ECJ case against FFP

[john@staustell]

Here is the latest interview with the case's lawyer, Jean-Louis Dupont

http://fairplayfc.org/exclusive-intervi ... is-dupont/

« The Penny Starts to Drop –
Exclusive interview from our lawyer, Jean-Louis Dupont.
Published August 9, 2014
Exclusive interview from our lawyer, Jean-Louis Dupont.

Facebook link

YOU FILED A COMPLAINT ON BEHALF OF BRITISH, BELGIAN AND FRENCH SUPPORTERS. HOW DID THEY CONTACT YOU ?

Some fans showed their interest in the approach of Mr. Striani from the outset and asked to be kept informed of developments. When sanctions were
taken against certain clubs, FFP stopped being an abstract concept and became something very concrete. This or that club could not recruit this particular player. I think that’s what motivated these fans to express further their opposition to the rule requirement of financial break-even.
CAN OTHER FANS JOIN THE COMPLAINT AND HOW ?

Everyone is free to do what he considers fair and useful. And if some fans, as consumers of the end product of football, want to join the action in progress they are free to do so. That would hearten undoubtedly supporters who have already joined by the legal process.

TO WHOM IS THE COMPLAINT FILED ?

First, with the European Commission. Second, before the Court of First Instance in Brussels. In both cases, supporters joined the existing actions initiated a year ago by Mr. Striani.

WHAT ARE THE MAIN ARGUMENTS OF SUPPORTERS AGAINST FINANCIAL FAIR PLAY ?

The UEFA rule, stating that “clubs cannot repeatedly spend more than their generated revenue”, is in terms of European competition law an anticompetitive agreement since it prohibits a club owner to invest his or her own money in strengthening its workforce, the players. It is therefore a restriction of investments, which is deemed to be a major “crime” in competition law.

This has the effect, on the one hand, to fossilize the current position of clubs (it is not possible anymore for an average club being bought by an ambitious investor who, having taken a financial risk for a few years, enables it to become a club at a higher level) and thus ensure that the existing elite become the elite ad infinitum (a type of NBA which dare not speak its name).

On the other hand, since the funding of growth by a club’s owner is no longer allowed, the economic pressure on the fans will surely grow. In short, fans will start paying more for an inferior product … What I think fans have not understood is that the UEFA rule is bad not only for fans of some clubs (PSG etc.) but also for the fans of all other clubs that could have in the future attracted ambitious investors and that, as a consequence of the UEFA rule, will not.

TIME IS RUNNING OUT FOR SOME CLUBS WHO FACE FINANCIAL PENALTIES AND HAVE DELAYED INVESTMENT PLANS. HOW SOON DO YOU EXPECT A RULING ?

We hope to receive a decision by April 2015.

WE OFTEN READ THAT THE COMPLAINT YOU FILED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAYER’S AGENT DANIEL STRIANI WAS REJECTED BY THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION. IS THAT TRUE ?

Not at all. The Commission merely stated that it intends to dismiss the complaint (but, for the moment, it has not), not because it is unfounded but because the Court of First Instance in Brussels, as the Commission puts it, is “well placed” to resolve the dispute in particular because this court may “make a reference for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ)”. In so doing, the Brussels Court can nullify the UEFA rule throughout the European Union on the basis of Article 101.2 of the Treaty on European Union. So either it will be the Commission that resolves the dispute or it will be the Court of First Instance in Brussels (maybe, as we are seeking, by first making a referral to the ECJ).

WHY DOES UEFA OBJECT TO THE CASE BEING DETERMINED THROUGH A PRELIMINARY RULING BY THE ECJ (SUCH AS, FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE BOSMAN CASE) ?

Good question! UEFA said loud and clear that the rule is fully compliant with EU law and that those who complain are simply troublemakers. Yet it fights with the energy of despair to ensure that the ECJ has no input into this. It is a mystery to me since if UEFA is right, it has nothing to fear from the ECJ, that would simply confirm the legality of the UEFA rule!

ARE YOU OPTIMISTIC ABOUT THE CHANCES OF THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY SUPPORTERS LEADING TO A WITHDRAWAL OF FINANCIAL FAIR PLAY ?

Yes, I am very optimistic. The vast majority of legal and economic authors who have published on the regulations came to the same conclusions as we have : it violates EU law and, moreover, is absolutely ineffective. And there are other mechanisms that would foster genuine financial fair play without violating fundamental EU freedoms (and without fossilizing the market structur)e. So, in essence, the case is very strong. It simply requires complainants to have the patience to let the legal process move at its own pace

[blues2win]

I can't believe that stopping an owner from investing in his own business is anything other than blatantly illegal. UEFA argue that no one has to play in their competitions but that's like asking someone to jump in a lake; they have a monopoly grip on the major european competitions and players won't want to play for a club that drops out of contention for them. FUP, as I call it, is a blatant restraint of trade designed to freeze out competition to the existing european elite. The Evertons and the Spurs are basically fucked just to please, as Platini charmingly put it, Arsenal and Manchester United. The fact that a European Commissioner said it was ok means fuck all. The European Courts will decide this.