Shining light on football’s dark side
The ‘Football Leaks’ revelations have placed an uncomfortable spotlight on the world game’s financial chicanery and dirty tricks
Perhaps the worst aspect of the Football Leaks revelations is the large number of yawns it drew from both officialdom and supporters. The themes had long been assumed – and with that came a cynical resignation that the game had neither the will nor the power to control boardroom blindsiding.
After all, the FIFA of Joao Havelange and then Sepp Blatter had used financial finagling as a strategy to run the worldwide game. A fish rots from the head down, so the old saying goes. No reason, then, to be surprised by the “discovery” that all manner of trickery was being employed
further down the carcass.
The title adopted by the researchers of “football leaks” is an oxymoron. Football is riddled with leaks. More, it depends on them for daily self-promotion, whether through planted stories in the media or the tasteless ravings of the more obnoxious agents. Indeed, one noted agent took great pride at being named in a book about the transfer business because of its portrayal of his wheelerdealer “skills”.
Football’s long-term reaction to the latest swath of leaks depends on pragmatism. An important step would be acknowledging that the leaks – about UEFA, about financial fairplay (FFP), about Paris Saint-Germain and Manchester City, about Gianni Infantino – are correct. Every passing day without a straight denial or refutation is such an admission.
Governing bodies and clubs have emitted little more than half-hearted complaints about the publication by 14 co-operating European media outlets of material which had been obtained illicitly to point an accusatory finger at unloved Gulf states – Qatar in the case of PSG and the United Arab Emirates in the case of Man City.
And this is before anyone comes around to the issue of Saudi Arabia’s clumsy moves in trying to meddle in the politics and finances of regional and international football.
To start at the top means making the obvious connection between FIFA’s ambition to expand and rebrand the Club World Cup and the behind-the-scenes discussions among Europe’s elite for a so-called Super League. There are two initial points:
• The current Club World Cup is considered unsatisfactory by almost everyone except the Oceania champions, for whom the December tournament is a guarantee of ridiculous riches (by their standards).
• The creation of a Super League has been whispered in the corridors of club power ever since the late 1980s when then-Milan owner Silvio Berlusconi commissioned a proposal. The outcome was that both then, and several times since, UEFA suddenly came up with new proposals to expand the entry access and cash share-outs for those big clubs that bring essential glitz and glamour to the Champions League.
In this context, FIFA president Infantino was squeezed twice over. First he was taken to task for his proposal to sell off not merely the rights to the Club World Cup and projected Nations League to unnamed investors but all FIFA’s rights to a mystery consortium.
Infantino was then hammered again for events during his decade as general secretary at UEFA. Here he was shown to have been involved in negotiating FFP settlements with PSG and Man City, and to have been on more generally affable terms than might have been expected from a disciplinary body.
This may have been the case because of a long-standing fear within UEFA that FFP could not withstand legal scrutiny and that it survives only with the acquiescence of clubs content to accept auditing credibility as a price for competing in Europe. For the smaller clubs this is acceptable; it is the giants that resent UEFA poking an inquisitive nose into private corporate affairs.
After all, former president Michel Platini’s idea was to use European competition access as a lever to drive financial security. But no one can doubt the stability of PSG and City – to name but two – so why should they be restricted in how they spend their money? There is an argument that controlling them (and others) controls the wealth gap. But that was never the raison d’etre of FFP.
Hence no one at PSG or Manchester City has conceded doubts about overvalued sponsorships in the first case or offshore wages-payment schemes in the second.
The very fact that Infantino became involved in sorting out FFP deals illustrates UEFA’s internal concern about the legal status of FFP. UEFA, presented
as an inadequate policeman, has had no option but to consider tougher punishments to rescue it.
“For any club the rules have to be strong and clear,” said UEFA president Aleksander Ceferin. “We will act by the book, by the regulations. We know we have to modernise. We acknowledge the rules might be weak in certain points.
“We know we have to check the rules and regulations all the time. We know that the situation in the football market is changing all the time. So that’s also part of our thinking for the future.
“Do we have to do something about the regulations to be more robust? Yes.”
His words suggested there could be no retrospective action. So PSG and Manchester City are in the clear thus far. Certainly in City’s case, UEFA lacks the policing power to force open bank accounts or check payment trails. Hence a perception that UEFA can play the tough guy against the smaller clubs but dare not crack down on the giants who make the Champions League a worldwide phenomenon.
Other unsavoury issues have come to light along the way, including the vast fees paid to agents, the misuse of imagerights payments – a criminal problem long ago in French football and now in Spain – the pretence about bonuses to reduce the core wages commitment, and PSG’s reprehensible ethnicity checks.
The problems highlighted are not always criminal. Tax evasion is one thing, tax avoidance another. A thin line exists. Similarly, the sums involved at the top of the game have blurred the lines between practicality, ethics and morality. The world of sport – as so many senior directors of FIFA have demonstrated in the past – almost invites rules-rigging.
The impression left by the recent history of Infantino’s late-night phone calls was that UEFA was frightened by the possible consequences of FFP. Now perhaps UEFA can devise tougher FFP rules or appoint more hard-nosed judges and overseers.
Either way, the wider game will expect it to call the clubs’ bluff; to make a punishing example of, say, PSG and meet the inevitable court challenge head-on.
At least then UEFA could say it tried its best. Without a demonstration of will it must remain a paper tiger – one clubs can rip to shreds any time they like.