Unprecedented earthquake in English football in the last week. The reason is none other than the desire of the British Government to establish a regulator that controls the football industry more closely, although the big announcements often come up against reality. It is true that it can mean a great change when football becomes a regulated sector for the first time in the United Kingdom and in Europe, since until now it had been self-managed, either through the leagues or the body of regulations emanating from FIFA and UEFA down. But, after reading the almost 100 pages of the white book of the 10 de Downing Street We can conclude that there will be little change.
Many aspired that this movement of the Executive would impose a rationalization of spending and the return of the system to a model of self-financing and economic sustainability. Nothing is further from reality. “The Regulator must not unduly limit or discourage sustainable investment by owners. Clubs should be allowed to enjoy the benefits of investment and spending, but enjoy them by being disciplined”, the document maintains. So? Will it serve to avoid past situations such as those of Manchester City or Chelsea FC, in which more than 1,000 million capital injections per club were assumed?
It is not clear and the document is very ambiguous about it. It only refers to a possible intervention in the event that these injections become a “destabilizing” element. But isn’t it already the fact that the absence of economic control has caused the Premier League to close losses every year? The red numbers added in the category between 2018 and 2021 amount to 1,841 million poundsto which another 957 million pounds are added in the Championship, according to data from 2Playbook Intelligence.
If these losses have occurred, it is because the self-regulation with which they have Premier League y EFL In all this time, it is based on the fact that there is no more limit than the red numbers do not exceed 105 million pounds in three-year cycles and that these are always covered by the owner. In other words, that distortion has existed for years.
The English politician will always have to say that he saved the fan from having his shield, colors and stadium changed. That shielded the ‘football’ of the Super League. But not that they strengthened their viability. Emirates and funds will breathe when reading the document while European football trusts that the UEFA reform will take effect.
Barça, Negreira and sponsorships
With each passing day, the shadow of suspicion is longer. The presumed term will continue to be used at all times until it is clarified why so many millions were paid to the former vice president of the Arbitration Technical Committee (CTA)) and if, in the event of being mere reports, a premium was not paid. It doesn’t take much of an eye to see that it is rare for an external advisor to earn more than any of the members of the senior management of FC Barcelona. for now, the explanations have been vague and unconvincing, while the reputational damage for now is concentrated mainly at the state level. The problem is if the doubts and half truths continue, and the controversy jumps abroad if the situation begins to get complicated.
At a time when good corporate governance is one of the key elements in the management of any company, Barça may run the risk of seeing how some of its sponsors get off the wagon in the face of controversy. A tax conviction full of technical arguments is one thing; another very different one that is proven that he tried to influence from the offices in the future of the competition. And the contracts already usually provide exit clauses for something like that.
