Uefa intends to sanction clubs who continue to report huge losses

• Governing body will defend in court any penalties challenged
• Clubs could be excluded from Champions League

Uefa has said it will defend in court any penalties imposed on clubs which breach its financial fair play rules, including most seriously the possibility of clubs being excluded from the Champions League.

After European football’s governing body released a report showing clubs across Europe’s top divisions lost a total of €1.6bn (£1.34bn) in 2009-10, Alasdair Bell, its director of legal affairs, was emphatic that the rules, which require loss-making clubs to move towards breaking even, comply with European law and will be upheld if challenged by clubs.

Uefa’s belief is that because the rules are designed to have the positive objective principally of “protecting the long-term viability and sustainability of European club football”, a court would uphold that as reasonable. In answer to what has become the Manchester City and Chelsea question, the clubs which lost £197m and £78m respectively according to their most recent accounts, Bell said Uefa will have to impose proportionate sanctions, which would have to be substantial where clubs are in serious breach of the rules. “The system is not going to have much credibility if a big club that is in serious breach of the rules is not punished in an effective way,” Bell said. “The sanctions need to be effective enough that clubs come into compliance with the system.”

Bell set out for the first time publicly the legal groundwork supporting Uefa’s financial fair play rules, which limit the losses clubs can make to a total of €45m (£37.6m) if covered by an owner, in this financial year and 2012-13. The principles, that clubs must limit their losses, in effect by restraining spending on players’ wages, while being encouraged to invest in stadiums, academies and other long-term infrastructure, are designed to improve football’s overall financial stability and comply with European legal principles.

Uefa set out the range of sanctions which will be available to a semi-independent panel depending on how seriously a club is in breach: they range from a reprimand, to a fine, withholding by Uefa of money, deducting points, preventing clubs fielding certain players in European competitions and ultimately to a ban.

The €1.6bn loss was principally due to inflating wages and transfer fees – the clubs’ income actually increased, from €12bn in 2008-09 to €12.8bn. Gianni Infantino, Uefa’s general secretary, explained: “We have to stop this negative spiral of clubs making losses and having huge debts. If we did not act, we could have a similar crisis to the one in the European economy as a whole.”

UefaManchester CityChelseaDavid Conn
guardian.co.uk

London and Manchester: a tale of two cities dominating the Premier League | Paul Wilson

Twenty years on the top flight has turned many former big hitters into small-town clubs

Every time the hype and anticipation surrounding Spain’s El Clásico series of grudge matches starts up in earnest, as it did last week for Barcelona’s 2–1 Copa del Rey defeat of Real Madrid, it is remarked rather smugly in this country that at least the Premier League can boast more than two teams capable of winning the title.

That is still just about true, though by common consent – Roberto Mancini, Sir Alex Ferguson, André Villas-Boas and a few others – the number presently stands at three. Viz, the two Manchester sides and Tottenham Hotspur, and even that number may reduce should City open up an eight-point gap over Spurs on Sunday afternoon. The rest of the chasers are already looking at an even bigger chasm to bridge, and as the Manchester United manager said last weekend it would take a collapse by all three teams at the top of the table to give Chelsea and Arsenal a glimmer of hope.

Three teams is only slightly better than two, though what the Premier League can rejoice in and La Liga cannot is that two of those three names are new. Manchester City have not won a league title since 1968, have had 22 managers since Joe Mercer, have been all the way to the third tier of English football and back and were everyone’s favourite joke club until three or four years ago. Spurs have never quite gone in for comedy to the same extent but you could have raised a laugh just a few seasons ago with the notion that they would be leading London’s challenge for the title with Chelsea and Arsenal floundering in their wake.

So the argument that the Premier League is more competitive than La Liga is not without merit, particularly as Arsenal and Chelsea are still in the Champions League and are still capable of mounting a convincing domestic challenge most seasons, and not forgetting it is less than a month since the bottom-placed team rather grandly prevented United ascending to the top of the table by beating them 3-2 at Old Trafford. There is more to English football than a rivalry between two teams, as is the rather unhealthy case in Spain, though increasingly the Premier League is becoming a tale of two cities.

Consider the facts. In the 20 years of its history, the Premier League has been won only once by a team from outside London or Manchester, and unless Liverpool or Newcastle are going to be absolutely amazing in the coming months, this season will conform to the usual pattern. The only exception to the rule, Blackburn under Jack Walker and Kenny Dalglish, was 18 years ago and acknowledged even at the time to be a one-off, never to be repeated achievement. In the first year of the Premier League Aston Villa were runners-up and Norwich finished third. The next few years saw Blackburn, Newcastle, Nottingham Forest and Leeds claim what might be termed podium finishes, though since the turn of the century the London-Manchester duopoly has tightened its grip. Only Liverpool, runners-up twice and in third place three times, have managed to get a look-in at the top in the past 11 years, apart from Newcastle, who managed third place in 2003. That means, of 33 possible podium places, only six have ended up outside London or Manchester since the 2000-01 season.

Liverpool and Newcastle, as it happens, are still the likeliest challengers to the duopoly, though not so likely that London or Manchester need be worried. At least not the leading teams in London and Manchester. Arsenal and Chelsea will be well aware that fourth place is still up for grabs, and Liverpool supporters in particular confident that once a toehold in Europe has been gained it can be used as a springboard to much greater glory. But as things stand Dalglish has yet to reverse the slow decline that has been his club’s story since they won their last title 22 years ago, and Newcastle have still to prove they can match the standards set under Kevin Keegan and Bobby Robson.

Elsewhere, however, the wastage is even worse. Everton and Leeds, among the last winners of the old First Division title, have slipped well out of contention. Leeds, like Nottingham Forest, have even slipped the odd division. Aston Villa have more in common with Midlands neighbours Wolves and West Brom in fearing relegation more than aspiring to achievement, three Lancashire clubs could easily be relegated – not that Blackburn, Bolton or Wigan have been doing much of late at the other end of the table – and although a certain level of success can presently be claimed at Stoke, Sunderland, Norwich and Swansea it is on a regional rather than national scale. That is not to denigrate the considerable achievements of Tony Pulis, Martin O’Neill, Paul Lambert and Brendan Rodgers, just to point out that it will be a while before they are acclaimed outside the Premier League.

abroad used to be that England was a country with an astonishing number of professional clubs and an incredible depth to its league system. That largely remains the case, though it is being obscured by the view that London and Manchester are synonymous with English success. The rest of the world can just about grasp that London, as a major capital and population centre, can contain a bewildering number of professional teams, though Spurs joining Arsenal and Chelsea in the Champions League bracket gives it an unusual potency. Manchester is a provincial city – that’s why both its teams carry its name – and although United’s unparalleled success in the last couple of decades has been the single biggest factor in shutting out the rest of the country, City’s wealth now seems likely to continue the process.

For how long is anyone’s guess, but the predictions made at the beginning of the Premier League, that it would eventually work against small-town teams and favour big clubs from big cities, appear to be coming true. It is just that 20 years ago no one had Liverpool and Birmingham or Newcastle, Sheffield and Leeds down as small towns. And no one imagined the number of big cities would be just two.

This afternoon’s big matches – City v Spurs, Arsenal v United – would have been pretty big at most points in the game’s history. London v Manchester has always been a rivalry within the overall context of English football, but where it used to be a subplot, it is now the whole story. It is true that more teams are involved in England, and there is comfort in that, but the situation is not so far removed from Spain that the Premier League can afford to feel smugness or superiority.

Manchester CityManchester UnitedArsenalTottenham HotspurChelseaPremier League 2011-12Premier LeaguePaul Wilson
guardian.co.uk

Guardian Sport Network | Championship B teams? Villas-Boas’s idea devalues the Football League

The Premier League is putting the blame for its inability to compete with mainland Europe on to Football League clubs

The Guardian has reported, with full quotes direct from the impressively coiffeured horse’s mouth, that the Chelsea manager, André Villas-Boas, believes that Premier League clubs should have B teams in the Championship – the latest in a series of stabs in the dark from those towards the top of the game.

The thought process from this procession of geniuses appears to be a neverending: “Well, Barcelona and Spain are bloody good aren’t they? What do they do?”

Of course, Villas-Boas is unlikely to last much longer if Roman Abramovich’s recent past is anything to go by. He won’t win the Premier League this season and the entire cast of Animal Farm (no, not that one) will fly over the Thames if Chelsea win the Champions League this May. So should we care?

Thankfully, probably not. Even in today’s world of bloated Premier League self-regard, surely English football has enough about it not to let this kind of thing move anywhere near reality. While the likes of Villas-Boas, Richard Scudamore and those who held Football League clubs to ransom over the Elite Player Performance Plan (EPPP) may hide behind an excuse of making the English national team more competitive, we all know the real agenda here – “Let’s do whatever we can to compete with Barcelona and Real Madrid”.

Sadly for Villas-Boas, Chelsea and their ilk, there are millions of supporters of Football League clubs who couldn’t give a stuff how well the Premier League’s elite measure up to Spanish sides. Most of us have got enough on our plates worrying whether our own clubs will survive the financial climate, to which, incidentally, the richest clubs are obviously impervious to the point of stretching the gap even wider at the worst possible time.

Talent can still come through Premier League academies. Even if his own charge Daniel Sturridge, a Manchester City product, is not example enough, Villas-Boas could always glance over to north London and the progression of Jack Wilshere from bright young Arsenal kid to England regular.

What’s next? Forcing all English nine-year-olds to have the same growth hormone deficiency treatment as Lionel Messi? Rewarding any Sergio Busquets-esque play-acting with a goal at youth level? Encouraging teenage footballers to go and pick mushrooms on their day off in the hope they turn into Xavi Hernández?

Although this is just one opinion, it is a growing trend and one that should be rebuffed by supporters of Football League clubs. As with EPPP, it smacks of the Premier League forcing the burden and the blame for its inability to compete with mainland Europe, and Barcelona in particular, on to Football League clubs.

In the Guardian’s article, Stamford Bridge youngsters Ryan Bertrand, Patrick van Aanholt, Gaël Kakuta and Josh McEachran are named as examples of players who could flourish in a Chelsea B team participating at Championship level. Perhaps if there wasn’t such short-termism in the desperate pursuit of success at the highest level, which applies particularly at (but not exclusively to) Chelsea, one or two of these promising youth prospects would have enjoyed more than a handful of games by now? Bertrand, Van Aanholt and Kakuta are all older than Wilshere.

None of the above even veers into the territory of the tradition and history of the Football League clubs that would be devalued by such a change in the structure of the English game. We may as well all pack up and have 16 NFL-style franchises throughout the country and consign everyone else to the playing fields on a Sunday morning. You know there are some who would advocate that too – and they would probably mumble something about the England team as well.

This is how English football works. You’re stuck with it. Now go and spend your £50m on someone who can hit an aircraft hangar door with a musical instrument of his choice. Just leave the rest of us alone.

• This is an article from our Guardian Sport Network. To find out more about it, click here.

• This blog was written for The Seventy Two.

Football LeagueAndré Villas-BoasChelsea
guardian.co.uk