WHAT FOLLY TO CREDIT FFP FOR LIVERPOOL’S RISE

DISCIPLeS of the cult of financial fair play make all types of claims on its behalf. This week, it was credited with the rise of Liverpool and the economic health of the Premier League. The argu-ment was that the Fenway Sports Group would not have bought Liverpool unless owner invest-ment had been checked — because of FFP John henry knew his club would be able to compete.

Yes, exactly — because as a traditional member of europe’s elite, FFP gave Liverpool every advantage. Its owners could spend in a way those at smaller clubs, wishing to redress the competitive balance with investment in order to grow, could not.

So if henry bought Liverpool because of FFP it is because the system is skewed disproportion-ately towards the existing elite, not because it is working. and it still required brilliant steward-ship, a genius manager-motivator and the most intelligent recruit-ment policy of the modern era to make it work. To attribute Liverpool’s success to UeFa and friends fixing the game for the elite rather does the team at anfield a disservice.

equally, the idea that the Premier League is financially powerful because of FFP misses several points. The biggest is this: the Premier League’s wealth relies on its broadcasting success abroad and at home and that has grown because it is more open than its rivals in europe, with real strength in depth and outstanding teams at the apex.

and the reason for this is new money — Chelsea, manchester City, even Leicester — taking the power from the traditional red clubs and raising standards. That has happened despite FFP, not because of it. Without the clubs the protectionists and conformists most resent, our league might have been as predictable as the one in Spain, or worse, Germany and Italy. and it might be again, if the elites prevail.