Yes. It is six years since Michel Platini revealed in Monaco that owners including Roman Abramovich wanted to put the brakes on what they saw as an unsustainable race (or pull the drawbridge up behind them, depending on your point of view). Uefa also believed the amount of money being haemorrhaged by clubs across Europe was putting many in danger. So it began to draw up rules that would force clubs to break even if they wanted to play in Europe and finally introduced them in 2012-13.  A convoluted and complex negotiation around how best to implement rules designed to ensure clubs eventually operated at breakeven (with certain caveats that allowed unlimited spending on youth development and infrastructure). The plan was to phase in the rules over time, allowing clubs a small amount of leeway that would gradually be reduced. The break-even principle did not necessarily deal with indebtedness and immediately led to fears it would simply accelerate the process of the clubs with the most revenues getting bigger and freezing out the rest.  Uefa points to figures showing the amount of red ink spilled by clubs across Europe reduced dramatically – from €1.7bn in 2011 to €400m in 2014 – and insists the FFP rules had a temporary cooling effect on inflation in transfer fees and wages. Chelsea, for example, broke even for the first time under Abramovich.  Related: TV cash takes more than England’s elite beyond reach of continentals | David Conn  But at the very birth of the new rules, the European Clubs Association insisted on certain caveats and the overall impression was that, whatever the original intention, the process became subverted and ended up allowing the biggest clubs to get richer while choking off the ability for investors in smaller clubs to catch up. Uefa, for its part, argues it has worked so successfully that it is now possible to amend it to encourage some sustainable investment. Ironically, it was worried that investors in clubs were being put off by the fact they could not speculate to accumulate. Now it claims to have a happy balance.  Only one set of fines have been levied and Manchester City and Paris Saint-Germain got clobbered with the largest, a verdict seen as profoundly unfair by both clubs – but particularly City, who believed the rules to be a blunt instrument and that an unfair example was being made of them. It also sharpened the perception that the rules were designed to punish the arrivistes and protect the established order. Both were fined £49m and had squad restrictions and a transfer cap imposed last season. But after complying with the requirements, both PSG and City were ultimately fined only £16m for the first year and saw the restrictions lifted, as long as they comply in future.  Two reasons. One is that revenues have vastly increased, particularly in England with Premier League clubs eyeing another huge increase next season once the new £8bn-plus TV deal (including overseas rights) kicks in. That obviously gives them more cash to spend, even if they are aiming to break even, and fuels inflation.  And as transfer fees can be amortised over the length of a player’s contract, they can in effect start spending that cash now. The second is that Uefa earlier this year relaxed the FFP restrictions.  Uefa argues the first phase of FFP had done its job in reining in spending and stopping clubs going heavily into debt, forcing them to think long-term rather than expecting an overnight transformation. It argued it was time to move from an iteration of the rules that choked off spending to one that encouraged responsible investment.  Others saw that as bunkum, interpreting the new rules as a U-turn that provided belated recognition that the rules were unfair and unworkable in their existing form. The truth is probably somewhere in between. Certainly, the rules in their original form were set out to be applied on a sliding scale to 2020 and beyond. So there was without doubt a shift in direction.  After prospective club owners, particularly in Italy, complained to Platini that the FFP rules made it impossible to buy a club and then invest responsibly to grow it, Uefa introduced caveats allowing new owners to put in cash as long as they can offer a business plan that shows how they will reach breakeven. Under the new rules, clubs are encouraged to proactively approach Uefa to explain that they plan to invest and show how they will eventually reach break even.  As many critics pointed out from the start, it appeared to be belated acceptance that anomalies across Europe (for example the bumper new Premier League TV deal in England) made it impossible to impose a one-size-fits-all FFP rule across the continent.  Related: Transfer window review: how did the Premier League clubs do? | Guardian writers  In short, there are more shades of grey and more room for interpretation. Platini described them as an “expansion and strengthening of fair play – we are just moving from a period of austerity to one where we can offer more opportunities for sustainable growth and development”.  Yes. Under the rules the amount of leeway allowed goes down from €45m to €30m over three seasons from 2015-16 – albeit with the caveats above. The new rules still have to be adhered to, after all, while Premier League clubs also signed up to a more subtle form of spending controls that cap the amount by which they are able to increase their wage bill season on season. Combined with rules around squad sizes and the number of homegrown players required, it has meant clubs such as Chelsea manipulating the loan system and being more willing to shift players out to bring new ones in. Some clubs, such as the American owners at Arsenal and Liverpool, had set great store by FFP as a rationale for their investment in English football – hoping that their natural revenue-generating advantages would allow them to compete without additional investment – and they are now worried about the consequences of the relaxation.
After initial success for Uefa in making clubs think seriously about their finances, a relaxation of restrictions and a glut of TV money has led to a new wave of lavish spending