceived as a toxic case, with much political capital to lose for a single player agent. The elegant way out of a potential mess was to consider Striani not directly affected by the UEFA FFP Regulations. We can gather from the press reports that the Commission argued that Striani as a Player Agent was not an addressee of the FFP rules and was not substantially affected by them (as he was claiming only a symbolic euro of damages in front of the Belgian Courts), thus leaving him with no legitimate interest. Moreover, the fact that the UEFA FFP Regulations were welcomed by diverse groups of stakeholders (ECA, FIFPro) corroborates in the eyes of the Commission that there is no interest for it to act ex officio in light of such a consensus. This decision can now be contested in front of the EU General Court. However, the European Commission enjoys, in light of its very limited resources, a wide discretion in deciding which cases deserve to be investigated. Hence, it is very unlikely that the Court would annul this decision. But is it the end of the legal war?

Is a Waterloo still possible for UEFA?

After Austerlitz, came the Berezina and finally Waterloo: the war over the UEFA FFP regulations is far from done. The European Commission has not pronounced itself on the substantial merit of the claim and Dupont has still a case ongoing in front of the Belgium Courts. If it goes all the way up the legal ladder, it will most probably be referred, via the preliminary reference procedure, to the EU Court of Justice, giving it the opportunity to address the merits of the case. However, it is obvious that Player agents are perceived as the dark sheep of the football family. This is not a Bosman-like situation with a player barred from exercising his job because of a European-wide boycott and rules discriminating expressly on the ground of nationality. Therefore, we doubt that Striani will be more successful in front of the Courts. Nevertheless, if the players, for example via FIFPro, or the clubs decided to go after the UEFA FFP regulations (for now FIFPro and ECA are officially supporting FFP) it would be a completely different story. Such a complaint would be difficult to disregard by the Commission.

The Commission is certainly the guardian of Treaty, but not its interpreter. One would be ill-advised to throw caution to the wind and assume that the UEFA FFP regulations are definitely compatible with EU law. The European Commission conveniently avoided deciding on this matter. But, as Bosman reminded us, the Commission can also err in its evaluation of EU law’s bite and nothing precludes the Judges in Luxembourg from assessing the compatibility with EU law in a different way.

UEFA may have won a crucial battle, but there is still a legal war to fight.