re: Legal challenge to FFP moving along

quote:

---

and?

You´ve only been able to see European kids wearing the odd Chelsea strip in the past ten years, and recently, with greater frequency.

As for Arsenal and Chelsea vying to be considered as London´s club, I get what you´re saying, and can agree to some extent, however on the international front, until the early 2000s (Claudio Ranieri era), it was Arsenal who were exclusively recognizable.

---

Did Chelsea really have any more of an international fan base before they splashed oligarch cash than Napoli? They had name recognition, traditionally strong domestic support, based in a famous city etc etc. . .

In that sense, they are kind of the poster club for arguing against FFP since their wild spending is precisely what made them one of the biggest international clubs for a younger generation.

It's what now gives them a lot more options to maximize earnings and look forward as an "insider". However, one could certainly argue that if they cut back and field a bunch of English players instead of international glamor boys they become more Everton than AC Milan overnight.


I understand some arguments for FFP because, certainly, if you poured that kind of money into Cagliari the bubble would likely burst as soon as the wild spending ceased (like I suppose with Malaga though I don't know a lot of details about them).

However, that clubs like Roma, Inter, Liverpool, Valencia are recently ones mentioned as having to cut back investment due to FFP seems a bit strange in light of the Chelsea example.

If any of those owners wanted to "throw away" an extra €300m they would be equal to Chelsea in terms of international interest before the ink dried on Pogba, Aguero, Hazard, Neymar and Sanchez's signatures.

This is not even to get into what amount would be "irresponsible" for a new AC Milan owner to splash.