Are Financial Fair Play Rules Destined to Be Broken? As the UEFA president Michel Platini preached prudence and wisdom to Europe's soccer elite last month, the setting seemed rather incongruous, almost undermining the words he spoke. "I just want clubs to spend the money they have," Platini grumbled on a sun-soaked terrace of a plush Monte Carlo hotel. Behind him, the luxury yachts of the privileged and the wealthy drifted on the Mediterranean Sea that laps against the shoreline of the French Riviera. Platini spoke ahead of the UEFA Super Cup match between Atlético Madrid and Chelsea, played every year at Monaco's Stade Louis II. One of those yachts behind Platini might have been the one owned by Roman Abramovich, the Russian oligarch responsible for transforming Chelsea from Premier League also-rans into European champions with his oil billions. Had it been there, perhaps Platini would have been better served shouting his words across the water. At least then he could be certain he would been heard. Platini's tenure as UEFA president will probably be defined by his Financial Fair Play (F.F.P.) legacy. "We are never going back on this," the former Juventus and France midfielder said. We wanted to revolutionize European football when we first introduced this idea. Since the president's defiant rally three weeks ago, UEFA has finally started to show there is more to their drive for financial sustainability in European soccer than words. Twenty-three clubs have had their prize money from last season's European competitions withheld until they can explain why they have failed to fulfill their financial responsibilities. The inclusion of Europa League champions, Atlético Madrid, on that list must have drawn a sharp intake of breath from club owners all over Europe, particularly those owners in Manchester, Paris and on luxury yachts in Monte Carlo. In simple terms, F.F.P. limits the number of year-on-year losses a club can sustain. The idea is to force European soccer into a self-sustaining business model, both on and off the field. The penalties for non-compliance with the new regulations, to come into full effect for this season, include a limit on squad size in European competitions; the withholding of prize money (already seen with the aforementioned list of clubs); and ultimately exclusion from UEFA tournaments, such as the Champions League and the Europa League. But it seems those likely to fall afoul of F.F.P. rules have already started to find ways of undermining them. Paris St.-Germain, owned by the state-operated Qatar Investment Authority, who lavished almost $200 million on the playing squad over the summer, is set to strike a $130 million shirt sponsorship deal with a Qatari bank, significantly helping to offset the club's balance sheet against the F.F.P. regulations. Many also point to the lucrative sponsorship deal reached between Manchester City and Etihad, an Abu Dhabi-based airline that conveniently happens to be owned, like the Premier League champions, by the club's owner, Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed al Nahyan. The deal saw City's stadium renamed the Etihad Stadium for a world record $580 million fee, almost double the previous record. A further three of City's eight primary sponsors are owned by Mansour. City are even partnered with Aabar, a global investment company ultimately owned by the United Arab Emirates government, where the club's owner is a deputy prime minister. Platini's F.F.P. regulations were supposed to guard against this sort of financial trickery, detailing that sponsorship deals would be "benchmarked" to assess their validity. For example, should a Russian lower league side suddenly agree a sponsorship deal that equates to Manchester United's new $45 million-per-season deal with Chevrolet, UEFA would process only a portion of that deal. How they would calculate that proportion is not explained. There remain concerns over what exactly the new rules will achieve, with some voicing concerns that enforcement of F.F.P. will create a big club status quo at the top of the European game. But, as was always going to be the case, it is how the regulations are enforced that will define their legacy. That enforcement will be tested if P.S.G.'s deal is rubber-stamped. UEFA says it has closed all loopholes, even in the face of an inevitable legal challenge. Compliance of the European Commission means that the legality of Platini's regulations is unlikely to be overturned. So if everything is as tightly wrapped up as Platini likes to think, then how are deals like the one that saw Hulk and Axel Witsel join the Russian side Zenit St Petersburg for a combined $105 million still going through? The biggest loophole of all might not be hidden. In fact, it's explicitly written into Annex XI of the 87-page document; "An improving trend in the annual break-even results will be viewed more favorably than a worsening trend," suggesting if a club is heading in the right direction then it is O.K. in Platini's book. The message from Monte Carlo might have been clear, but everything else that surrounds F.F.P. is decidedly cloudy. Graham Ruthven is a regular contributor to the Goal blog.