No surprise there, but this time Harry Redknapp is unhappy about financial fair play rules as they affect Queens Park Rangers.
He argued: ‘To make it fair play we should be able to spend as much as Manchester United spent. That would be fair? Fair play would be everybody having £30 million or whatever to spend on the team. You have seven teams at the top on another planet.’
No surprise there, but this time Harry Redknapp is unhappy about financial fair play rules as they affect Queens Park Rangers.
He argued: ‘To make it fair play we should be able to spend as much as Manchester United spent. That would be fair? Fair play would be everybody having £30 million or whatever to spend on the team. You have seven teams at the top on another planet.’
Fair play is, of course, in principle about competitive balance, although the way it has worked out it is a means for the existing top clubs to pull up the ladder behind them. Its compatibility with competition law is open to question. At the end of the day, I don’t think that QPR will get fined anything like £40m as has been speculated, nor will they end up in the Conference.
Even so, Manchester United can spend more because they bring in more. They get more through the gate (which is why QPR sensibly want a bigger stadium) and their sophisticated marketing operation takes advantage of the fact that they are a global brand. There has to be some relationship between turnover and the amount spent.
Redknapp thinks that it is hard on clubs who get relegated, although he makes no mention of the generous parachute payments. Clubs should prepare for relegation by having appropriate clauses in their contracts to reduce player wages and they do have to be prepared to let go of some players.
Fair play as it is constructed is not fair and QPR are being set up as fall guys. But to some extent they placed themselves in that position. That is why they should receive a financial penalty that makes the point, but is not out of all proportion.