January 03 News The Athletic UK everyone and team reporters answered the fans’ winter window
asked questions, while reporters including Dan Sheldon answered questions about the FFP.
Which clubs are at risk of breaching financial fair play rules and which clubs have the most space in terms of FFP?
UEFA announced in September that Chelsea, Leicester City, Manchester City and West Ham had been asked to provide further financial information and told they would be "closely monitored".
Signals from UEFA that they will be keeping a close eye on the clubs’ future financial performance, combined with the impact of the coronavirus pandemic being no longer factored in, may lead them to proceed with caution.
This season will be the last under UEFA’s current FFP rules, as those are set to change next year.
In short, club spending on transfers, agent fees and player wages will be limited to a certain percentage of revenue in a calendar year.
The upper limit is 90% in 2023, reduced to 80% in 2024, and 70% from 2025 onwards.
The Premier League rules are different and clubs can lose up to £105m over a three-year period, but the impact of the pandemic has also been taken into account recently.
Everton, who have lost more than £100m for three years in a row, cannot afford another splurge even after selling Richarlison last summer.
Is Newcastle restricted by FFP a smoke bomb?
At least multiple sources within Newcastle are taking the matter seriously.
I’ve read that under the new FFP rules any transfer fee for a player aged 21 or younger can be written off using "youth status".
So Chelsea’s signing of Enzo Fernandes, who doesn’t turn 22 until January 17, won’t actually affect their FFP?
Unfortunately, this is not the case.
Regardless of the player’s age, transfer fees cannot be written off under the "youth training" clause, nor can any other fee be waived under financial fair play conditions.
In the example you cite, Enzo Fernandes needs to be booked on Chelsea’s books like any other transfer.