Do you guys actually consider violating FFP to be the equivalent of bribing refs or paying other clubs to throw matches?
I want to get a read of peoples opinions here:
- Yes, it is the exact same. Cheating is Cheating
- No, obviously paying your own players and coaches more money to entice them to join your club is not as bad as bribing refs and match fixing.
- Financial Doping is actually worse.
Personally:
If i found out Roman had been bribing refs or Paying the other clubs to throw matches, I would be devastated.
I am entirely fine with Paying players more money that FFP allows.
Eg. Restaurant A has an early start in a neighborhood and earns 4 times as much revenue as Restaurant B.
Every good chef Restaurant B hires gets poached away by Restaurant A, because the local laws dictate Restaurant A can spend 4 times as much on payroll and the ingredients it buys.
Do you think this is fair competition?
The way FFP is setup, whether intentional or not creates an established hierarchy
FFP is something I find to be an unjust rule set. I dont care that unjust rules get broken. Eg. before Washington state legalized weed I knew of many people who smoked. I never judged them because I didnt agree with the law.
No, it can’t be the same. The Juve case demonstrates this.
There is, however, a few scenarios for ffp breaches:
One, where an oversight/genuine error occurs, and wasn’t intentional or in bad faith (see lots of clubs after Covid).
Two, where a club actively try to get around/cheat ffp (See Sheffield Wednesday.
Three, where a club absolutely, and blatantly, cheat ffp for years, and the consequences can never be enough to justify not doing it so you have to rewrite the rules (see City).
People will, and should feel differently about those. Comparing them to match fixing is futile.