It seemed only a matter of time before the Premier League (PL) jumped aboard the financial regulation ship. In Daniel Geey latest blog he considers the implications of the PL's vote in favour of draft proposals covering profitability and sustainability and short term cost control measures.

Recently there have been reports that the Argentinean government has implemented a tax law that effectively prohibits third party ownership (TPO) of football players. After getting in touch with the esteemed football lawyer Ariel Reck in Argentina, we decided to write a short blog about the consequences for the Argentinean football industry of this law coming into force and whether it has the teeth to actually stop TPO. Ariel comments on the recent developments in Argentina and I set out the basics and consequences for the global TPO market. For readers new to the concept of TPO, I set out below a brief summary below.

John Shea's latest blog on the reports that FC Barcelona have been ordered by FIFA not to select six of their youth team players after the club allegedly breached of Article 19 of FIFA’s Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.

Having detailed some of the match-fixing scandals to have been prominent in 2012, and the approach taken at the London Olympic Games in part 1, we go on to examine action being taken across the globe.

Analysis of the effect of UEFA's Financial Fair Play Regulations (FFP) on the three most common methods used by football clubs to raise finance.  

2012 was predicted to be the year when match-fixing, particularly that related to sports betting, became the principal issue of sporting integrity worldwide with London hosting the Olympic Games. As it transpired there was only one such scandal at the 2012 Games and it was not related to betting. Yet the Olympics did provide the actors in the fight against match-fixing with many invaluable lessons. 

With UEFA’s Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations (the “Regulations”) on the horizon, Samantha Yardley (Partner) and Michael Savva (Associate) of Watson, Farley & Williams LLP, discuss the potential impact of the Regulations on the ability of European football clubs to raise finance.¹

It was supposed to be a low-key friendly.  An opportunity for players to retain their match sharpness during the winter-break in Serie A.  However AC Milan's friendly against Italian lower league club Pro Patria recently hit the headlines for all of the wrong reasons following the decision by the Milan players to walk off the pitch midway through the first half in protest against racial abuse suffered by several of their black players, most notably former Spurs midfielder Kevin-Prince Boateng, at the hands of some sections of the Pro Patria support.

Under European Union (‘EU’) law (Art. 14 of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive), Member States have the right to designate events said to be of such major importance for society that they must be broadcast on free-to-air television channels reaching a substantial proportion of the public. EU Member States have to notify the European Commission of their list of designated events and the Commission then verifies the compatibility of the Member State’s list with the relevant provisions of EU law.  

I thought it would be useful with Financial Fair Play (FFP) entering into mainstream football discussion to briefly set out my top ten tips to help understand the key concepts.

1)       The FFP regulations not only ensures that clubs break-even. They cover a wide range of licensing conditions which are overseen initially by national football associations. Such requirements include ensuring clubs pay their debts in a timely manner.

Manchester City recently announced a £97m loss in their latest 2011-12 accounts. This led to the press and commentators fervently questioning City’s ability to comply with UEFA’s Financial Fair Play Rules (FFPRs). The aim of this blog is to illustrate how City will be able to use various deductibles in the FFPRs to significantly reduce their losses for FFPR calculation purposes. Such deductibles come in the form of removing infrastructure costs and subtracting player contracts entered into before June 2010 (so long as losses year on year are reducing). Such deductions will almost certainly lead to a much smaller loss which although may breach the FFPRs, is likely to incur softer sanctions than an outright ban.

The dream of reviving the Soviet football league has taken a step closer to reality after a group of top officials backed the recreation of what in its day was one of the toughest leagues in the world. Nowadays top Russian and Ukrainian clubs are owned by tycoons and can easily afford stars like Hulk or Eto'o. Though the idea of a creation of a breakaway league in itself is not new, such an initiative raised a lot of debate. 

It is rare in the UK's recent dealings with FIFA that it has had anything to celebrate. The 2018 World Cup went to Russia, FIFA's then refusal of goal-line technology cost England a goal versus Germany in the 2010 World Cup and even last weekend Chelsea lost in the final of the FIFA World Club Cup. However, at least it can celebrate one "victory" following the Advocate General's ("AG") Opinion on FIFA and UEFA's appeal concerning broadcasting of the FIFA World Cup ("World Cup") and UEFA European Championships ("Euro's").

It has recently been reported that the Premier League (PL) is considering implementing certain cost control measures. In line with the UEFA Financial Fair Play (FFP) rules and the Football League (FL) FFP rules, the PL is continuing the growing trend of leagues and associations looking to reign in club spending to ensure long term club sustainability.

The aim of this blog is to set out what the PL proposals may look like, the practical and political ramifications of whether such proposals are likely to be implemented and the consequences of such a change to the PL rules. Such consequences include comment on the potential legal challenges, the sanctions that may be imposed for breaches of the rules and who the rules may benefit.