The English Football League (EFL), determined to uphold its profitability and sustainability rules (PSR), is considering charging Leicester City with a financial rules breach if the club is relegated, according to a report from The Guardian.

This move comes after the Premier League was blocked from pursuing similar charges against Leicester for overspending during the 2022-23 campaign, as reported by The Guardian.

According to an independent commission, the Premier League lacked jurisdiction to charge Leicester since they were not part of the league when they submitted their accounts for the 2022-23 season on June 30, 2023. Leicester had been charged with a £24.4 million breach of the £105 million PSR loss limit by the Premier League, which could have led to a points deduction of up to seven points.

Seeking legal advice

The EFL is now seeking legal advice and believes that it would have jurisdiction over Leicester if they are relegated. The club joined the Championship on June 13, 2023, before filing their accounts later that month.

The EFL's argument hinges on the fact that Leicester was officially in the Championship when their accounts were submitted, despite competing in the Premier League for all three seasons of the 2020-23 cycle.

Marcelo Claure acquires stake in New York City FC

New York City FC have announced that entrepreneur and investor Marcelo Claure has joined the club's ownership group, acquiring a stake equivalent to approximately 10% of the company's post-investment value. Claure has also been appointed as Co-Vice Chairman of the club.

Claure's investment is in City Football Group US Holdco LLC, which holds combined ownership over New York City FC and its future stadium in Willets Point, Queens, set to open in 2027.

With this transaction, New York City FC's parent company will be 80% majority-owned by City Football Group, while Yankee Global Enterprises and Marcelo Claure will each hold around 10%.

Eyes growth

"Marcelo has an incredible passion for soccer, for MLS, and for the growth of the sport in the United States. He shares our vision for the development of the game," said Khaldoon Al Mubarak, Chairman of City Football Group and New York City FC.

Claure expressed his excitement about joining at a pivotal time for soccer in the U.S., with major events like the Club World Cup and World Cup on the horizon. He highlighted the potential of MLS and the significance of building a new stadium in New York City.

Steve Pagliuca in talks to acquire Red Star FC

Steve Pagliuca, a private equity investor, is in discussions to acquire Red Star FC, a historic Paris-based football club, according to a report from Bloomberg.

The negotiations are being conducted through his family office, PagsGroup LLC. Red Star FC was previously acquired by 777 Partners in 2022, and the firm's football assets are currently under review by Moelis & Co.

Pagliuca is no stranger to sports investments; he co-owns Atalanta BC and NBA team Boston Celtics. He has expressed interest in investing in French football due to the capital needs of clubs affected by lower broadcast revenues.

Protests and stadium renovation

The club's supporters have a history of protesting capitalist ownership, including heavy protests against the takeover by 777 Partners. Despite this, Red Star achieved promotion from the third tier of French football under 777's ownership.

The club's stadium is undergoing renovations to become a modern 10,000-capacity venue with executive seating. However, until the benefits of increased matchday revenue are realized, Red Star is reportedly losing around €10 million annually.

Old Trafford task force to deliver stadium recommendation by year-end

According to The Athletic, Manchester United's Old Trafford task force is set to deliver its recommendation on the future of the club's iconic stadium by the end of December. The task force, which will meet again on Thursday, has been considering whether to redevelop Old Trafford or construct a new stadium altogether.

An internal document indicates that a report outlining the final recommendations must be submitted by December 31. Following this, United will decide on the next steps.

Foster and Partners, an architectural firm previously appointed for United’s Carrington training ground redevelopment, is expected to be named as lead masterplanners for the stadium district project. This project will focus on enhancing the areas surrounding Old Trafford for fans and the local community, rather than designing the stadium itself.

Club explores public-private partnership

Club representatives, along with members of the task force, Trafford Council, and the Greater Manchester Combined Authority (GMCA), are scheduled to attend both the Labour and Conservative Party conferences to discuss redevelopment plans for Trafford Wharfside, rather than seeking public funding for the stadium project itself.

Manchester United acknowledges that public funding for the stadium is unlikely but is investigating if a public-private partnership could support necessary transport and infrastructure developments around Old Trafford. Andy Burnham, Mayor of Greater Manchester and task force member, has stated that such a partnership would still require "the club to fund the stadium and associated Manchester United facilities."

La Liga president supports potential players' strike over Club World Cup scheduling

La Liga President Javier Tebas has expressed support for a potential players' strike aimed at challenging FIFA's scheduling of the new 32-team Club World Cup, as reported by The Guardian.

Tebas's comments come after Manchester City midfielder Rodri warned that players were nearing a strike due to the increasing demands of their playing schedule.

According to Tebas, the issue extends beyond player workload, impacting the sporting and economic aspects of domestic leagues and their clubs. He emphasized that while the problem might seem to concern only the 200 players involved in international club competitions, it actually affects the broader industry, including the 40,000 professional players and 2,000 clubs not participating in European contests.

Players may strike in internationals

Professional Footballers' Association (PFA)'s chief executive, Maheta Molango, has suggested that players could strike during national team competitions while continuing to play for their clubs

Speaking to BBC Radio Five Live, Molango said: "I don’t think that the issue is here domestically. I think the problem is more in terms of international competition, especially the national team competitions

On Monday Leicester City won an appeal against a decision that could have led to a points deduction for an alleged breach of Premier League profit and sustainability rules (PSR) in the 2022/23 season.

Leicester were initially referred to an independent commission in March over the alleged breach for the three-year period ending 2022/23. 

The Foxes initially challenged the commission’s authority to hear the case, an objection that was dismissed in July.  The case was then placed before an independent appeal board, which overturned that decision this week, ruling in favour of Leicester, and drawing criticism of the EPL’s “far from well drafted” rules.

But how did Leicester get away with it? Did they go against the spirit of the rules? Could they face further action? Does English football’s disciplinary process need an overhaul? What does it mean for the future?

Off The Pitch has canvassed lawyers, league bodies and other stakeholders to tell you everything you need to know about the judgement. 

What sort of punishment were Leicester City facing?

Leicester were facing the possibility of a significant points deduction for breaching profit and sustainability rules for the 2022/23 season by around £24.4 million. 

On the basis of the Nottingham Forest and Everton points deductions handed out last season – three points for breaking the rules and a further point per £6.5 million (or part of) above the limit – had such a principle been followed, then Leicester would have likely faced a seven point deduction, subject to aggravating and mitigating factors.

Had it impacted Leicester’s final league position, it would cost around £3.1 million per place in lost prize money. Everton’s eight point deduction last season cost them £9.3 million.  The greater risk, of course, is that a points deduction may send Leicester down, costing them potentially hundreds of millions.

How did Leicester get away with it?

In short, because they were not a member of the Premier League, and therefore the Premier League had no jurisdiction over them.

Leicester appear to have been saved by relegation in May 2023 and by changing its accounting period from the year ending 31 May (which they used previously) to the year ending 30 June in 2023. The appeal board said that as Leicester’s accounting period ended on 30 June 2023, that was after the point the club had ceased to be a member of the Premier League due to relegation.

They were abetted in this by what the board described as a “discrepancy” between Premier League rules that a club can file its accounts for any period ending between 31 May and 31 July and the chronology of PSR submissions. “The PSRs would seem to have been drafted without taking Rule A.1.8 into account,” said the panel.

Does that mean that Leicester can face EFL sanctions for breaching rules in their “new” accounting period?

It is not clear if they will have breached EFL spending rules for the 2023/24 season. 

However, as they are now back in the Premier League, it will be up to the EPL, not the EFL to issue sanctions. The EFL have provisions in their rules to pass such disciplinary cases on in the cases of such breaches.

But didn’t Leicester successfully argue that the EFL had no jurisdiction over them earlier this year too?

They did indeed.

The EFL took disciplinary action against Leicester after it failed to provide a business plan outlining its costs for the 2023/24 season. Leicester argued successfully that the EFL Club Financial Reporting Unit (“CFRU”), an internal department of the EFL with delegated authority to exercise the EFL’s powers in respect of its financial regulations, had no authority over it. 

The EFL subsequently rewrote its rules on this matter and its member clubs voted them through in May and are in its handbook for the new season. 

It seems that Leicester have just gone against the spirit of the rules.

This is one of the things the EPL seems to have tried to argue, but the panel knocked this on the head. Essentially, there is no such thing as the spirit of the rules, only rules. 

“Primacy is to be given to the express words of a contract as against appeals to common sense or economic considerations,” said the panel.

“A Club should be able to determine its conduct and liabilities from the words of the Rules, and unless they are truly ambiguous or nonsensical should not have to consider the unwritten intentions of the PL and the other Clubs.”

The panel’s judgment added: “It is not suggested that there was anything untoward in its changing its accounting reference date.”

Leicester said in a statement: “In its decision, the appeal board identifies flaws in the drafting of the Premier League’s rules. In challenging the Premier League’s attempts to charge Leicester City, the club has simply sought to ensure (in the interests of providing consistency and certainty for all clubs) that the rules are applied based on how they are actually written.”

Has that loophole been closed yet?

No. A version of Rule A.18 appears (as A.1.15) on page 80 of the latest edition of the EPL handbook. 

What are the implications for the Premier League’s case against Manchester City?

The disciplinary case against Manchester City on its 115 breaches of EPL rules opens later this month.

This is of a different magnitude to the case against Leicester, but City will take succour from some of its findings.

In particular was the panel’s barb at the EPL, “The Rules are, in relevant parts, far from well drafted.” 

One senior lawyer told us that material criticisms of rules made by panels were “unusual”.

City, who are spending tens of millions challenging the EPL, will be looking for every loophole and crevice in the EPL’s regulations and for any clause that is not watertight – never mind “far from well drafted”.

Would the Independent Football Regulator (IFR) have been better equipped to deal with such a case?

Part of the problem is structural. Clubs are essentially the rule makers and subject to those same rules. There is currently no outside body and no oversight, and while there is an acknowledgment that the situation is better than in the past, when rule breaches were regularly papered over, a legacy of poorly drafted rules are coming back to haunt EPL.

The long awaited IFR has been seen by some as a panacea for many of football’s ills, but its role – at present – is neither to create a regulatory framework for cost controls nor oversee it. As such, it is unlikely to have brought a different outcome to this case. 

There have been efforts in the past, with support from the EFL, to create an independent unit that would have jurisdiction over all four divisions. This has always been knocked back by the Premier League. The Leicester case shows why such an idea has merits. Maybe this is an area for lawmakers to assess when final legislation is put before Parliament. 

Are other countries better equipped to deal with such cases?

Other countries, notably Spain, have clearer and more transparent rules governing financial reporting. LaLiga essentially require clubs to publish their budgets at the season’s start and will not allow them to register players if they are in breach of their spending caps. 

“There’s a transparency in LaLiga that is lacking in the EPL,” a lawyer with experience of both leagues told Off The Pitch. 

France – in the form of the DNCG – and Italy – in the form of its National Olympic Committee – do also have some form of independent oversight, which is currently lacking in England. 

The length of the EPL disciplinary processes has also drawn criticism and been compared unfavourably to other “Big 5” leagues. But with the exception of LaLiga – which tends to be more proactive in its approach – and taking aside the massively complicated City case, it bears comparison with other leagues. 

When Juventus were docked ten points for breaking rules on its transfer dealings in 2022/23, the disciplinary process from charges through to final appeal took six months – around the same timeframe as the Leicester case, or that involving Everton last season.

Indeed, Nick de Marco KC, who acted for Leicester in this case, has said that league bodies should go further and has publicly advocated for tribunal hearings to be heard publicly.  That would go a significant way towards increasing trust in processes that have always been masked in secrecy.

The Leicester case is also complicated by the fact that that there are different league bodies in England in the EFL and EPL. “There always exists a vacuum in such cases,” a commercial lawyer told us.   

Happily for Leicester they were able to take advantage of such a vacuum on this occasion. 

Global footballers’ union FIFPro has gone through with its threat of court action against FIFA over next summer’s expanded Club World Cup amid heightened concerns over player burnout.

The lawsuit, also led by England’s Professional Footballers’ Association (PFA) and its French counterpart, the UNFP, requests a Belgian court to refer the case to the European Court of Justice (CJEU).

FIFPro said it had no other option than launching legal action after warnings went unheard over the scheduling of the 32-team Club World Cup in the US next June and July.

“Fundamental rights of players”

FIFPro Europe president David Terrier said: “Since all attempts at dialogue have failed, it is now up to us to ensure that the fundamental rights of players are fully respected by taking the matter to the European courts and thus to the ECJ.

“It’s not a question of stigmatising a particular competition, but of denouncing both the underlying problem and the straw that broke the camel’s back.”

The union is “challenging the legality of FIFA’s decisions to unilaterally set the international match calendar and, in particular, the decision to create and schedule the FIFA Club World Cup 2025”.

Everton takeover: UK-based investor backed by two billionaires enters race to buy club

Everton owner Farhad Moshiri has received a fresh bid to buy the club from a UK-based investor, Vici Private Finance, which is backed by at least two billionaires, according to a report from The Times.

It is understood that Vici – a newly established UK multi-family office of investment funds – initiated talks with Moshiri and his advisers several months ago and has offered concrete terms within the past week.

The Vici bid is being advised by Keith Harris, who was brought on to Everton’s board of directors by Moshiri in 2016 and was deputy chairman for a spell.

Billionaire owners’ funds

The Times reported that Vici has brought together a financial consortium for the bid supported by two western hemisphere billionaire owners’ funds and several foundations, including a humanitarian fund.

The bid involves no borrowed money and it is believed that proof of funds of about £1 billion in cash have been shown. As external funding is not required, an agreement could be executed quickly if Moshiri decides to give the group the green light.
 

FC Barcelona face legal challenge from Libero over Barça Studios stake sale contract

The fallout from the collapse of the planned IPO of FC Barcelona’s digital unit Barça Visión looks set to continue after it emerged that the club is facing legal action from the investment fund Libero.

The German firm failed to pay FC Barcelona €40 million for the purchase of a stake in the unit, which led the Catalan club to begin their own legal action against the firm earlier this year in the hope of attaining the funds.

However, Libero is now suing Barcelona for breaking the agreed contract of the stake sale, and in a note to the Frankfurt Stock Exchange states that the payment of the amount owed was guaranteed at the time by an external investor "with a solid financial situation" before they stepped aside.

Proceedings against investor

Libero has also initiated legal proceedings against the investor to claim the missing funds. The company adds that "it is unlikely that the lawsuit will have negative consequences for Libero" and hopes that the investor will fulfil what was agreed.

Last August, Libero announced it would be purchasing a 9.8 per cent share of Bridgeburg Invest, the holding company which controls Barça Vision.

However, at the beginning of this year it emerged that Barcelona had not been paid by Libero after extending the deadline to pay them until 31st December.

Litigation against PSG and UEFA that he ultimately expects to go to the highest court in Europe.

A court order against one of LaLiga’s main broadcast partners, which threatens deals worth hundreds of millions.

Threats of a strike after the Spanish government drafted a new sports law, which LaLiga says endangered its private equity deal with CVC while opening up the way to a European Super League.

Then, yesterday, Tebas hosted an Extraordinary General Assembly of LaLiga clubs, when clubs discussed strike action over the proposed sports law.

This is the latest in a series in a series of legal escalations by LaLiga’s prickly president Javier Tebas and the one that threatened to bear the most immediate on field consequences.

In the end the government mostly backed down and on the parts it didn’t, the president said that he had “other mechanisms” up his sleeve to get the result he wanted. In other words: another win for Tebas.

Barely a month seems to pass without Tebas becoming engulfed in legal confrontation. But what is the end game? Where is this leading? Does he risk the stability and financial health of his own league? Is he, as is critics say, riven with personal animosity or does he actually have a point?

Successful and self confident

“For someone who is not familiarized with the background in Spanish football and also with his personality maybe this is something [that seems] a little bit awkward,” says David Diaz, Director of the Sports practice at the international law firm, Baker McKenzie.

“He has a strong personality, but I think that we also need to consider the current situation that we have in football.

“We all know that the football industry has been through the pandemic and hit at all levels.

“They're now recovering with the CVC deal, and that would be a great boost for teams to recover for the next few years. And you also have the Super League issue.

“I think Javier Tebas has been very successful but has been also very vocal and he will be like that. It's his personality, and that's part of the elements you need to consider.

“On the other hand, because he's been successful, the self-confidence of the character that he has, and also that he has the mandate to protect and defend the interests of the clubs of LaLiga –  you put all those three elements in the mix and you understand that it's not so unusual that we end up in things like that, meaning a high profile in the media and then legal actions against what he thinks are the threats for the LaLiga system.”

Defending Spanish football values

In June Tebas revealed that LaLiga had issued complaints on what he termed the “impossible” finances of Manchester City and Paris Saint Germain, accusing the two clubs of breaking financial fair play rules and threatening the “eco-system” of European football. If taken seriously they could have dramatic consequences not just for the clubs, but the entire European game.

LaLiga’s lawyer, Juan Branco, told Off The Pitch last month that at the heart of the case is what he describes as the “strong and healthy system” of governance created by LaLiga which it wants “harmonized” across Europe. The battle will ultimately be taken to European courts, he says, “to make sure that both UEFA and EU authorities ensure not only that rules exist at a continental level, but that mechanisms that ensure their implementation at national level exist and are respected.”

Off The Pitch has reviewed the 133 page complaint made to the Administrative Court of Paris in June aimed at injuncting PSG’s contract renewal for Kylian Mbappe. The complaint accuses the DNCG – the regulating authority of French football – of “failing to fulfil its sub-delegation of public duties by not ensuring an effective control of the accounts of PSG.”  This, it says, has caused “significant and direct damage to … LaLiga, and to the Spanish professional clubs which it represents.”

It goes on to detail, in significant length, how this breaches European law and alleges complicity between the French authorities and PSG over these breaches.

Qatari attack

But really at the heart of this case is the relationship between the Qatari state and football.

“The Qatari entity has put in place a strategy of influence which consists not only of organising sports competitions and buying up economic players involved in sports competitions, but also, through the beIN MEDIA GROUP, of broadcasting rights to sports competitions, thereby placing itself in a position of potential supplier to the European football authorities, both on a national and continental scale,” says the papers.

What is the endgame in all this? Qatar’s relationship with football has been under intense scrutiny since December 2010, when it was awarded hosting rights for the 2022 World Cup. It has survived numerous inquiries, FBI investigations, Swiss judicial cases, mud flung from Gulf neighbours, global public outrage. Does Tebas really think he can reverse one of the most entrenched relationships in football?

Diaz says that Tebas is litigating because he says the “key core assets of LaLiga” are under assault, namely the economic stability brought by its financial fair play rules. This, he says, is at the core of Tebas’s success leading the league and the lawyer contrasts the situation with the early-1990s when the league “was full of clubs that were insolvent.”

He says that it is becoming harder for Spanish clubs to compete in “the elite of European competitions” because other financial control regimes aren’t as strict, allowing some teams to live beyond their means. 

“How can someone playing the Champions League, like Villareal, which follows a strict financial fair play regulation that is strictly applied by LaLiga and enforced, compete with a club that is maybe losing €400 million at the end of fiscal year.  Not only from the legal standpoint, but from a competition point of view. Is that something that is fair?”

Diaz, however, doesn’t believe that a legal route is the fastest way to achieve the harmonisation that Tebas seeks, but says that a “diplomatic approach” may be better, namely aligning UEFA and all the major leagues towards a single position.

Further escalation

Diplomacy, however, is not something Tebas is noted for. Earlier this month there was a dramatic escalation in Tebas’s longrunning feud with Al-Khelaifi after LaLiga secured an interim judgement from Madrid’s Court of First Instance to freeze tens of millions of beIN’s assets.

The court order relates to an unpaid invoice of €41.25 million dated 15 August for beIN’s MENA contract, plus a further €9.45 million for “beIN IP contracts”.

Such disputes are not uncommon in broadcast deals, but rarely do they make it into the public domain. At stake was more than just the defaulted sum: beIN are about to enter renewal negotiations with LaLiga for rights in MENA and elsewhere. In MENA, in particular, beIN is the only sports broadcaster with significant reach and it doesn’t like being crossed. 

In a recent book on French football, the broadcast consultant Pierre Maes recalls how during the Gulf crisis, when the Qatari state (beIN’s ultimate owners) were pitted against its regional rivals led by Saudi Arabia in a political and diplomatic stand off, the Italian FA incensed the Qataris by agreeing to stage the Super Coppa Italia in Saudi. When Serie A’s MENA rights came up for renewal, beIN extracted its revenge offering just €5 million per season for MENA rights it had previously paid €115 million for.

Could this happen again?

“The answer is yes. I mean, when you have a dispute and you bring that dispute to the courts, there is always a high that you antagonize,” says Diaz.

LaLiga officials again say that there are bigger issues at stake. The court judgement was part of a “fight for financial fair play, financially sustainable football, against unlimited funds from outside the football economy disrupting the ecosystem.” They believe al Khelaifi to be at the centre of these issues in his various roles.

“There is such a huge gap between the way that some clubs may spend the money they have that still something has to be done. That’s the point in the key messages of Laliga when it comes to this,” says Diaz.

“Personally, I'm not saying that it should be like it is in Spain, but I feel there should be found a common ground where this is harmonized and there's not such a huge gap in how much money clubs can spend across Europe.”

Sports Law battle

Spain’s new sports law is the latest development to meet Tebas’s ire. LaLiga accuse the Spanish government of making changes “unilaterally and ignoring the opinion of LaLiga and the vast majority of clubs regarding the needs of professional football in Spain.” They say that it “seriously undermines” the independence and sustainability of football in Spain and challenges an industry that is worth €9 billion to the Spanish economy.

In essence, it has three main concerns. One is that it removes protections for LaLiga that are afforded to national federations, like the Spanish FA (RFEF). In effect the RFEF has the capacity to implement changes that have a structural impact on LaLiga without needing the latter's approval.

Secondly, it says that there is a “lack of clarity and consistency in the drafting of the legislative text” that compromises commercial deals, such as LaLiga’s €2 billion tie up with private equity group, CVC.

The third concern is that the new law would prevent the RFEF or LaLiga from denying a license to a club that participates in a competition that is not recognised by LaLiga or the Spanish FA. They say this opens up the way to a Super League.

Super League threat

It is the latter that has drawn most ire and remained without resolution. In talks with the government on Tuesday, LaLiga backed down on the first two measures.

But when 39 of 42 clubs met Thursday in an extraordinary congress to debate the latter, the threat of strike action still hung like a sword of Damocles.

In the end, the government largely backed down – although the capacity to ban clubs that compete in unauthorised competitions will not be included in the sports law – and Tebas declared himself “uncomfortably satisfied” with what had transpired.

He followed up in true style: with an attack on the Real Madrid president, Florentino Perez, and a promise to use “other mechanisms” to kill his Super League project once and for all.  

“The influence of the president of Madrid is very important in the field of sport and other fields in this country,” he said. He accused Perez of using his influence to try and influence the law.

“In the Senate we start from scratch again, with new amendments,” he said on Thursday night.

“We have asked Real Madrid and the rest if they will present, but they have told us no. Let's hope they don’t influence, with that capacity that someone has to influence... But everything is possible.”

Regulations on club sponsorship deals with associated parties will become "fertile ground" for disputes between the Premier League and its clubs.

The rules, brought in late last year to govern related-party transactions, mean deals worth more than £1 million a year must be submitted to the Premier League. If the league suspects the deal is an "associated party" transaction, it has powers to investigate to ensure the agreement was made at "Fair Market Value (FMV)".

The Premier League updated the rules to address concerns that relationships between a club and a related third party could see artificially inflated sponsorship deals above the market rate.

Clubs can enter into associated party transactions provided they represent FMV and that the club seeks prior approval from the Premier League.

Legal and commercial experts tell Off The Pitch the regulations, which were opposed by Manchester City and Newcastle United, offer a broad description of "associated party".

Newcastle deal with Noon.com

Back in June Newcastle United announced Noon.com, a Middle East e-commerce platform, as their new sleeve sponsor. The Saudi Arabia Public Investment Fund (PIF), which led the takeover of Newcastle in October, reportedly owns 50 per cent of Noon.com. 

"It is likely to be a test case for 'associated party' transaction regulations, but considering the ink is already dry on the deal, it cannot really be classed as such – even if PIF own 50 per cent of Noon," Ben Peppi, head of sport services at JMW Solicitors, tells Off The Pitch.

"If it was an 'associated party' transaction, Newcastle United would have already proved it was an FMV deal having sought prior approval from the Premier League.

"The general feeling around clubs is that Premier League proposals introduced at the end of last year are too broad and lack detail, and that the term 'associated party' does not have a clear definition, leading to a case-by-case discretion for the powers that be with multiple factors at play."

Off The Pitch understands the Noon.com deal was subject to a FMV assessment and that Newcastle, having cooperated with the Premier League, believe the deal is above board. The club declined to comment.

The Premier League did not respond to a request for comment.

Alistair McHenry, partner and head of sport at Tyr Law, says the definition of "associated party" is "quite technical but also broad".

"The rules state that the League will focus on the substance of the relationship and not merely the legal form," he says.

Ollie Millichap, an associate from Mishcon de Reya, says the broad definition is intended "to capture a range of circumstances where there is a nexus between the club and third party – with the degree of shareholding, control and influence important in establishing whether a third party is deemed an 'associated party' under the rules."

Premier League powers to investigate

If the Premier League suspects a deal is an associated party transaction, clubs must submit all details of the agreement for a Fair Market Value assessment. The club is obliged to provide "any relevant information" about the value of the transaction.

"There is a general catch-all provision which allows the Premier League to request further information or documents from the club, player, manager or senior official at any time during the assessment process where the league considers it necessary in order to reach a decision," Millichap says.

The assessment also includes a review of the value by an independent expert. According to Peppi, this will measure factors including the value of the club's IP, its fan base, social media and joint activation plans for the sponsorship.

How do you prove FMV?

Noon is reportedly paying £7.5 million per year for the sleeve sponsorship. Peppi says clubs outside the Premier League 'big six' typically command sleeve deals "worth between £500,000 and £2 million annually." He says Manchester City's sleeve deal with South Korean tire manufacturer Nexen Tire is worth £10 million a year.

"In terms of market value, Noon have overpaid, but it hasn’t been regarded by the Premier League as inflated to a point where there were grounds to reject the deal," Peppi says.

"Newcastle will certainly have tested the Premier League’s new rules around 'associated party transactions' with this deal; but importantly, they have been successful."

Clubs can prove a deal is FMV by submitting evidence and the Premier League has also established an anonymised "databank" with details of previous commercial transactions for all clubs. This allows the league to compare values before deciding whether a deal is FMV.

"Whilst the databank of historical commercial transactions will assist in assessing the value of a specific deal, it is certainly not a 'silver bullet' to solve this particular puzzle," Millichap says.

"Even though certain deals may be generally comparable, not two sponsorship deals are or will be the same – there will be different rights and obligations that are specific to that particular deal making it extremely tricky to directly compare the value of deals."

Potential challenges

If a club suspects a Premier League rival is not complying with the rules, they can appeal to the Premier League and, if necessary, take legal action.

"There are appeal provisions open generally to clubs under the rules. But it would be difficult for other clubs to have sight of the details and FMV assessment exercise undertaken for any other club," McHenry says.

"Whilst other clubs will no doubt be keen to know what the Premier League’s position is on certain deals, if the matter has been adjudicated on by an independent expert in an arbitration, then that would likely be an end to the matter. On the basis it didn’t get that far, then there may be some legal challenges ahead."

Juan Branco is used to taking on powerful figures and high-profile causes, but the youthful French lawyer and activist’s current legal battle against the controlling powers of European football may be his biggest and longest lasting challenge yet.

The lawyer is representing LaLiga in the French and European courts as it takes on football’s powers across multiple jurisdictions in challenging the “impossible” finances of some of Europe’s leading clubs.

Previously, Branco – who was born in Malaga in 1989 to a Spanish mother and Portuguese film producer father but educated in Paris, where he now practises law – has represented the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, the Gilet Jaunes and taken on Emmanuel Macron in a bestselling book. TV France describe him as an “angry young man who dreams of changing the ‘system’”. One of his critics, an official with links to Paris Saint Germain, told me he was like Donald Trump’s lawyer, Rudy Gulliani.

In June it was revealed that LaLiga had made three separate complaints over the finances of Manchester City, Juventus and Paris Saint Germain. If taken seriously they could have dramatic consequences not just for the clubs, but the entire European game. Branco is leading the case for LaLiga. 

The case kicked off with a bang. In June Branco tried to use the French courts to block Kylian Mbappe’s contract renewal at PSG, which killed a prospective move to Real Madrid. The contract deal was reported to be worth €200 million.

The court did not grant an injunction, but Branco says that part of the case – which he believes transcends Mbappe and takes in the French and Qatari states, league and representative bodies, while also embodying some of the biggest issues in football today – “Is fully alive and under instruction by the Court.”

Taking on Qatar

“We deposited a 140 pages long detailed argument, with 3000 pages of supporting documents, that deconstructs for the first time what we consider to be the fraudulent schemes created by Qatar to artificially build up a ‘nation-branding’ club and destabilize the football market,” he says. 

“We describe in detail how a coordinated initiative, using Bein and PSG, was organized, with the full support of French authorities, to legitimize the organization of the 2022 World Cup and achieve political goals.

“This is the first time that an overall approach to the many problems triggered by Qatari initiatives, and more broadly, by the lack of harmonization of the regulatory dispositives related to financial fair play at the European Union level, are dealt with together.”

French and EU law

Branco describes the case as relying on highly technical legal approaches, based partly on French administrative law and partly on EU competition law. 

“It is a very strong initiative that relies on in-depth researches that for some, are completely novel,” he says. 

“Part of our arguments are based on French administrative law. We discovered for example that the FFF and LFP did not have legal grounds to homologate Mbappé contract, for technical reasons related to the delegation of powers provided to them by the State. This is a technical but very powerful argument, as it potentially affects all the legal acts taken by the Federation and the League in 2020 and 2021.”

He alleges that under EU competition law “a black hole” was created by the French and Qatari authorities to “systematically violate” several articles of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union [TFEU]. He rattles these off –  “101, 102, 107, 108 and 116” – and alleges “what we consider to be fraudulent schemes created to cover it up.”

He adds: “We put on the table all the compromises and conflicts of interests that allowed for these developments, at all scales.”

LaLiga’s positive approach

At the heart of the case is what he describes as the “strong and healthy system” of governance created by LaLiga “that forces its clubs to respect a certain number of criteria, that can be perceived as the first functional FPF ever established.”

“Our goal is to obtain a harmonized system, and as a consequence, to make sure that both UEFA and EU authorities ensure not only that rules exist at a continental level, but that mechanisms that ensure their implementation at national level exist and are respected,” he says.

He describes the LaLiga model of governance as “inspired by European initiatives [that] aims to enforce the European law principles in the professional football ambit. They echo very strongly the dispositions created by UEFA, which have nonetheless never been harmonized, creating huge disequilibriums that are incompatible with EU Law and that threaten the football ecosystem.”

Fan malaise

Branco says that this ultimately affects not only the interests of fans – “which are caught in an inflationist system that makes it more and more complicated to identify oneself and participate in the football environment” – but also “the existence of traditional clubs.”

Some of these, he deadpans, have become “washing machines” laundering the reputations of “oligarchs and rogue states that are looking for some kind of legitimization.”

“This,” he says, “Goes beyond football, which is a massive influence tool that affects all social ambits.”

He refers to the “explosion of joy” of Newcastle supporters after Saudi Arabia decided to invest in their club as part of “a worrying phenomenon, and a symptom of an overall crisis that needs to be addressed.”

Long fight

Branco says that there are not likely to be quick solutions to the legal fight he is embarking upon.

“This is a years long process, and we are ready to concede many interlocutory defeats,” he admits.

“Going to the French administrative courts is a bold move, as the closeness they entertain with French State is very much known. But it is also a way to test the capacity of regulatory authorities and national judiciary systems to deal with the inner contradictions of the current system.”

His belief is that the case will ultimately end up in the European General Court [EGC]. He points to a complaint made by Barcelona’s socios, outraged at Messi's move to PSG and which is still going through the courts as a precedent.

“After a long instruction and many back and forths both with the French League and the European Commission, the EGC decided to hold an audience on this case, and requested a report from its most experimented judge,” he explains.

“The Tribunal administratif de Paris is just finishing its instruction, after a year of analysis. Of course, this is a very complicated case, much more complicated than the Mbappé. But the fact the cases are still alive and are going to be heard at the EGC is a sign that something is moving and might happen earlier than expected.”

Ecuador look set to hold on to their place at the World Cup in Qatar later this year after FIFA's appeals committee dismissed a claim of ineligibility against one of their players.

The Chilean federation lodged a complaint with the game's global governing body over Byron Castillo, who it claimed was not born in Ecuador, and argued that Ecuador should forfeit the World Cup qualifying matches he had played in.

The FIFA disciplinary committee closed the proceedings in June but the Chileans appealed, leading to a new hearing before the appeals committee.

However, that too has now been dismissed with FIFA saying in a statement: “Amongst other considerations, [the committee] deemed that on the basis of the documents presented, the player was to be considered as holding permanent Ecuadorian nationality.”

The Chilean federation have confirmed they will now appeal against FIFA's verdict to the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Lausanne in Switzerland.

Brighton receive £366,000 fine by FA after being found guilty of 'misrepresenting transfers'

Brighton have been fined £366,600 by the FA after being found guilty of breaching agent regulations and misrepresenting financial transactions in relation to several transfers, including that of then club-record signing Mat Ryan.

The Australian international goalkeeper moved to the Amex Stadium from Valencia for a £5.2m fee in 2017 and went on to make 123 appearances for the club, playing a key role in keeping them in the Premier League for four seasons before joining Real Sociedad last year.

Brighton have been found guilty of misrepresenting Ryan's transfer by breaching FA rule A3, which states that clubs should not 'conceal or misrepresent the reality and/or substance of any matters in relation to a transaction.'

Brighton in a statement said they accepted the findings of an Independent Regulatory Commission for historic breaches of FA regulations.

Burnley face EFL investigation over ownership claims

Burnley are facing an EFL investigation into the ownership of the club amid uncertainty over who is in charge of the Championship side, The Daily Mail reports.

American consortium ALK Capital paid £170 million to buy Burnley two years ago in a highly leveraged takeover largely funded by debt and the club’s own money.

However, according to The Mail, the authorities have since received information suggesting that the ultimate owners could be another financial entity based in Jersey.

The Premier League began making enquiries last season and the matter has been passed on to the EFL following the club’s relegation.

The EFL are understood to have asked Burnley to clarify certain aspects of their ownership, particularly regarding their alleged links to institutions in Jersey.

Rival clubs made aware

Other Championship clubs are said to have been made aware of the issue, which was discussed at an EFL meeting last week. ALK Capital are registered to an address in Leeds, with all three directors registered in Delaware.

Burnley sources told The Mail that ALK are unequivocally the owners of the club and that they have yet to receive questions from the EFL. The Premier League and EFL declined to comment.

Lyon takeover still not complete as John Textor looks for funds

American businessman John Textor is still looking for funds to complete his takeover of Lyon, with two weeks to go until the deadline for the deal to go through, according to L’Équipe.

Textor is due to become the Ligue 1 club’s new owner after agreeing a takeover deal back in June. However, it is understood he is still not the majority owner and is still trying to find the necessary financing.

Confidence is said to be high, though, both at the club and among the businessman’s team that the deal can be officially completed.

The American is understood to have been in discussions with contacts, particularly in the US, and sources involved in his business circles claim that the sums needed and being discussed amount to several tens of millions of euros.

Pathé and IDG stakes

Textor’s company Eagle is due to acquire the shares of Pathé (19.26 per cent of the capital) and IDG (19.74 per cent) after the two shareholders announced in March their joint intention to withdraw, as well as a majority of the shares of Holnest (27.56 per cent), the family holding company of current president Jean-Michel Aulas.

Exclusive negotiations were officially announced on 20th June by OL Groupe and the general meeting of 29th July gave the board full powers to validate the sale before the deadline of 30th September.

Paris Saint-Germain president Nasser Al-Khelaifi has called for rules to prevent football clubs from taking on too much debt, which he described as “a danger.”

Spanish daily sports newspaper Marca reports that the Qatari, who is also chairman of the European Club Association (ECA), made a veiled criticism of FC Barcelona for their large debts.

Speaking via video link during Football Talks, a conference at the Portuguese Football Federation (FPF) HQ in Oeiras, Lisbon, he said that "during the pandemic, football survived because of the investment that was made" and that "in the opposite case, it would not have managed to overcome the situation as it did".

However, he pointed out that "many clubs lost a lot", which led to them being "deeply in debt", and noted that there are teams that are €1.8 billion in debt –without naming names – and that "this is a danger" for the sport.

It was noted that Al-Khelaifi failed to acknowledge the large injections of funds PSG have received from their owners Qatar Sports Investments,a subsidiary of the Qatari state-run sovereign wealth fund, to keep them afloat.

“Rules that protect clubs”

Al-Khelaifi declared that it is necessary to "create rules that protect European football clubs" from getting into high levels of debt. He also argued that if football does not attract investment it will go to other sports.

In addition, the beIN Media Groupchairman reinforced his rejection of the European Super League and defended the new Champions League format, which, in his view, "is a success".

LaLiga president to report Premier League to UEFA for causing “transfer inflation”

LaLiga president Javier Tebas has said he is preparing a report for UEFA about what he claims is “unsustainable spending” by Premier League clubs, who he believes are causing “transfer inflation."

His warning comes after English top-flight clubs spent more than £2 billion during the summer transfer window, compared to La Liga's £404 million. The English sides’ net spend was €1.35 billion compared to the Spanish league’s €52.4 million.

Tebas noted that while Premier League revenues are 1.8 times more than those of LaLiga or the Bundesliga, the transfer spending by English clubs was 20 times more than in the Spanish league.

"Something doesn’t make sense there, so what’s happening?,” Tebas said. “There’s a lot of chequebooks coming out from clubs like Manchester City that sign a certain amount of players. Even the Championship lost €3 billion over five years.

He added: “The two competitions that are the most sustainable are LaLiga and the Bundesliga and we have to really fight for sustainability. … We’re going to put all this to UEFA and it is important for all the other European leagues as we want sustainable European football."

LaLiga spending limits confirmed

Tebas was speaking after LaLiga confirmed its spending limits on clubs for the 2022/23 season, with Real Madrid and FC Barcelona having the two largest salary caps by some distance.

Madrid’s cap has been set at €683.5 million, slightly down on last season’s €739 million, while FC Barcelona’s limit has gone from -€144 million in January to €656.5 million for the new campaign – the biggest year-on-year change since the cap was introduced in 2013.

The huge turnaround in Barça’s limit followed the triggering of their four economic levers this summer, which also allowed it to spend around €150 million on new players during the summer, including Robert Lewandowski for €45 million, as well as Jules Koundé, Raphinha, Andreas Christensen, Franck Kessié, Héctor Bellerín and Marcos Alonso.

By contrast, Real Madrid made just two new signings of note – Aurélien Tchouaméni for €80 million and Rüdiger on a free transfer.

"The limit is very clear"

Among other LaLiga clubs, Atletico Madrid have the third highest cap, with their limit almost doubling from €171 million last season to €341 million this term. Elche have the lowest spending limit of all Spanish top-flight clubs, at €42.672 million.

The limit indicates the maximum amount each club can spend during the season after the summer window, including on the first team in relation to players, managers and coaching staff, as well as on reserves and youth systems.

In an interview with the magazine Influencers, Tebas again defended the spending caps imposed by the league. He said the limit is “very clear,” adding that “the only club who says it is not is FC Barcelona.”

PFA given official warning by Charity Commission over “mismanagement”

The Professional Footballers' Association charity has been handed an official warning by the Charity Commission over "mismanagement" between 2013 and 2019.

In documents seen by the BBC, the Commission tells the charity – now known as the Players Foundation – it is taking the action because of "various failings…over a prolonged period of time."

They include a "failure to ensure its assets were being used in the most appropriate way by failing to review its longstanding relationship with, and payments to, a trade union.”

The Commission said there was also a "failure to appropriately manage and control £1.9 million of charitable funds that had been transferred out of the charity's accounts."

"Serious concerns"

The regulator has been investigating the Foundation, which supports past and present players, for several years. It was escalated into a statutory inquiry in 2020 over "serious concerns" about the way the body was managed.

The Commission acknowledged that the charity had "taken steps to remedy the failings", but said that it has considered whether further regulatory action is necessary in relation to any trustees, and "will take appropriate steps in that regard".

In a statement, the Players Foundation said: "No other charity has faced such scrutiny. Every aspect of our work has been under the magnifying glass. It has been hard for all involved but we welcome the findings and are proud of the work we have done over the last nine years.”

My Career in Sports Law: Jes Christian Fisker, Owner of law firm Jes Christian Fisker and University lecturer in International Sports Law

What makes football law different from other careers?
"The diversity and unpredictability of assignments as football law truly is a unifying and global umbrella term for several often overlapping legal disciplines. And often it also attracts a disproportionate amount of attention in the media compared to other and bigger areas of law. For me, still an active football player, it is also a privilege to combine my passion for the game with my legal background - working many years at the Danish FA before founding the first and still the only law firm in Denmark 100 percent dedicated to football law."

Who in this industry has inspired you the most?
"I could mention many people, especially former and present employees from the Danish FA, UEFA, and FIFA, who all have been the source of big inspiration to me in my career and personal development as a lawyer. If I have to pick one person, however, it would be a lawyer and CAS arbitrator, Michele Bernasconi, who is possibly the best communicator with his clear and always informative presentations of many different football legal topics."

What is the most complicated case you have been involved in and why?
"If I have to mention just one case with the most severe ramifications and media attention it would be the Danish FA's dispute with the Danish Players Union and the simultaneous strike of the players on the national team, including players like Christian Eriksen, Kasper Schmeichel and co., caused by their failure to reach an agreement over commercial conditions. This unprecedented dispute forced Denmark to field a scratch team made up of players from the lower divisions and futsal in an official friendly match against Slovakia.”

Looking into your crystal ball, which area of football law do you see growing in importance and relevance?
"The last couple of months I have received a lot of questions from football agents about the new FIFA agents’ regulations and FIFA Clearing House, and what impact the regulatory changes will have on the industry. Also, some lawyers have asked me if they will again be exempted from the new FIFA agents’ regulations as they have been in the past. Some other hot topics at the moment are the increasing power of national leagues and the good governance questions in relation to club self-regulation.”

The lawyer representing the Chilean FA (ANFP) in an appeal case that may lead to the South American country being allowed to play in November’s World Cup, has told Off The Pitch that he has filed “a significant amount of evidence” that he believes will see “justice take its course.”

Next Thursday (15 September), FIFA’s Appeals Committee will hear the ANFP’s case, which they believe will see Chile replace Ecuador in the finals.

The case centres around the Ecuadorian midfielder, Byron Castillo, who the ANFP claim is ineligible to play for the Ecuador national team. Ecuador finished fourth in CONMEBOL qualifying, three places and seven points ahead of Chile, to make the tournament in Qatar, where they will face the hosts in the opening match.

However, it is alleged that Castillo is in fact of Colombian nationality, is three years older than his purported age of 23, and has had his registration supported by falsified documents.

If the FIFA Appeals Committee finds against Castillo, sanctions could include games in which the right back played being overturned and a 3-0 victory being awarded to its opponents.

Castillo played in both qualifying games against Chile – but in neither of Ecuador’s games against Colombia or Peru who finished ahead of Chile – leading Chilean officials to believe the six points they should get from the forfeited games — and the six Ecuador would lose — would propel them into Ecuador’s qualification spot.

The case was initially judged by the FIFA Disciplinary Committee, but on 10 June FIFA rejected its complaint.  The ANFP subsequently filed an appeal, which will be belatedly heard later this month.

“Significant evidence”

“We thank FIFA for this clarity around our appeal hearing and for calling Byron Castillo to answer the many questions they must have regarding his eligibility and therefore Ecuador’s qualification for the 2022 FIFA World Cup,” Eduardo Carlezzo, lawyer and partner of Brazilian law firm Carlezzo Advogados, responsible for conducting the investigations on Byron Castillo and for filing the claim with FIFA, told Off The Pitch in an emailed statement.

“We have provided a significant amount of evidence to FIFA proving that the player was born in Colombia and his Ecuadorian birth certificate is fake. Finally, on September 15 Byron Castillo has the opportunity to explain the situation and then, for the sake of fair play, justice can take its course.”

Grey areas

The dossier put together by Carlezzo and the Chilean FA casts a harsh light on the grey areas around player documentation.

They have presented evidence to FIFA that they allege proves Castillo is a Colombian citizen and that his Ecuadorian documentation, that allowed him to represent the country, is forged.

ANFP allege that Castillo, and an individual with a Colombian passport and different date of birth, named Bayron Javier Castillo Segura, are in fact the same person. Both the Ecuadorian and the Colombian have the same parents.

They also claim that the entire family of Byron Castillo was born in Colombia (his late father, mother and sister) and that the family continue to live in the Colombian port city of  Tumaco. They say that this is supported by a range of documentation, as well as official reports from the Ecuadorian authorities declaring that the documentation he has used to prove his Ecuadorian nationality is false.

 “We have presented compelling evidence that the player is a Colombian citizen, born in Tumaco, and that his Ecuadorian documentation is forged,” said Jorge Yunge, General Secretary of the Chilean Football Association, in a statement.

 “We are completely sure about the conclusions of our investigations. It is absolutely clear that the player uses an adulterated Ecuadorian document. What is at stake here is not just a place in the 2022 World Cup, but the entire principle of fair play."

Carlezzo says that its findings are the result of “a deep and responsible investigation.”

“We hired investigators that went to the city of Tumaco and, on the ground, confirmed the player was born there,” he said. “They went to a church in Tumaco and discovered the player’s baptism certificate, that was an unknown document until that moment, among other documents. Unbelievable, it was disregarded by the Disciplinary Committee”.

An evil that has affected Ecuadorian soccer

Any defence put forward by Castillo is complicated by the fact that Ecuadorian football has for a number of years been engulfed in questions about the provenance of players and their registrations.

In October 2018 the Ecuadorian Football Federation (FEF) announced that it had sanctioned some 75 players, for having registered with adulterated documents. It followed a 30 month probe by the FEF into 2,500 player registrations that they said generated “some kind of suspicion.” Of these 750 were subjected to a “thorough investigation” and 75 players were eventually found to have submitted altered information.

The FEF said at the time that it was “an evil that has affected Ecuadorian soccer for many years.”

Risk not worth taking

Specific concern over Castillo’s eligibility appeared to have affected FEF officials as well. The Chileans claim to be in possession of a declaration signed in 2016 by Castillo to Ecuadorian prosecutors informing he had his documentation with the FEF falsified by the representatives of his first club in Ecuador (Club Norteamerica).

In March 2021, Carlos Manzur, the FEF vice president told local media that selecting Castillo was a “risk” not worth taking.

“I think it’s a matter of playing it safe, avoiding problems,” Manzur told reporters at the time.

“I think he is a good player. If it were up to me, I would not have him play for the national team. I would not take that risk. I would not risk everything we are doing.”

However, a month after Manzur’s comments an Ecuadorean court provided Castillo with an identification document that allowed to make his national team debut later in 2021. The court is understood to have corrected a document seen by Off The Pitch – and published here – that allegedly shows Castillo to be Colombian.

Manzur has subsequently said that any inconsistencies in Castillo’s documentation had been corrected. “The national team waited until that was corrected to incorporate the player into its squad,” said Manzur.

Justice at all costs

ANFP have been vocal in their concerns about the length the appeals process has taken and says that similar cases have been resolved in 8-10 weeks, whereas this process has taken at least 15 – and with the World Cup looming.

“The way things are happening leaves us with the feeling that – if the resolution goes against us in the appeal committee – our legitimate right to appeal and to have a decision from the Court of Arbitration for Sport before the start of the World Cup will be eliminated,” Carlezzo said in comments that preceded the announcement of the Appeals Committee hearing.

A qualified finalist has never been expelled from a World Cup, but despite this hurdle ANFP may take heart from recent precedents from across sport that support its case. Earlier this year, Spain was disqualified from the 2023 Rugby World Cup after being deducted points for fielding an ineligible player in two games. And during qualifying for the 2018 World Cup, FIFA found Bolivia had fielded an ineligible player in two matches. The beneficiary in that case? Chile.

“We understand the challenges associated with making a ruling in our favour at this stage,” said Carlezzo. “But justice needs to be served at all costs.”

UEFA have confirmed that Paris Saint-Germain and Juventus are among eight clubs that competed in its competitions last season to be fined for breaches of Financial Fair Play (FFP) rules.

PSG have been ordered to pay an unconditional fine of €10 million and another €55 million if they fail to break even, while Juventus have been hit with a €3.5 million fine to be paid up front, and a further €19.5 million if they don’t comply with the break-even requirements.

The other clubs to be sanctioned are AS Roma (€5m unconditional fine, €30m conditional fine), Inter Milan (€4m, €22m), AC Milan (€2m, €13m), Beşiktaş (€0.6m, €3.4m), AS Monaco (€0.3m, €1.7m), and Olympique de Marseille (€0.3m, €1.7m).

19 clubs on watchlist

The analysis covered the period from 2018 to 2022. No clubs from either LaLiga or the Premier League were found to have breached the regulations.

However, UEFA also stated that 19 clubs – Borussia Dortmund, Chelsea, FC Barcelona, Basel, Union Berlin, Fenerbahce, Feyenoord, Leicester City, Manchester City, Lyon, Rangers, Real Betis, Royal Antwerp, Sevilla, Lazio, Napoli, Trabzonspor, Wolfsburg and West Ham United – have been placed on a watchlist.

UEFA said these clubs were “able to technically fulfil the break-even requirement thanks to the application of the Covid-19 emergency measures and/or because they benefited from historical positive break-even results.”

The governing body added that the clubs were “asked for additional financial information and will be monitored closely in the upcoming period.”

Premier League clubs set for spending restrictions under new squad cost rules

Premier League clubs are set to face spending restrictions on transfers and wages for the first time as the English top-flight plans to follow UEFA’s new financial rules, The Times reports.

Under UEFA’s new squad cost rule clubs will be limited to spending 70 per cent of their revenue in a calendar year on player wages, transfers and agents fees, although any income from selling players will allow clubs to spend more.

UEFA has already said it will phase the new limit in – with 90 per cent the cap for the calendar year 2023, 80 per cent for 2024 and 70 per cent from 2025. The Premier League is looking to bring in a similar rule, but with a higher percentage so clubs can invest more in competing to get into Europe.

Fines and points deductions

UEFA’s model will lead to fines and points deductions imposed for breaches, with the sanction determined by the size of the breach. It is understood the Premier League has yet to make any detailed proposals to clubs around sanctions.

Insiders told The Times that the first step is for the principle to be agreed by the member clubs and then to set out a phased introduction. The ‘Big Six’ clubs – Arsenal, Liverpool, Chelsea, Tottenham Hotspur and the two Manchester teams – are believed to be broadly supportive of the plans.

Future of Bundesliga’s ‘50+1’ rule remains in doubt as cartel office investigation drags on

The future of the Bundesliga’s ‘50+1’ ownership rule remains unclear as an investigation by Germany’s federal competition authority into the rule continues to drag on, Kicker reports.

The Bundeskartellamt delivered a preliminary evaluation of the 50+1 ownership rule, which bars big investors from taking over clubs, back in May 2021 after the DFL had requested it for reasons of legal clarity.

The cartel office declared that the rule was not in breach of anti-trust laws. However, it warned that it considered the exceptions to the rule to be problematic, and said efforts should be made for implementation across the league.

The Bundeskartellamt's president Andreas Mundt said this week that it has now heard a "broad picture" of views, having spoken with clubs, the league and investors. But he suggested that further crucial talks will be held over the next few months.

Speaking on Tuesday at the presentation of the Bundeskartellamt's annual report, Mundt said: "It would not be expedient to comment on this now, at a stage where the whole thing is really in conversation with us. This is not the easiest issue. I hope that we are heading for good solutions, with the DFL, with the clubs."

Factory-owned clubs

Under DFL rules clubs are not allowed to play in the Bundesliga if commercial investors have more than a 49 per cent stake, meaning private investors cannot take over control.

There are some exceptions, such as factory-owned clubs Bayer Leverkusen and VfL Wolfsburg. Under current rules investors with an interest in the club for 20 years or more can apply for an exemption from the 50+1 rule.

FIFA set date for Chile appeal over Ecuador’s World Cup place

FIFA will hold an appeal hearing on 15th September over Chile’s claim they should be at the 2022 World Cup instead of Ecuador due to the alleged use of an ineligible player during qualification matches.

On 10th June FIFA dismissed the Chilean FA’s complaint that Ecuador’s Byron Castillo was born in Tumaco, Colombia in 1995 and not in the Ecuadorean city of General Villamil Playas in 1998, as stated on his official documents.

The Chilean FA appealed the decision on 1st July and recently urged FIFA to speed up the process.

Eduardo Carlezzo, the lawyer representing the Football Federation of Chile in its FIFA appeal, told Reuters in an email that the governing body had called Castillo himself to testify.

Ecuador denial

Castillo played in eight of Ecuador’s 18 qualifying games for the Qatar World Cup. Ecuador have denied that the player was ineligible.

Ecuador picked up 14 of their 26 points in matches Castillo played. If they had lost points for the games in which Castillo appeared, they would have missed out on a place in Qatar.

---------

My Career in Sports Law: Emilio García Silvero, Chief Legal and Compliance Officer at FIFA

What makes football law different from other careers?
"Football law is a very particular combination. Essentially, we are talking about law, so a strong and solid legal education is crucial. But the fact is that the application and the interpretation of the law is done in a very particular environment, such as football or sport in general. Hence, knowledge of the sporting environment is also a vital aspect for anyone who wants to work in this field. I always tend to say that football law is essentially law, and that without the passion about the legal system it is impossible to work in this market, but it also important to highlight that the understanding of the context in which the rules and regulations are applied is an equally relevant aspect."

Who in this industry has inspired you the most?
"I have been very fortunate since I started working in the Legal Department of the Spanish Football Federation (RFEF) almost 20 years ago. During this period, I have met incredible people from whom I have learned a lot, both from a professional and personal point of view. Professionally, the figures of the former UEFA's Legal Directors from 2004 to 2018, Gianni Infantino and, later, Alasdair Bell, have been fundamental in my development. To this, I add my Thesis Director at the University in Madrid, Prof. Miguel Cardenal, today Chairman of the Supervisory Council of the Aquatic Integrity Unit and CAS Arbitrator. Personally, I learned a lot about human relations from the former President of the RFEF, Angel Maria Villar Llona, whom I hold in high esteem."

What is the most complicated case you have been involved in, and why?
"In the last 20 years, I have been involved in numerous judicial and arbitration proceedings in different jurisdictions all across the world. I could give many examples, but two cases stand out for me, both before the CAS: The match-fixing proceedings of the Turkish club Fenerbahce and the Albanian club Skenderbeu were incredible legal challenges during my time as Director of Integrity at UEFA. They were a mixed bag of proceedings, pioneering in many cases, and they were a real learning experience. More recently, I would say that the work with the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) from 2018 to 2021, which has led to the restitution to the FIFA Foundation of more than USD 200 million, has also been something that has marked me professionally."

Which type of case can really inspire you and make you feel highly motivated?
"Any case, no matter how small, is interesting. The most complicated cases I have been involved in, have not been in my time at FIFA or UEFA, but those almost unsolvable cases of lower categories that occur in a domestic federation or a league (in my case in the RFEF). There are situations that do not happen often in professional football, and often the rules are not designed for cases of that nature. But any procedure that involves law in sport or football is exciting."

Looking into your crystal ball, which area of football law do you see growing in importance and relevance?
"I think there are two aspects that are already fundamental at the moment: on the one hand, the digitisation of the whole environment, which directly affects those professionals who are dedicated to football law. It is no longer just a question of knowing about employment disputes, disciplinary sanctions or doping, but the commercial aspects related to the digitalisation of the market are now also essential. The second aspect is also partly tangential to football law, but increasingly linked to it. The international or local financial control of clubs through regulations will continue to generate litigation at domestic level and before the CAS. It is an exciting area and we will see some development in the future."