For years, Manchester City was at least to some degree restricted by UEFA and the FA’s Financial Fair Play (FFP) regulations. Last season, Manchester City faced spending restrictions, squad size restrictions and the club had to pay a fine for violating Financial Fair Play, although it was a comparatively lighter sentence compared to what some other clubs received for violating FFP regulations. For years, it was perceived that Financial Fair Play was a major roadblock on Manchester City’s path towards success, but that is no longer true. Starting from this season, it seems like the tables have turned, and Financial Fair Play is firmly on Manchester City’s side.

Financial Fair Play is probably one of the most misunderstood rules in sports. Due to its name, many fans perceive that FFP is designed to promote competitive balance, similar to say, the NFL salary cap. Despite the “fair play” in the name, it was NEVER intended to promote competitive balance. At its core, FFP is a set of regulations designed to minimize financial misconduct and overspending. Its goal is to prevent clubs like Portsmouth and Rangers from overspending themselves into financial insolvency. Competitive balance was never a goal for FFP. In fact, FFP does the opposite of competitive balance, it helps those at the top, while keeping the rest down.



In order to prevent football clubs from going bankrupt, Financial Fair Play sets a limit on the amount of losses that a club is allowed to take. So clubs in theory cannot pull a Portsmouth and overspend their way into oblivion. This also effectively kills outside investment by rich owners, making it so that there simply cannot be a next Manchester City or PSG. Wealthy owners literally cannot invest in their clubs to bring them to a higher level.



So yes, to put it bluntly, Financial Fair Play is blatantly anticompetitive. The legality of these regulations aren’t really established, there hasn’t been a sustained legal challenge to the regulations yet. It’s not hard to see that one of the biggest effects of FFP is that effectively the “ladder” has been drawn up. In this modern era, where inequality in football is huge and only getting bigger, FFP is killing the only sliver of hope that smaller clubs have to challenge the status quo.

Let’s take a look at the numbers. In the 2013-2014 season. In the Premier League, Manchester United was number 1 in revenue, with £433 million. Cardiff City was last, with only £83 million. In fact, if we graph the revenue numbers, we can easily see a massive disparity between the top, and well, the rest. There is a massive drop off between Manchester United, whose name has been used to endorse everything from shoes to noodles, and whose famous red shirt is probably one of the most popular pieces of sports merchandise, probably second only to the legendary New York Yankees hat. Manchester City, Chelsea, and Arsenal are second, third, and fourth respectively. They are all above the 300 million line, and their revenue numbers are somewhat within approximately a £50 million gap. This season, both Manchester City and Chelsea should have pulled closer to Manchester United with their partnerships and sponsorships, but we won’t know anything until the next fiscal year.

Story continues