Which everyone knows is the real reason, which is why when a big team "breaks" FFP they get a small fine, but when a small team breaks it they get the book thrown at them. It was NEVER about making it a level playing field, it was about making sure the big teams stay big and continue to make FIFA/UEFA lots of money

I mean Chelsea won’t be banned from the UCL because they won’t even qualify lmao

Would have been nice if more people had realized this when it was implemented, instead of acting as cheerleaders for it.

To be fair, FFP was explicitly never intended to promote parity. What would actually bring about parity is having a salary or transfer cap that is the same for every team. That, UEFA will never do lol

@@magicalhikari5859 they won’t even make the Europa conference league

look at government spending. this football thing look more sense

@@syarifairlangga4608 Military especially.

My son it's called " PREMIER LEAGUE " for a reason.

@@SagarDhillon1 it was called the premier league in the 90s as well when things were normal. What is your point

@@SagarDhillon1 Please don't be daft. It's had that name since 1992, when Serie A was levels above it

How is it corrupt? Clubs can spend what they make. The PL makes more than any other league so they spend more. Why would you want billionars to make higher profits? Either the revenue goes into the club or it goes into his pocket.

@@tyrkun1624 Seria a better than EPL? In what planet?

I think so just because of how strong the academy is they can keep moving guys out

There’s a fine line between the two

I would tend to think more likely a genius if you look into his background and the amount of money he is worth along with the owners who are all very good business people .. nothing he has done is illegal it's simply that he is the first to take full advantage of being debt free when he bought the club .

If Chelsea go bankrupt, he is a genius

@@jackmannion143 Except this not boxes, this is people, and footballers who are not playing are very very difficult, especially when no one will buy them from you His knowledge is Baseball, which is not actually a team game, its team who play individually alone , not together,

@@gratefulkm Baseball is a team sport though. It’s not like boxing or cycling (which arguably again is a team sport)

Yeah, it’s funny how many people don’t understand FFP yet are all too quick to criticize it for the wrong reasons. It’s largely in place to prevent a club from overspending and going into administration. It does prevent a club from rising quickly but that’s not gatekeeping, that’s again to protect a club from overspending their way into deep financial trouble. City broke the rules to rise quicker than they should’ve but if you look at Newcastle they’re doing it in a more measured, sustainable, and most importantly, legal manner.

Hilarious because he is a fantastic talent? They're starting to turn me around to there methods, strangely. I think it will be a very good next season for them, if not a latter one.

@@littlehammers9032 how does unlimited spending turn you around to their methods?

@@convoluted898because of the talent they’re buying?

@@FirstLast-ur6xt But at what cost? Abramovich made a loss/covered £1.5bn during his 18 years at the club. Doesn't seem a very sustainable business model (even less so out of the football world). Guess making huge losses is the point of late stage capitalism.

@@convoluted898 It's not unlimited spending, if you understanding contract agreements and amortisation. Pull my finger Conrad.

From recollection (and this is because I thought 5 years was already the maximum allowed) UEFA/FIFA say it's 5 years* *unless there's a different limit in that country. It might be interesting if a player, say Mudrik were to try and extract himself from his contract 5 years from now. But mostly, even FIFA only interferes with the law of sovereign nations when it's hosting a world cup there. The Bosman thing was the opposite, Bosman realised that football law didn't comply with EU law.

@@DJMavis I think they're trying to standardise it for all countries from 2024 onwards. I thought the Mudryk contract was 5 years with a further 2 years added if he meets performance criteria. I might be completely wrong here though. Interesting they're trying to shut this loophole down before it becomes too problematic (like third party ownership of a player)

Only the Amortisation part. Contracts, depending on the country, can still be as long as they like.

Yes, but FIFA doesn't really take action.

Other clubs did the same. Brokelona messi 8 years. Gunners did it too wii fab

Just imagine Chelsea had signed Bogarde on a 10 year deal xD

Bakayoko is still at Chelsea...that's the kind of danger these deals can bring

Nah mate, the Toon are being smart, no Klarna payments from us😂

Other clubs have been doing similar. Juventus and Barcelona amongst them apparantly. Juventus' way of going about it however got them into rather a lot of hot water as they apparantly fiddled the selling fees of players (theres no current evidence that Chelsea have done this thus far, but who knows what investigations might be ongoing or what accounts might show in a few years) to give them more apparant money to spend on new players with the amortisation of assets.

@@bionicgeekgrrl I think Juve's problem is different, their problem wasn't the salaries, it was the pandemic that led to lack of sales, so with the lack of sales, to get an expected result, they had to reduce costs and the way they did it was to pay the salaries even tho on paper they were just paying a portion of it! They were making accounting mistakes on purpose

Can you drink the water?

100 million for Stormzy will not be beat

You mean the same Manchester City that was facing a 2-year Champions League ban that was only overturned because UEFA is inept and didn't submit the paperwork quickly enough? That Manchester City? The one that's been fined multiple times for FFP violations?

Robot comment

Wtf are you talking about

City have spent a billion in the past 10 years, Chelsea are about to spend half that in 6 months so the bs

City's net spend over the last five years is only 10th highest in the Premier league.

ah you've watched Darren Bent on Talksport and you are now enlightened! Under the advise no less of Melchiot, who had three good seasons with us.

You probably weren’t born when that happened. Probably heard a crappy pundit mention it on their crappy podcast.

That's what Chelsea are doing by acquiring quality then ship out the deadwood. What Chelsea are doing is buying the best young prospects that can fit a prosession-based style (Graham potter) right now so they can grow together. Once the squad is settled with deadwood replaced with quality young prospects the owners are going to start a multi club model which they want to use it like the Red bull group by one of the clubs the acquire buy an upcoming youngster to develop so Chelsea can buy them for a cut price meaning us spending like this won't last forever also the owners are going to rebuild Stamford bridge and try to increase the revenue to 1 billion. Don't listen to the media too much because it's going to make you think like how your comment was. One-dimensional. Do your research before critiquing something you have no knowledge of 👍. Chelsea are in the right hands with owners who are nothing like the glazers there is a reason why Roman picked this consortium over 55 other billionaires, if you don't believe do your research on the dorgers

@@photogps3540 that’s assuming Potter stays. These plans are all well and good but, we don’t have a franchise system. Whilst buying the best young talent and getting rid of the deadwood could help in the future at this current moment in time the European system is results results results. If we don’t sort ourselves out we could be facing relegation battles

Didnt that what abrahamovich did over those 20 or so years? Everyonce in awhile it will hit

@@duyanhng8430 he was successful though. This new spending spree seems risky and looks like Boehly doesn’t really understand the different systems in European and American sports

We are judging Chelsea base off the new ownership. Not bas ownership

Boo hoo

A loophole is lietraly compliance with the rules. And this isn't a loophole because everyone does the same thing. Cfc have just added a couple years to the contracts. I don't see a problem. Let them spend what they like. When those players flop they'll be stuck with them for 8 years.

Marina Granovskaia

That makes perfect sense, i think. Regards from 🇸🇯

Sounds like you were supposed to live in a country where fans still own their clubs

@@EisernRob I'm not upset at Abramovich (he saved the club), I'm upset that that needed to happen in the first place really. I'd like to see a level playing field. Of course, I'm an idealist. But so what? I'll always be an idealist! 🙂 x

@@QueerChica chelsea relied on a corrupt Russian Oligarch to “save” them, whereas Arsenal, relied on a footballing GENIUS in Arsene Wenger. Chelsea are an absolutely soulless club. Whatever way you look at it, Chelsea are the reason Neymar cost a ridiculous £222M. Arsenal have had soul and class since the days of Herbert Chapman. Soulless corrupt football club.

@@muzza2096 let me guess. You actually know nothing about football before the 2000s, and can merely quote Herbert Chapman's name? We were a well-established club before Roman Abramovich, which should be obvious. This tired old noveau riche argument doesn't tell the whole story. Astonishingly, non-football fans and the clueless still trot this out. My riposte is almost default, and is as follows: Chelsea were becoming a major force already thanks to the Hoddle revolution, which was followed by Gullit, Vialli, and then Ramieri. We qualified for Europe every year for eight years prior to being bought. We had won the 1997 League Cup and FA Cup; Cup Winners' Cup in '98, finished 3rd in '99 (just four points behind treble winners Man United), won the FA Cup again in 2000; reached the Champions Leaugue quarter-finals in 99/00 (where we beat Barca 3-1 at the Bridge in the first leg. In the first groups, we hammered UEFA Cup winner Galatasaray and drew 1-1 with the mighty AC Milan in the San Siro); reached another FA Cup final in 02; qualified for the Champions' League again in 02/03 (we were bought that summer). I hasten to add the FA Cup finals were at a time when every team still wanted to win the thing as well. Now, yes, money improved things (we weren't the first to spend it either, another thing that gets overlooked...). Abramovich's first season as owner saw reckless spending that ensured we fell short (again, money helps but doesn't automatically get results). We did reach the semis in the Champions' League, only to crash out to Monaco. We were off the pace in the league that year (but I would concede second-place was still an achievement). Yes, the money made us BETTER. But the way every bangs on about it without an iota of insight is borne of bitterness. Secondly, don't speak as if Arsenal -- a club that has spent money too in the past -- are Charlton or Leyton Orient. It's worth remembering that they hoover up talent. In any case, bitter missives written by bitter fans like yours are nothing new, and lack any insight. Smacks of jealousy. I'm not sure how tangible this soul nonsense you're talking about really is, or whether it's misty-eyed shit... but have a bitter on me! 😘🤣

That first part gave me an aneurysm while reading

Financial fair play There's nothin fair about Chelsea

@@marco16202 is that why they’re in the bottom half of the table

This isn’t a problem in us sports tho since everyone is dealing with the exact same size pool of money you either accept more of a cap hit now or later.

The 'T'ransfer fee and the 'C'ontract value are totalled together and divided over the length in 'Y'ears of the contract that is the 'A'mortization amount per year in a straight line method. (T+C)/Y=A If a player is sold whatever has not been amortized goes to a disposal account and the proceeds of the sale go to the other side of the disposal account. If the transfer fee is more than the remainder of the amortization it goes to the profit and loss account as a profit. If it is less then it goes into the profit and loss account as a loss.

Also the value of the contract is an asset on the balance sheet of the club until the contract ends or the player is sold to another club.

Upper cap just means clubs cant set vallue of their assets...would just make it cheaper for bigger clubs

@@tomasmateus17 not on an ffp basis as players won't sign long deals if they won't be sold anyway as a rule 200 million would more then cover any teams outlay and beyond that nothing is sustainable.

@@simplesimonhadapie that sounds good on paper but isnt really true...that would criple the portuguese teams so hard...big clubs would keep the financial advantage on salary it would just make it easier for them to sign (enzo fernandes is a good example)

Efl have more strict rules than the premier league

probably wouldn't like it, he has mentioned before that he wouldn't know how he would feel, of course it isn't just a rich Middle Eastern businessman that he has troubles with owning the club, it is the countries. You could watch his video on Newcastle and Saudi Arabia for that. With Brentford, for instance, I wouldn't like it even if we won the Premier League, wouldn't feel genuine. I'm more than happy with the least rich owner of all of the first two divisions of English football.

he would hate it

Yes UEFA has already updated the rules to place the limit at 5 years

I hope they don’t impose that here. I want loads of terrible players on seven-year contract at Chelsea.

​@@Beansontoast93911Who's terrible? Madueke, Mudryk, Felix, badiashile, Andrey santos and Nkunku are all on form and fantastic talents. You can only insult Chelsea for the reminder of the season, while it lasts.

@@islamiconasheed well one of them players got sent off on his debut for your crappy little club. And I’m just trying to remember what the result was. Let me know if you remember and also if you could let me know your league position because that also might help me knowing how good your players forms are. And also, I’m very confident that you are a local supporter because I can imagine that you grew up in the Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham.

@@Beansontoast93911you sound bitter

Career wise its not close

@@jeffrejr1 why? He did more in La Liga than Romarrio, the best league both of them played in. And he had 5 g+a in the 1994 World Cup. His overall contribution was also better than Romario's. It's very close between them.

@@footballchannel8430 your European league bias is nonsense.

@@jeffrejr1 i doubt that the brazilian league was as good in the late 80s and especially 90s than La Liga

@@footballchannel8430 Brazilian league they actually have defenders. I remember vasco dagama playing united with Romario upfront how did that go?

Is he not ukranian?

Suarez, no doubt. Far more industrious than either Mbappe or Neymar

@@gurururuwarararara8164 ronaldo is the main goalscorer wherever he goes, he wouldn't appreciate sharing that role with Suarez

Shkodran Mustafi

In no particular order: Jens Lehmann Mesut Ozil Per Mertesacker Michael Ballack Leroy Sane Jurgen Klinsmann Dietmar Hamann Honorable mention: Ilkay Gundogan That’s who I would pick but I’d also love a video to see what Alfie’s opinion would be.