re: Kompany says it

Regulation isn't about punishment. It should be about leveling a playing field. What FFP does do is it appears to keep small clubs small and big clubs big, and screws the clubs that want to be big.

It is supposed to incentiveize running football clubs like actual businesses, which is a fairlyrics new concept in that world which wasn't all that long ago run by amateurs. I mean, the modern transfer market began in earnest in 1995.

There's a thin line between Democracy and Oligarchy. FFP is trying to ensure the former over the latter.

I've said countless times I think FFP is flawed and needs to be tweaked. But I will defend the concept of it. I think the idea is necessary and important. The implication may be flawed, and if so it should be fixed. But the institution needs to stay.

quote:

---

No, it depends on your definition of what a healthy market is.

---

that has, literally, nothing to do with what i said

subjectivity is irrelevant to a discussion of the actual, objective results of regulation. the regulation is irrelevant and i'm not commenting on regulation, in this instance, subjectively. i'm just stating what regulation is and what it does, objectively.

quote:

---

90% of the world would agree that competition and parity in spending make a healthy market.

---

nobody who believes in a free market would argue that parity in spending makes a healthy market. why should a company who invests little in R/D benefit the same as a company who invests heavily in R/D? you can exchange R/D with all sorts of variables, like expansions into new markets, marketing, researching current products/companies to buy, etc

quote:

---

Regulation that seeks to level the playing field and allow all players a say in price helps a market in this situation because it creates a stable base.

---

sure you create stability, but that stability also applies to other aspects of the market, like freezing the status of the participants in the market. that offers stability sure, but it also limits advancement in the market. that's a subjective preference of policy choice, it's not an absolute statement of truth.

but my statements about regulation are objective facts

quote:

---

Regulation isn't about punishment.

---

that's exactly what it is. what happens when you violate a regulation? punishment

quote:

---

sure you create stability, but that stability also applies to other aspects of the market, like freezing the status of the participants in the market. that offers stability sure, but it also limits advancement in the market.

---

There are ways around this, one would think, so that the punitive aspect on clubs that violate the rules aren't so severe. Perhaps something akin to a luxury tax, or a maximum above revenue a club can go in a particular window.

if they are serious about managing the problem without basically crowning united/real/barca/bayern, they have to specifically define revenue in a way that eliminates the advantages certain clubs had at the time of implementation

they have to figure out a method of accounting that normalizes revenue and essentially evens out what, say, swansea and united earn

quote:

---

subjectivity is irrelevant to a discussion of the actual, objective results of regulation. the regulation is irrelevant and i'm not commenting on regulation, in this instance, subjectively. i'm just stating what regulation is and what it does, objectively.

---

But I'm not interested in a purely free market in the context of international soccer. I don't think that's healthy for that specific market. Therefore, regulation makes sense to me. Regulation in a purely free market does indeed, by definition, make the playing field uneven. However, I don't think a free market is the correct form considering this context.

quote:

---

nobody who believes in a free market would argue that parity in spending makes a healthy market. why should a company who invests little in R/D benefit the same as a company who invests heavily in R/D? you can exchange R/D with all sorts of variables, like expansions into new markets, marketing, researching current products/companies to buy, etc

---

Again, this may be where we're at an impasse. Most people have seen the problems that have existed in UEFA and agreed that a purely free market is not the best environment for the success and parity of every one of its participants.

quote:

---

sure you create stability, but that stability also applies to other aspects of the market, like freezing the status of the participants in the market. that offers stability sure, but it also limits advancement in the market. that's a subjective preference of policy choice, it's not an absolute statement of truth.

---

True if you're looking at transfers by themselves as a means to advance. But there are other ways outside of transfers to be successful by investing in a myriad of aspects of the club to make it financially sustainable and to ensure future success. The academies are the easiest example.

quote:

---

but my statements about regulation are objective facts

---

They are. In the context of a purely free market.

If a club can afford it, then I would be all for them spending what they want. But too many clubs can't afford it. Portsmouth basically bought the 2008 FA Cup. I wouldn't know how to normalize revenue in such a way to make it even for teams. Regardless I think it was the right move given the precarious position of the European economy. Who knows what would happen if the Euro zone collapsed.

quote:

---

If a club can afford it, then I would be all for them spending what they want.

---

I totally agree. Which is why I said I really didn't want to get in a discussion about market economics. While I understand there are situations in which one club's spending influences the other, the free spending of money which doesn't detrimentally effect a club is more important to me.

My primary concern has, and will always be, owners who destroy the clubs they're at and then run for the hills. Everything else is minor details for me.

quote:

---

that's fine, but the system that FFP built is completely bullshite. it traps teams in their station

---

And again, I want to apologize, because DS and I have been back and forth over this for months on the board. I began the conversation knowing he knew my stance and I didn't bother stating it for you. I think the current iteration of FFP is very flawed. Owners should be allowed a vast initial investment before being policed. There is no way to drag yourself out of the mire otherwise.

Generally with these threads its more of a philosophical disagreement between me and DS on whether it should exist or not, but never really the nuances.