Although I’m by no means football crazy, many of my colleagues on the Culture and Education Committee are. Football is, in fact, one of the areas where our generally collegial bonhomie can become rather strained. Since sport has officially become part of the remit of the Culture and Education committee since the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty we will probably have to spend a lot more time discussing football over the next few years, though it might be worth pointing out to some of my colleagues that there are in fact other sports equally deserving of our attention.
Given all of this, it wasn’t that surprising that one of the most adversarial discussions so far this year was the result of a presentation given by representatives from UEFA (Union of European Football Associations).
UEFA is increasingly concerned about the level of debt some of Europe’s biggest football clubs are finding themselves in, so are introducing new regulations in order to curtail some of the worst excesses. They provided our committee with some pretty incredible statistics; for instance the aggregate loss across Europe’s top clubs last year was 578 million Euros, with debt reaching 5.5 billion Euros. Despite this clubs still spend on average 65% of all money they receive on salaries. This is obviously unsustainable and we have already seen a number of clubs in the UK going in to administration.
UEFA are introducing rules that will stop clubs being able spend more than they receive year after year and hold them to their financial commitments, to creditors, players and social/tax authorities. This all seems sensible enough, but they seemed to have devised rules which disproportionately affect English clubs. These regulations would label Manchester United, Manchester City, Liverpool, and Tottenham Hotspur as financially unviable.
I have never really been a follower of football, but even to me it seems absurd that clubs as big and as successful as these would be penalised and even excluded from European competitions. I asked what exactly these clubs were expected to do about the situation, but did not get much of a response from the UEFA representatives. Perhaps they are not particularly concerned about knocking the Premier League down a peg or two, and some of my fellow committee members seemed positively happy at the thought. I think UEFA are right to be concerned with the level of debt in football. At a time of global financial instability it seems gratuitous that football clubs should be being so profligate. But it is a bit hard to swallow when they introduce such unforgiving rules that will affect English clubs more so than any others.
Perhaps the CULT committee’s time would have been better spent focussing on what were only minor features of the discussion; UEFA’s desire to encourage youth development and investment in social and community projects. Football, whether you love it or hate it, is a massive industry that reaches a lot of people and therefore could be a real force for good. I found it very encouraging that Europe’s governing body has recognised this and is actively seeking to encourage clubs to develop home grown talent and reach out to the broader community. These are the sort of areas that I feel the CULT committee can play a more positive role, and where we can reach the consensus that I find so refreshing.
Pingback: GoalBite.com