Yesterday, Elliott’s legal team met to discuss Milan’s UEFA
sanctions ahead of a meeting with UEFA on Friday. It’s impossible to know what
to expect from that meeting, since UEFA have been treating Milan very differently
than comparable teams with comparable financial and management issues. But
after they sent a warning letter to Milan about the purchase of Paqueta, it
seems that our mercato is being held hostage yet again, as we are waiting for
UEFA.
 |
| Held hostage by a power-obsessed UEFA |
Our current sanctions are reported on FFP violations from
2014-17. As I wrote in May of 2014, in “Financial
Faux Pas,” we certainly saw this coming. But what we didn’t see coming
was the lack of fair play from UEFA. Last May, in “Financial
Foul Play,” I discussed how UEFA denied Milan’s new ownership both
voluntary and settlement agreements. To be fair, UEFA were right to be wary of
the Yonghong Li ownership. However, their precedents gave those agreements to
other ownerships, including other ownerships with poor business plans.
For example, in “Inter
vs. AC Milan: The FFP Derby,” I outlined the disparity in sanctions and
agreements between two clubs from the same city. Not only were Inter offered a settlement
agreement in 2015 after a change in ownership, they are in year four of
sanctions for that three year agreement. They have yet to make the criteria for
their agreement even one single year, but have not even been threatened with a
ban, let alone sanctioned with one.
 |
| Milan are being punished for the past... and also uncertainties |
Speaking of bans, Milan’s ban was handed down to them in
June from UEFA, as outlined in “Judgment Day.”
This judgment is said to have come as a result of the 2014-17 failures to meet
break even requirements, but UEFA said it was based on “uncertainties.” So
while UEFA’s FFP scope is meant to punish for past offenses, and indeed this
was specific to the 2014-17 balance sheets, they literally confessed the ban
was being handed down for future uncertainties. Yet, those who committed the
original crimes, Berlusconi and Galliani, were allowed to purchase Monza with
no repercussions from UEFA at all.
It begs the question as to what UEFA are policing: are they
policing past financial follies and managements, or are they punishing new and
future ownerships and events? FFP was designed to keep clubs from going
bankrupt. But UEFA has gotten ahead of themselves with the discipline. While
their agreements are meant to be a plan going forward to get financially foolhardy
clubs back on track, their ban on Milan offered no such plan, only a punishment
that was ascribed to one ownership, given to another, and applied to yet
another, with no plan for the future.
 |
| They say they care about football, but it doesn't seem that way |
Milan spent the summer appealing to the Court of Arbitration
for Sport (CAS). This also meant that after the takeover of Elliott Management,
Milan also had to postpone their mercato activities, lest they should incur
more wrath from UEFA. And the CAS overturned the ban,
eventually citing the financial stability the new ownership offered. The irony
there being that UEFA did not like the Yonghong Li management because they were
concerned about Milan falling into the hands of a hedge fund. Was that just
because they knew that Elliott Management had better lawyers and would get the
CAS to curb UEFA’s totalitarian ways?
The CAS acknowledged that Milan had issues with the break
even requirement, and referred us back to the disciplinary committee of UEFA
for a more “fair” punishment. By then we had like two weeks left in the
mercato, so newly appointed Leonardo and Maldini did what they could to improve
the squad. Finally, in December, the day after Milan crashed out of the Europa
League and just two weeks before the mercato opened, UEFA handed down the new
sanctions: a €12m fine payable from Milan’s Europa League earnings this season;
a limit on players in Europe for the next two seasons, and only 2.5 years to
meet the break even requirement, or the ban would be imposed.
 |
| The new guy knows how to balance a balance sheet |
Not only are these sanctions far more harsh than comparable clubs in comparable situations, but they failed yet again to offer the new ownership a voluntary or settlement agreement. While I understand that the management of Milan has been poor for at least the past ten years, and they want to put the fear into other clubs not to do similar things, their sanctions fail to meet their own purpose: of helping clubs play fair financially. For one, they are heaping on punishments to a new owner for things that were done literally three ownerships ago. And this ownership, surprisingly, has the most chance at bringing Milan’s budget into balance. But the “goals” within the sanctions are almost impossible to achieve, especially with a new management taking on years of mismanagement.
Furthermore, Leonardo recently admitted that he received a
warning letter about the purchase of Paqueta, stating this was not the type of
purchase that they approved of based on our financial situation. Which is
really out of their scope of governance. Way out of their scope of governance.
And it begs the question: have they lost sight of what it is that they are
supposed to be doing?
 |
| Milan's unlikely hero and possibly UEFA's worst nightmare |
I assume that Elliott Management will present all of these
arguments and more on Friday, and potentially once again to the CAS if
necessary. But until then, we are in week two of the January transfer market
and once again held hostage by UEFA’s unfair and late rulings. I mean it’s
2019, and they’re still arguing about what our punishments should be from 2014.
And despite the fact that they have no jurisdiction over our transfer market,
other than to impose a financial ban on transfers, it seems that we are stuck
yet again. Still waiting for UEFA.
This post inspired by the music of The
Kinks’ “Tired of Waiting For You”
Our next match is
Coppa Italia Round
of 16
Sampdoria vs. Milan
Saturday, January
12 • 18:00 CET (12noon EST)