by It is just another example of a football world that seems to make sense.
On Friday evening, John Textor had no connection to Crystal Palace after selling his share of Woody Johnson – subject to the approval of the Premier League. Textor also had no seat in the Lyon Board because he had resigned his position at the end of June.
Advertising
Despite all of this, the UEFA still announced that Crystal Palace should be downgraded from the Europa League to the Europa Conference League, since the two clubs had violated the provisions of the corporation on the possession of the multi-club on March 1. The European dream of Palace is at least not over yet and they are in a competition, they have a better chance of winning, with an arbitration court for the upcoming sport. Everything is still a little too square. The co -owner of Palace, Steve Parish, described it so far as “one of the greatest injustices” in the history of European football.
The UEFA would of course indicate the letter of law in view of the documents submitted to them. The precedent of the Ireland’s Drogheda, which was thrown out of the conference league, because the Trivela Group also had the Danish Club Silkeborg, offered little option. Textor -instead of palace -should bring the club into a blind trust in the fifth Fa Cup round, in the off chance you could win the first trophy of your 120 -year history.
And yet it is exactly the concept of “law letter” that now causes such questions, especially in view of the confusing wider context. In April 2023, a high -ranking football figure came out with the following: “There are clubs – or at least one – in which we still pretend as if it were not the same owner [as another club] But it is the same owner and I will not tell you which. You can guess. “
“Votend” is quite a word. And this was no less a person than the older personality in European football: UEFA President Aleksander Ceferin.
Advertising
During this recording, the concept of the regulation appears so nebulous to make this decision appear so pedantic. In view of this, you can see why the community also said: “What we would prefer is when someone entered this process”.
“We believe that Mr. Cefiner or someone is able to do this.” UEFA could improve their statutes in a similar way.
It is absurd enough that Nottingham Forest, who will replace places with Palace – did a lot of newer shops with the Textor clubs. There is enough evidence that textor in the Selhurst Park Club had no controlling influence. The community has even repeatedly denied that the American’s proportion means that the palace is part of a multi-club setup.
However, many of the Spitzer is all of this from UEFA’s failure to regulate the multi-club owners in a meaningful sense. It is just another problem in football that everyone can come, but where the authorities only recognized the problems when it was too late.
Advertising
Therefore, we have this, regulations that are little more than an excuse and in which such decisions enable the mere appearance of a significant government. The community was right to tell Sky Sport The “There is a real intersection for the UEFA”.
Even forest will only be in competition, since Evangelos Marinakis invested his controlling influence in blind trust last season. And after that we still had the sight of him on the field after Forest’s Match against Leicester when he is neither a named owner nor director. The football association has not yet charged him.
Steve Parish, Chairman of Crystal Palace, described the decision as “injustice” (Getty Images)
Admittedly, this is a more parochial problem than one for UEFA, but there are also broader dimensions.
Advertising
In numerous high -ranking football numbers, the announcement of the palace’s decision on the judgment last Friday compared that Chelsea, Barcelona and Aston Villa were only punished for the rules that were disturbed by the financial rules.
While the comparison agreement means that Chelsea has to sell to register players, we still had the strange development of the club, which essentially boasted about their relationship with the management committee, in a statement about a fine of 27 million GBP.
“Chelsea FC appreciates his relationship with UEFA strongly and thought it was important to bring this matter to a rapid conclusion by conclusing a comparison contract.”
While the contrast with clubs could be carried out, which is known that you have hindered investigations, it is still difficult to see how relevant for an explanation is relevant in which you have received a serious financial punishment.
Advertising
The wording issues further questions about the logic of the punishment of a club for more money by asking them for more money. For this reason, many high -ranking administrators loathe the idea of financial punishments at this level.
The sanctions can become “luxury taxes” and possibly even baked into the business plan. This is particularly the case if the costs become much lower than the upward trend. For Chelsea it is certainly more valuable to be in the Champions League than paying £ 27 million, which would hardly cover most of the first team.
John Textor cut relationships with Crystal Palace to avoid punishment (Getty Images)
Other sources are blunt. “They are always brave with the smaller clubs,” says one. In contrast, there are a number of examples of the richest clubs that avoid heavy sanctions and immediately return to the beginning of the financial fair game and the settlements for Manchester City and Paris Saint-Germain in 2014.
Advertising
Former UEFA manager Alex Phillips even said the following for the book of this writer. ‘States of the game‘: “It is never the biggest clubs … A settlement against clubs with unlimited money is great because the only thing they fear is.
They make the rules, but also earn the money from the competitions.
With the Club World Championship, an even larger layer of complications has now been placed on it. The clubs can play almost FIFA and UEFA against each other, since both authorities want to use them all on their elite competitions. It shows enough that some sources Real Madrid openly describe as a “FIFA leaning club” and PSG as “UEFA listening club”. At least for now.
Based on the three decades of appeasement, which ultimately led to the Super League, the authorities need the large clubs “on the side”. This need is now sharpened by all types of bitter football policy and a cold war between UEFA and FIFA. In the meantime, the European Club Association increases its influence.
Advertising
It is difficult to see how a body can regulate properly at least in such circumstances. It simply raises the basic problem with a regulatory authority and an organizer of the competition.
And it is in this confusion – all types of strong interests, a poorly equipped regulatory system, unequal money – that Palace became until March 1, without considering that they could be in its history for the first time.
This is only the letter of the law. And yet there is still a wrinkle that is a bit deeper. In view of the fact that the co -owner of Palace, David Blitzer, also has a participation in Brondby through his global football owners, it is apparently okay to be in a competition with the Danish club, but not in Lyon. Again little enough sense.
