Over the past decade, European football has undergone financial transformation. From the introduction of Financial Fair Play (FFP) to the new Financial Sustainability Regulations, UEFA has sought to create a more stable and responsible football economy. Last week, our analysis of financial data from 24 leading European clubs showed clear signs that the new regulations are beginning to translate into improved profitability.
In this interview, Football Benchmark’s CEO, Andrea Sartori, speaks with Andrea Traverso, UEFA’s Executive Director of Financial Sustainability and Research, about how club finances have evolved, how investors are reshaping the landscape, and what lies ahead for the game’s long-term growth and stability.
Over the past decade, our valuation model shows that the aggregate enterprise value of Europe’s leading clubs has more than doubled, a sign of significant growth. From your perspective, how effectively did FFP shape this evolution and to what extent did it instil a more disciplined approach to financial management across the game?
I would assess it very positively overall. When we first introduced FFP, our objective was to bring more discipline into club management, to ensure that clubs were not only successful on the pitch but also capable of managing their accounts responsibly off it.
When the rules were initially approved, the situation across European football was worrying. Clubs were collectively posting annual losses of around €1.7 billion in 2011 and the concept of financial control was still relatively new to the game. In 2011 our research identified 35 clubs which entered into an insolvency event during the year and a further 25 the following year. Although most of these clubs survive after restructuring, each event was damaging the confidence and trust in football.
The real innovation at the time was the break-even rule, which required clubs to spend only what they earned. Once this entered into force, we quickly began to see results. Those aggregate losses started to decline, year after year, until European football reached overall profitability for the first time in 2017. That turnaround, from multi-billion-euro losses to positive figures in such a short period, was quite remarkable.
Of course, FFP was not the sole driver of that improvement. Revenues also grew significantly over the same period and many clubs professionalised their operations. But the regulations created a framework that helped align financial behaviour across the ecosystem. The message that “you can’t just spend endlessly” became embedded in club governance.
Without that framework, we would likely have seen much greater instability. Some clubs would have injected far more money to compete, creating even larger losses and sharper disparities between teams.
Fifteen years ago, financial management was rarely discussed in club boardrooms. Today, it’s at the centre of every strategic decision. Clubs now understand that sporting success and sound financial management go together. You can only achieve consistent success on the pitch if you are stable off it.
The pandemic exposed structural weaknesses in football’s financial model but also accelerated reform. What were the key lessons UEFA drew from that crisis and how did they inform the shift from FFP to the new Financial Sustainability Regulations?
COVID was a huge test for everyone. UEFA took the lead by restructuring the 2020/21 season, pushing back its club competitions and delaying the EURO by a year. This allowed many leagues to finish their season and minimise the multi-billion commercial penalties that would have been due. Despite this, among top-division clubs, losses still amounted to around €7 billion in revenues.
The low insolvency rate during this period is primarily a testament to the work done at clubs, but the FFP requirement for owners to ‘cover’ losses across the decade leading up to COVID strengthened clubs' balance sheet net equity from under €2 billion to more than €10 billion. Without FFP, the ability to absorb these losses would have been diminished.
During COVID, UEFA also took other emergency measures: on the one hand, taking pressure off clubs by suspending the break-even assessment; on the other hand, preventing market-wide contagion by emphasising the timely repayment of debts through the overdue payables rule. However, this period made it clear that, despite the progress under FFP, the system still needed to evolve. That experience pushed us to make the new regulations more comprehensive, covering not only profit and loss but also factors such as equity and cost control.
The new Financial Sustainability Regulations now look at multiple financial indicators: profitability, equity, debt, and the squad-cost rule, which regulates how much of a club’s revenue can be spent on wages, transfers, and agent fees.
All of these are interconnected. If a club breaches one rule, it’s likely to breach others. So, the new system is much more robust. It encourages clubs to be managed in a stable and responsible way.
In recent years, clubs have become an increasingly attractive asset class for investors. How much of this momentum do you attribute to UEFA’s regulatory framework and what role has it played in creating a more predictable and investable European football market?
For me, it’s been fundamental. Today, the large majority of investors coming into European football are from the United States, and with a growing number of private-equity funds. We had periods when there were shorter-term investors from other regions, but the trend now is long-term, institutional investment, and that’s a positive development for the game.
These investors see football and sport in general as still a very compelling and undervalued asset, almost cheap, to some extent, when compared with the valuations of some US franchises. They’ve found fertile ground to invest in because the European market is now more structured and predictable. A robust regulatory framework provides them with confidence that their investment is protected. Without that, the risk profile would be much higher.
At the same time, clubs have become far more professional. The regulations have pushed them to manage costs more efficiently, to diversify revenues, and to strengthen their organisations. The biggest clubs today operate as large professional enterprises. For most of the top clubs, commercial income has overtaken broadcasting as their main source of revenue. Broadcasting is shared across the league, but commercial rights belong entirely to each club. Those that have grown from regional into global brands are the ones that have learned to exploit those opportunities best.
Of course, not every club can do that. The top clubs have moved further ahead, and we’re seeing greater concentration at the elite level. But that’s not only a result of regulation. It comes from professionalism, globalisation, and differences in revenue potential across clubs of varying scale. The regulations were never designed to create competitive balance but rather to bring financial discipline, and that stability is precisely what continues to attract investors to European football.
The rapid growth of multi-club ownership has reshaped the industry’s investment landscape, creating both opportunities and new risks. How has UEFA adapted its regulatory approach to this phenomenon and how do you see its broader impact on the game?
It’s not easy to define multi-club ownership in one way because there are many different models and motivations. Some investors do it to diversify risk by holding majority or minority stakes across several clubs in different countries.
Others see it as a way to attract and develop talent more efficiently. It’s therefore no coincidence that we see investment in countries such as Portugal, Belgium, or Denmark. These markets make it easier for players from South America or Africa to obtain European nationality, which allows investors to move players within their networks more easily.
Others pursue commercial synergies, sharing scouting, medical, or data resources across clubs and strengthening global marketing. Every group operates differently but the trend clearly brings both opportunities and risks.
On the positive side, belonging to a group gives clubs access to know-how, infrastructure, and investment that might otherwise never reach them. You can see that with examples such as Girona FC or Palermo FC in the City Football Group, which have benefited from being part of a large and professional network. Our own research with the University of Zurich also showed that clubs joining such groups often perform better after around four years, particularly when there is majority investment or decisive influence.
The other side of the coin is competitiveness. If too much of the market becomes concentrated in the hands of a few large groups, the biggest clubs will inevitably benefit most. It’s a bit like the corner shop and the supermarket; after some time, the smaller one struggles to compete. That’s a dynamic we need to watch closely.
Integrity is another essential aspect. UEFA and national leagues have had rules on ownership for more than 20 years, typically limiting control to one club per competition. The principle is clear: two clubs under the same ownership cannot play in the same competition. A few years ago, we slightly updated these rules to reflect the separation between the Champions League, Europa League, and Conference League phases, allowing some flexibility while maintaining that core safeguard.
More recently, in cases of potential conflict under Article 5, our Club Financial Control Body has used the option of a blind trust. It’s not perfect but it works if the conflict is temporary. Crucially, even in such cases, we allow owners to continue managing long-term investment projects, for example, building a stadium or training centre. We don’t want to discourage genuine investment in football infrastructure. The goal is to protect integrity while keeping the game open to responsible investment.
As we look ahead to the next decade, what are the main priorities and challenges shaping European football’s future?
One key challenge is competitiveness. We have an access list that guarantees every country the opportunity to take part in UEFA’s Club Competitions and that’s something we are very proud of. But if the financial gap between clubs continues to grow, it becomes harder to maintain that competitive balance. We need competitions that are compelling and accessible, and where every club has a genuine chance to compete on the pitch. That diversity is one of European football’s greatest strengths and it’s vital that we preserve it.
Financial sustainability will remain central. The rules must be implemented in a strict and transparent way so that everyone competes on a level playing field. That’s the only way to maintain credibility and trust in the system.
At the same time, we have to keep adapting. The market continues to evolve. We see new forms of financing, more multi-club structures, and increasing globalisation. These are realities we cannot ignore. Our regulations must evolve too, to protect integrity while still allowing responsible investment and growth.
Ultimately, sustainability today means much more than avoiding losses. It’s about building strong foundations, sound governance, diversified income, and investment in infrastructure that strengthens clubs for the long term. That’s how we make sure European football continues to be strong, open, and competitive, on the pitch and off it.
