UEFA have appointed David Gill to chair their licensing committee under the new Financial Fair Play, sparking a debate about the position of a current Manchester United board member and the quite clear conflict of interest it raises.
Of course it’s a conflict of interest, but such is the way that football works that you’re always likely to come across situations like this. UEFA may be questioned for their decision to offer Gill a level of power over clubs who breach the rules laid out by Financial Fair Play, but to do that would also indirectly question Gill’s integrity, assuming that he’d simply go out of his way to clear Manchester United’s path of their nearest rivals.
Manchester United are one of the clubs to advocate a limit on spending, where they were also backed by the majority of Premier League and European clubs. The problem of this appointment, however, is that there is access to the accounts of domestic and European rivals. The matter shouldn’t be that Gill will blindly swing the hammer and show his continued allegiance to United, but rather that his position can work in their favour.
[cat_link cat=”premiership” type=”list”]
For that it’s understandable why clubs like Chelsea or Manchester City would be fearful or at least mindful of Gill’s new position. But regardless of whether the power holder has ties to Manchester United or not, they’ll still come down firm on those who fail to balance the books. At least that’s what we’re led to believe. You’re either cynical or a realist if you believe FFP is coming into place to keep the rich at the top. Malaga were battling to attain a license to compete in Europe next season, Rayo Vallecano too, yet you’d be stretched to imagine any of the big or money-making clubs facing such struggles.
Isn’t it also best for UEFA to appoint someone for this role who does hold a good working knowledge of the game? Gill will retain a position on the board at Manchester United and as such is on the frontlines to deal with the matters of his new position accordingly. The issue here, or the lack of one, is that only clubs like Manchester City and Chelsea will speak out on this matter. They are the clubs compressing 15 or 20 years of build into three or four and they have shown a continued willingness to spend heavily in a time of economic recession.
Where is Bayern Munich? Adding to that, where is Manchester United in this debate? It doesn’t matter whether Gill is one of their own, shouldn’t they also be mindful of possible fines and bans due to their own history of lavish spend? Bayern and United, and many others, are not comparable to PSG, Chelsea and Monaco. It doesn’t really need further explanation, such has been their status at the top of the European game for decades.
You’d also like to assume that Gill will come down hard on United if they’re found to be in breach of UEFA rulings. Those who will go on to laugh off that assumption should probably be mindful of the idea that United may go all out to ensure they don’t fall foul of the rules in place. Their approaching sponsorship deals will give them the ability to continue spending as they please. The bigger conflict of interest is in the sponsorships aligned with Manchester City.
Yet it furthers the whole issue on whether these new rulings are simply in place to keep the best teams at the top and almost unrivalled. Monaco, Manchester City and up until recently Malaga had to dip into the pockets of outside investors in order to make up ground in league competition. That can’t happen now.
What if QPR decide they want to continue spending their way out of trouble? UEFA won’t allow it. They want to encourage organic building in football, something which can take at least a decade to achieve, all the while masking their true goal in the game which sees a maintaining of the equilibrium. At least that’s the cynical view.
How will David Gill’s position with UEFA play out across England?
Join the debate below
[opinion-widget op width=”full”]
