Financial Fair Play: The biggest oxymoron in football history

In the world of English football, tales of underdog triumphs have become increasingly scarce. Despite occasional upsets and Cinderella runs in the cup, the status quo remains largely unaltered – the giants maintain their dominance, while smaller clubs struggle to break through.

In a bid to level the playing field, Financial Fair Play, shortened as FFP, regulations were introduced, promising equality and, of course, fairness for all. However, far from achieving these goals, FFP has seemingly widened the gap between the powerful few and the weak many, becoming the biggest oxymoron in the sports history.

At the inception of the Premier League in 1992, Manchester United swiftly emerged as the dominant force, clinching 13 league titles largely propelled by the famed ‘Class of ’92’, a group of homegrown talents and academy graduates that cost the club nothing in transfer fees. Under the ‘hairdryer treatment’ of legendary manager Sir Alex Ferguson, as well as steady financial backing, the club maintained a homegrown dynasty we may never see again. Their success was hated at the time, but in hindsight was achieved in a far more ethical and respectable way compared to today’s champions.

Enter Chelsea, transformed by the immense wealth of Russian billionaire Roman Abramovich in 2003. With no financial constraints holding them back, Chelsea clinched back-to-back titles away from the previously dominant United less than 2 years after being taken over, assembling a star-studded roster that included Ballon d’Or winners and major money signings the league had never seen up until that point. This monumental paradigm shift marked the beginning of a new era, where financial might dictated success above all else.

Yet, no club has epitomised the power of wealth in football quite like Manchester City, under the patronage of Sheikh Mansour. Mansour, as a member of the royal family of the United Arab Emirates, had unimaginable wealth compared to other Premier League owners at the time. Their meteoric rise, fuelled by unprecedented investment, saw them ascend from mid-table mediocrity to league dominators. The eternally famous ‘AGUEROOOOO’ moment, in which a late Sergio Aguero winner in the final game of the season against Queens Park Rangers gave City their first ever premier league title, was at the time celebrated by the wider footballing world. It was seen as a David and Goliath style victory over their noisy neighbours whom everyone despised in Manchester United. Most of us did not realise that like Macbeth, City were simply killing the king to take the crown for themselves.

The Premier Leagues money makers and only true competitors in the modern era have been whittled down to a select group, the so-called ‘Big Six’, comprising of Manchester United, Manchester City, Liverpool, Chelsea, Tottenham, and Arsenal. These behemoths of the sport hold a monopoly over all challengers in terms of resources, talent, and silverware, leaving the rest of the league in their shadow. There have only been 2 seasons in which the Premier League has been won by somebody outside this group. However, Financial Fair Play, introduced in 2013, under the guise of fairness and attempting to increase competition, has inadvertently done the exact opposite.

Under the ruse of promoting financial sustainability, FFP has become a tool for maintaining the status quo. Basically,  a club is only allowed to take an overall loss of 105 million pounds over the course of a 3-year period. Therefore, the more money you have coming in through various avenues, the more you are able to spend on players, wages and facilities.  While the rules aim to prevent clubs from outspending their revenues, the regulations disproportionately favour already-established giants. Clubs like Manchester City and Chelsea, bolstered by lucrative sponsorship deals and substantial revenue streams gained before the rules came into effect can navigate the constraints of FFP with ease, and can therefore outspend all challengers and stay on top.

On the contrary, smaller clubs find themselves trapped in a vicious cycle of trying to balance the books to abide by the league’s strict financial constraints. Unable to match the financial firepower of their wealthier counterparts, they are relegated to selling their top talent to remain afloat, further widening the gap between the big sides and the small. The Premier League have been strict in their punishment thus far, as Everton have been fined 10 points for going 20 million over their financial fair play limit. This 20 million overspend is seen by the league as one singular breach of the profit and sustainability rules. A points deduction of this magnitude would have seen Everton relegated if given to them last season, and could potentially see them go down this year as a direct result of the deduction. Whilst they are punished so harshly, the big clubs continue to spend far, far more with absolutely no concern of losing their place in the league as a result..

The takeover of Newcastle by the Saudi Public Investment Fund admittedly displays what the rule perhaps intended to do. Despite newfound financial muscle, the likes of which even Manchester City’s Sheikh Mansour would fail to match, our club’s ability to compete remains hampered by our limited revenue streams. The Premier League has also changed the rules to make it that all sponsorships a club may receive must be respective of the market rate for the club’s current size, meaning Newcastle cannot receive lucrative sponsorships via their Saudi owners to inflate their spending power. Man City, following their takeover, were sponsored by colossal luxury airline Etihad, which massively increased the income of City just before the rules that now hinder Newcastle came into effect. The Toons dream of finally challenging the elite, after years of hardship and no ambition under previous owner Mike Ashley, has been immensely slowed down by regulations allegedly designed to ensure fairness in competition. What’s fair about having to sell Yankuba Minteh – a player we only signed last summer for £6m – to avoid a points deduction when our owners are themselves one of the richest sovereign wealth funds on the planet?

Even clubs like Chelsea, who have spent over one billion pounds in the last 2 years, face no repercussions under FFP. In the January transfer window of 2022, they spent more as a club than every other team in Europe’s ‘Top 5 Leagues’ combined. Their astronomical spending spree, though not translating into much on-field success in the Premier League, highlights the borderline stupidity of the rule, that one club can spend this much money whilst others cannot even spend a fraction of it without being potentially doomed to relegation.

Meanwhile, Manchester City’s alleged breaches of FFP regulations have cast an almighty shadow over their decade of dominance, raising questions about the league’s integrity to let these charges go unnoticed for so long. Man City are alleged to have broken the profit and sustainability rules 115 times, and whilst Everton find themselves swiftly and harshly punished, City have been allowed to continue their dominance. Last season, they became only the second team in premier league history to win the treble, winning the Premier League, Champions League and FA Cup in the same season. Many neutral fans are absolutely bemused how a team can be allowed to continue to potentially take trophies away from innocent clubs when they have committed a monumental number of rule breaches. Although the official reasoning for the delays in punishment or trial is due to the magnitude of the situation, thus far the number of breaches they may have committed seems to have benefitted them, allowing them to achieve one of the most difficult accolades in the sport. The lack of swift and decisive action fuels many fans’ perceptions of favouritism towards the financial elite at the top of the league, especially as the small clubs live in fear of breaking the rules that city have supposedly broken so frequently.

The Premier League’s timid response to the Super League debacle further underscores this point. In 2020, The Big 6 along with other clubs in Europe’s elite attempted to form their own breakaway continent wide division. The project was intended to maximise the profits of the large clubs, whilst making the biggest league in the world quite literally an invite only club.  After fan outrage from across the world forced the owners of the big clubs to back down and dismantle the project, everyone expected the premier league to be brutal in their punishment of the clubs who so blatantly undermined them. The clubs received a collective 22 million pound fine, or around 3.6 million pounds each. This is not even a collective weeks wages for an elite Premier League squad, and this absolutely minuscule and disproportionately small punishment from the Premier League made it evidently clear they did not want to weaken their ties with the elite of the division

In essence, Financial Fair Play has become a paradox, a system designed to foster fairness but instead widens the gap between the big and the small to levels the league had never seen prior. The romantic storyline of the underdog defying the odds and gaining any real success in English football grows increasingly elusive. Whether born of genuine intent to increase fairness,  or serving to protect the financial interests of those in power, the legacy of FFP is one of shattered dreams and, ironically, unfairness. Not only is the system far more cruel on the minor offenders than the serial, the rule even on paper undermines the very idea of competition in football. As the gap between the rich and the poor continues to widen, the term ‘Financial Fair Play’ maintains its status as the biggest oxymoron in football history.