By Tony Attwood
In 2024/25 Chelsea spent €281.90m on transfer fees according to Transfermarkt. They have now been fined €31 million by Uefa for breaches of financial fair play rules. The Telegraph has the nerve to say Chelsea “have been hit by” the fine , when the reality is they won’t even notice it.
True there is the chance of a further €60 million fine if they break the rules again, but I suspect they will now have factored that into their spending plans as just something extra they have to pay.
Sympathetic as ever to Chelsea, the paper calls the possible total fine of €80 million “enormous” even though 87% of it is suspended and won’t happen at all if they are not caught again in the next four years.
Aston Villa have been given an €11 million fine plus a secondary €15 million fine suspended over three years.
Yet the fact is that the FFP rules are not complex – they are clear and everyone knows them, and it is obvious that some clubs (who for the sake of argument we will call “Chelsea”) are seeking to buy their way to be the top by ignoring the rules except to factor in the fines as part of their regular expenses. They will bring in the players they want, whatever the cost.
Indeed, can you imagine Villa or Chelsea bringing in a new manager at some stage and saying to him “oh, but you can’t spend any money because we are on the edge of FFP rules”? No it is hard to imagine, but the fact is that the management will now take the clubs to and beyond the financial edge, simply to try and force their way up the table.
There might be slightly more of an impact from the fact that both of the two clubs will also not be allowed to register new players for the Champions League (or Europa or the diddly league if they slip back down to that level) for two campaigns, unless they bring more money from sales than purchases. Villa are expected (by some of the media at least, so it might not be true) to keep their books in order by selling Emi Martínez, although that is still uncertain.
As we have known for some time one of the ways in which Chelsea have been working to avoid these fines is by getting involved in player exchanges which tend to muddy the accountancy waters. The activity appears not to be done for football reasons but to manipulate the accounts and is now, at long last, being stopped. As is, again at long last, the sale of assets by the group of companies owning a football club as a way of generating profit. Why the rule makers take so long to catch up is beyond me.
But they can get there in the end, and that is a rule change that is really going to hurt Chelsea, as in recent times they have sold two hotels, a car park and the women’s team. What is particularly alarming about the scheme are the suggestions that the companies to who the club has sold the assets are owned by the same holidng companies as own Chelsea FC itself.
Looking at the Chelsea situation, Uefa fined them €20 million whereas the Premier League rules, drawn up by the PL clubs, have not been breached, because, well, they were drawn up by the PL clubs, to the benefit of the PL clubs.
Chelsea have put out a statement saying they have worked “transparently” with Uefa, so I am sure everything will be fine now and that mega sale of the women’s team to a company owned by the same people who own Chelsea FC will just be a one-off.
Although the Telegraph reported this week that Villa owners V Sports will sell a stake in their women’s team to an “external investor” and are looking to sell their new indoor venue (which isn’t yet finished) to an outside company.
But there is a deeper problem for both clubs as they appear to have spent more that 80% of their income on wages and agents. For that offence, Chelsea got a fine of €11 million and Villa €6 million by Uefa, but again no Premier League rules have been broken and the Premier League have not even debated changing their own rules.
Elsewhere in the universe, Barcelona were fined (or in common journalistic speak) “were hit by a fine” €60 million. But of course with €45 million suspended, it is not really sixty million. This was for what the Telegraph calls “declaring non-admissible income.” Which I think means trying to fiddle the books.
Chelsea have been “hit by”…what on earth is wrong with that?????
Why spoil everything you write with your obsession. It really demeans the quality of your articles. It does you no credit and is embarrassing to read
But then what I don’t understand Andrew is why you keep reading and commenting when you don’t understand my writing. I think most readers do get what I write about, and I am comforted by the fact that the 70 or so books I have written in my life have by and large been accepted quite well, but you clearly dislike my style or approach. So why do you go on reading.
My point I thought was clear. “Hit by” implies having an impact; if you don’t feel it you can’t really be said to have been hit by it.