@Tre_Cool
Thank you for the explanation. To be honest, I googled “Fifa break-even rule” for a short time, but only came up with the same article on different news portals.
Now, as a TM, you can of course say: anyone who is interested in football should know that. But since I don’t deal with it much, I somehow lose track of the regulations of the individual associations. And was hoping that TM would at least provide some background knowledge.
After your explanation, the construct EU, states and then, in our case, federalism seems more logical to me.
Although I continue to wonder how this is associated with Corona. But wrapping Union Berlin and PSG in one piece of news has to be done first.
UEFA just wanted to be a little more accommodating with the clubs because of the loss of income caused by the corona. For example, one or the other deadline by which payments had to be proven was postponed by a month and stuff like that.
A concrete “relaxation measure” is that the seasons 19/20 and 20/21 were combined for the FFP (therefore 4 seasons are currently considered for the FFP, usually only 3) and the average value of them is taken in the break-even balance sheet. Which should give the clubs greater flexibility to meet the requirements despite Corona.
‘Break even’ ultimately only means achieving a balanced result. That’s the balance sheet that decides whether the basic UEFA condition of not spending more than you earn (minus the relatively small sum that an investor is allowed to contribute. Was it probably 15 million a year recently?) is met.
However, not all points of the budget or the normal financial report of clubs are included in the calculation. Things like annual write-offs of transfer fees, salaries of the first team/the coaching team or probably travel expenses, payments to consultants, etc. come in quite normally. However, when it comes to spending on infrastructure, youth football, women’s football, etc., things look different again.