Do you guys actually consider violating FFP to be the equivalent of bribing refs or paying other clubs to throw matches?
I want to get a read of peoples opinions here:
- Yes, it is the exact same. Cheating is Cheating
- No, obviously paying your own players and coaches more money to entice them to join your club is not as bad as bribing refs and match fixing.
- Financial Doping is actually worse.
Personally:
If i found out Roman had been bribing refs or Paying the other clubs to throw matches, I would be devastated.
I am entirely fine with Paying players more money that FFP allows.
Eg. Restaurant A has an early start in a neighborhood and earns 4 times as much revenue as Restaurant B.
Every good chef Restaurant B hires gets poached away by Restaurant A, because the local laws dictate Restaurant A can spend 4 times as much on payroll and the ingredients it buys.
Do you think this is fair competition?
The way FFP is setup, whether intentional or not creates an established hierarchy
FFP is something I find to be an unjust rule set. I dont care that unjust rules get broken. Eg. before Washington state legalized weed I knew of many people who smoked. I never judged them because I didnt agree with the law.
FFP isn’t fair and isn’t right. It somehow limits growth and shouldn’t be there in the first place. Need better rules to prevent administrations.
But with that said, football is a competitive sports with a certain set of rules to make it fair. Some rules maybe right. Some rules maybe wrong. But even if the rules are wrong and the other 19 teams abide by those rules, and the one team who doesn’t follow it, it gives that team a bit of an unfair advantage. By how much, it’s hard to say but still an advantage nonetheless.
Will that advantage translate it into success? I doubt anyone can easily calculate it in breaching FFP.
Why do we have rules if we are to bend them to our liking? So, in a sense, it’s not the same but that doesn’t mean that you should do it.
The two biggest FFP cheats in EPL history are also the two most successful teams of the last 10 years.
FFP breaking may not be bribery, but its damn close…
If they knowingly did it, then yes. I don’t see a difference.
Oh man, definitely number 2.
I’m shocked that anyone thinks this rule is about fairness in the first place. This rule is in place to protect owners- that’s it. If it was about “fairness” it wouldn’t be a loss cap, it would be a spending cap. The rule is an agreement among the cartel of owners that they’re never going to get into a financial race to the bottom in order to win the league.
No, of course not. IMO FFP rules shouldn’t even exist, they’re terrible. So I don’t consider breaking rules that shouldn’t exist to be ″cheating″.
They don’t make the competition more fair or more competitive and they don’t even prevent teams from going bust (Derby County?). Nobody will convince me that FFP rules are for anything other than to preserve the status quo.
I’m sure people will say ″you’re a City fan, of course you don’t like FFP″, but nah, the rules just suck. I think La Liga’s salary cap is a much better idea than the EPL’s FFP. Granted that too has flaws, but it’d still be better to have something like that. If it were up to me there would just be a soft salary cap, and anything clubs pay over that they’re charged a 100% fee on which is distributed between the clubs under the cap (in full, none of it should be pocketed by the FA!). eg. there’s a 100m per year salary cap, Man City spend 200m, so they pay a 100m fee on top of that that’s shared between all the teams below the cap.
That would still allow teams to spend money they have (and if they have it, why shouldn’t they be able to spend it?) while actually making the league more competitive as lower spending teams would be financially rewarded for spending kess giving them more to invest in the future to improve. Could give a portion of it to lower league teams too, who often have financial issues, to help out the rest of the pyramid.
Murder is worse than theft, but that doesn’t make theft okay
In the same vein paying refs and other teams off is worse, but that doesn’t excuse financial doping
This might be the dumbest argument I’ve read in this sub. I can’t believe I read as much as I did.
This is one of the funniest false dichotomies I’ve ever seen. The fuckin balls.
If you skirt FFP rules and build up a loaded team you could argue the need to fix matches and/or bribe refs is lessened. All are bad for fair competition. I just see FFP infringement as a chronic issue and bribery/match fixing as an acute one.
No, it’s absolute bullshit designed to entrench the top six from a few years ago and permanently pull up the ladder
Jesus Christ man you’ve been posting this restaurant analogy over 50 times. Feel like you need to go to pop to Ask Italian and let it go, man
No. Not quite as bad but still egregious. Both impact the games integrity.
There are different circles in Dante’s Inferno.
You wouldn’t be asking this question if it was a different club about to be shafted as a result of their actions.
I can say with 100% certainty that nobody cares about FFP.
Chelsea, City and Newcastle becoming good teams has benefited the Premier League.
Look at how other leagues have died because of a lack of investment. Leagues like Italy, France and Germany are closer to the Championship in terms of quality than they are to the Premier League.