Lucas Hesling Research Project

To what extent are the Financial Fair Play (FFP) rules in
football, just good corporate governance or are these added
financial regulations affecting the sport itself and the way
supporters view their sport, especially those aged 18-24.
This research project is submitted in part-fulfilment of the degree Bachelor of
Arts (Honours) Accounting & Finance (SW)
Nottingham Trent University Business School - 2015
Student Number: N0387589
Declaration:
I declare that I have personally prepared this article and that it has not, in whole
or in part, been submitted as an assessment for any other module, degree or
qualification. The work described here is my own, carried out personally unless
otherwise stated. All sources of information, including quotations, are
acknowledged by means of appropriate referencing.
I declare that this project has been conducted in accordance with Nottingham
Trent University’s Regulations on Academic Irregularities, including those
pertaining to research ethics and Data Protection legislation.

N0387589
2
Table of Contents
Abstract..................................................................................................3
1. Introduction ......................................................................................4
1.1 Rationale..........................................................................................5
2. Critical Literature Review..................................................................6
2.1 RQ1 - UEFA Financial Fair Play & Corporate Governance ..........................6
2.2 RQ2 - Implications of Financial Fair Play Rules on the Supporters..............8
2.3 RQ 3 – Supporters’ views of the Financial Fair Play Rules ....................... 11
3. Research Methodology..................................................................... 12
3.1 Research Contribution...................................................................... 12
3.2 Research Philosophy & Approach ....................................................... 12
3.2.1 Social Constructionism................................................................ 12
3.3 Research Design .............................................................................. 13
3.3.1 Research Purpose - An Exploratory Study....................................... 13
3.3.2 Research Strategy - A Multiple-Method Study.................................. 13
3.4 Sampling Method ............................................................................. 15
3.4.1 Stratified Systematic Technique.................................................... 15
3.5 Data Analysis .................................................................................. 16
4. Findings and Discussion .................................................................. 17
4.1 RQ1 - UEFA Financial Fair Play & Corporate Governance ........................ 19
4.2 RQ2 - Implications of Financial Fair Play Rules on the Supporters............ 21
4.3 RQ 3 – Supporters’ views of the Financial Fair Play Rules ....................... 24
5. Limitations and Future Research..................................................... 27
6. Conclusion & Recommendations ..................................................... 27
References ........................................................................................... 30
Appendices .......................................................................................... 34
Acknowledgements ............................................................................. 48

N0387589
3
Abstract
Purpose: With conflicting literature regarding UEFAs Financial Fair Play, this
study questions whether the rules imposed are just good corporate governance
or are they detrimental. It will provide insights into the supporters views
surrounding these rules enforced throughout European Leagues.
Methodology: To explore the views of the supporters surrounding UEFAs
Financial Fair Play Rules, a multiple-method research approach was conducted
using an online descripto-explanatory questionnaire as a forerunner to a focus
group of 18-24 aged males.
Findings: The study demonstrates the extent the UEFA Financial Fair Play Rules
are good corporate governance, presenting the views of supporters regarding
this, the possible consequences as an effect of the rules and the general views of
fans towards financial fair play.
Research Limitations: The study was geographically restricted to the UK and
limited to a small sample. As the UEFA Financial Fair Play Rules are enforced
throughout European leagues, the research outcomes cannot be generalised and
future research would be required to provide context for other European users.
Originality: The research contributes to the knowledge of both academics and
supporters as stakeholders, as currently there is limited research into the fans
views surrounding UEFA Financial Fair Play Rules.
Keywords: UEFA, Financial Fair Play, Corporate Governance, Supporters
Abbreviations: Union of European Football Associations (UEFA), Financial Fair
Play (FFP), Financial Fair Play Rules (FFPR), Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD)

N0387589
4
1. Introduction
In recent years there has been an ever growing concern with regards to the
financial state of European football. Football earnings have been significantly
increasing since the late 1990s, particularly in the highest tiers of European
football. “In 2012/13, the cumulative revenue of the ‘big five’ European leagues
grew 5% to €9.8 billion, representing half of the overall size of the European
football market of €19.9 billion (up 2%)” (Deloitte, 2014, p.2). While revenues
have grown, spending has also increased at, arguably, a faster rate. In 2010,
net losses across Europe’s top divisions combined totalled €1.641bn, increasing
€435m on the previous year (UEFA, 2012). In 2011, 63% of top-division clubs in
Europe were operating at a loss. Parallel to this, negative equity - when liabilities
exceed the value of assets (Hoque, 2006, p.416) - was reported by 38% of clubs
(UEFA, 2011, p.15).
The losses identified above are largely due to today’s inflated transfer fees.
Unfortunately with overpriced fees, clubs are paying incredibly inflated wages
due to high demand for the top players in the game. These inflations have
shown the way to an ‘elite’ group of clubs with rich owners very much ‘buying’
silverware. There are a number of reasons why inflation in the football industry
grew to the level it was. Geey (2011, p.1) suggests it is because “each set of
new club owners injects more money into the European football club market,
this…spirals further out of control because a new owner then has to outbid other
high spending clubs leading to financial unsustainability.” Many would suggest,
that for whatever reason the football industry had reached a state that was
unsustainable. This instability led to the question of whether football clubs need
to be regulated; in particular UEFA as a league governing body, agreed this
regulation was necessary and therefore implemented a set of criteria called the
‘Financial Fair Play Rules’, the focus of this study.
“The very clubs that are being restricted by these rules are the ones that have
actively participated in, and consented to, the proposals; clubs are asking UEFA
to save them from themselves” (Geey, 2011, p.2). This clear acknowledgement
by clubs depicts the fact that the financial situation of the football industry was

N0387589
5
very much unsustainable and a solution was required. The 2013/2014 season
was the watershed for financial constraint in football and for the first time, all
English professional divisions had rules in place that restricted their spending.
Currently in the second season after these spending restrictions have been
implemented, this paper will attempt to understand through existing literature
the extent these added financial regulations have been successful and in
conjunction with this, there will be an examination of whether the financial fair
play rules enforced on football clubs is simply just good corporate governance.
The financial fair play rules will affect multiple stakeholders of a football club. In
particular, this paper will focus on the supporters of football as stakeholders as it
could be argued that they are the most critical stakeholder due to the fact they
are central to every football club. An evaluation of the effects the financial fair
play rules will have on these fans of the game of football will be examined
through existing literature. On completion there will be a consideration to the
question: “are these added financial regulations affecting the sport itself and the
way supporters view their sport?” To analyse these views of the fans a
questionnaire will be conducted and then a further focus group will also enhance
this.
This study will undoubtedly add value to existing literature on the financial fair
play rules in football. Currently there is limited literature regarding the effect of
regulation in football on the supporters and the view of fans regarding these
regulations. This study will therefore provide a valuable foundation of research.
This suggests that both academics and football supporters will benefit from this
study, as after the analysis of the results, both will have a better understanding
of the overall views from fans. Academics can then expand on the research
questions it presents.
1.1 Rationale
The ultimate aim is to assess the extent financial fair play rules in football are
good corporate governance and to assess the implications of these rules on the
supporters. In conjunction this study will assess the views of fans surrounding
these regulations.

N0387589
6
Figure 1.0: Research Questions
2. Critical Literature Review
2.1 RQ1 - UEFA Financial Fair Play & Corporate Governance
“Financial fair play is about improving the overall financial health of European
club football.” (UEFA.com, 2014) The Union of European Football Association
(UEFA) is the administrative body of European football applying the financial fair
play system. As the rules for this system were implicated last season, all clubs
must comply with break-even requirements to ensure they do not spend more
than they earn. The first sanctions for clubs not fulfilling this break-even
requirement are effective as of the current 2014/2015 season and it has already
seen a number of high profile wealthy clubs face punishment for not complying
with the rules.
“The corporate governance framework should ensure that timely and accurate
disclosure is made on all material matters regarding the corporation, including
the financial situation, performance, ownership, and governance of the
company” (OECD Principles of Corporate Governance, 2004, p17). The
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) principles of
corporate governance have gained worldwide recognition as a benchmark for
good corporate governance and the above principle lies parallel to what the
financial fair play system is attempting to achieve. The OECD principles of good
corporate governance have since been revised a number of times, however the
principles remain current. Since the original principles were published the topic
• What extent are the Financial Fair Play rules in
football just good corporate governance?RQ1
• What are the implications of the Financial Fair Play
rules on supporters as stakeholders?RQ2
• What are the views of supporters regarding the
Financial Fair Play rules?RQ3

N0387589
7
of corporate governance has very much evolved and as such has become a
frequently discussed topic.
To support this view that the financial fair play system is good corporate
governance, the European Parliament met in 2012 to discuss the corporate
governance framework for European companies and in their general approach
resolution it was stated that the financial fair play system is an example of good
corporate governance in sport as it “calls on other sectors and public authorities
to further explore these measures with a view to implementing some of their
basic principles” (Europarl.europa.eu, 2012).
In addition to this, in 2014 UEFA Michel Platini met with Joaquín Almunia, the
Vice-President of the European Commission, to discuss UEFA Financial Fair Play
Regulations and described them as “legitimate, opportune and proportional
measures which were designed to create more stability in football finances and
safeguard European club football's future well-being” (UEFA, 2014). In response
Almunia (UEFA, 2014) stated “All business enterprises, football clubs included,
should stand on their own two feet and live within their own means... this is
nothing more than sound principles of good corporate governance.” This
response, from a spokesperson for the European Commission, re-affirms the
support for UEFA’s Financial Fair Play initiatives with the aim to safeguard the
health of European football and the promotion of good governance standards.
Both institutions noted above, the European Parliament and the European
Commission, along with the Council of the European Union make up the
European Union. The European Commission represents the interests of the Union
as a whole and proposes new laws whereby the European Parliament then
adopts these laws. The Commission and the member countries then implement
the laws, ensuring the laws are applied and implemented properly (Europa.eu,
2015). Subsequently, both these institutions have a large influence on business
activity. As UEFA, the administrative body for association football in Europe,
have implemented their financial fair play rules, it was vital that such institutions
within the European Union supported the aims and governance of the system.
With both organisations clearly viewing the financial fair play rules as a beneficial

N0387589
8
implementation and are in clear agreement that this system brings good
corporate governance, this supports the argument.
The above notes the argument that the UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair
Play Regulations are good corporate governance. However these regulations
have also encountered stiff criticism, many that ultimately highlight some
negative implications on the supporters of football. The OECD also states “The
corporate governance framework should recognise the rights of stakeholders
established by law or through mutual agreements” (OECD Principles of Corporate
Governance, 2004, p21). In carrying out its duties, football clubs and their
boards should treat all stakeholders fairly and take into account the interests of
a wide range of constituencies. Such negative implications on the fans of football
would consequently suggest that the financial fair play rules are in fact not good
corporate governance. A number of which are explored within the research.
2.2 RQ2 - Implications of Financial Fair Play Rules on the Supporters
The concerns are that the financial fair play regulations may harm football in
three different ways: By forgoing the potential benefits from substantial
injections of "external" money into payrolls, by restricting competition in the
player market without at the same time achieving benefits from more balanced
competition, and by creating some sort of barrier to entry which could "freeze"
the current hierarchy of clubs (Szymanski, 2014). These three suggested
harmful implications of the financial fair play rules have been brought to light by
a challenge of the legality of the break-even rule under EU law, the main basis of
UEFA’s Financial Fair Play Rules. The complaint made in May 2013 by Jean-Louis
Dupont suggests the system restricts competition and therefore infringes
competition law. Jean-Louis Dupont (2013), filing the complaint on behalf of a
player agent, argues that the break-even rule restricts investments, the number
of transfers and transfer fees which in turn has a deflatory effect on player
salaries and therefore similarly on players agents. He further argues that the
rule is not only unjustifiable, but also ‘in practice illegal, because the rule is not
proportionate (since it can be replaced by another measure, equally efficient but
less damaging as far as EU freedoms are concerned). On the 26th
February

N0387589
9
2015, the challenge was brought to the Court of First Instance in Brussels with
the ruling of the judge to be decided in the coming months.
“The break-even rule makes no allowance for the commercial disparities
between individual national leagues, which means smaller clubs are hit harder,
proportionately, than larger ones. Without the ability to invest in their longer-
term success, smaller clubs will stay small. This is clearly anticompetitive”
(Dupont, 2013)
Sass (2012) calculates seasonal competitive balance by employing a classical
model of professional sports leagues, which purely depends on the market size
of clubs. This agrees with Dupont, in which big clubs totally dominate small clubs
and competitive balance is uneven. Sass argues a club, which becomes more
successful, is able to attract more spectators yielding higher revenue and
therefore leading to the club being able to afford a higher quality of talent. This
in turn then leads to even further success with the cycle beginning once again.
In the meantime the gulf between themselves and the smaller clubs increases.
Spending limits have already been introduced into professional sports leagues in
the United States however these have always enhanced the competitive balance
of the league, whereas the above suggests the financial fair play rules will not
and in turn will actually empower the richest clubs.
In addition to this, Preuss et al. (2014) argues that clubs have strong incentives
to bypass the new regulations. This results in both costs for the clubs attempting
to hide their actions and UEFA attempting to detect deviant behaviour. These
costs might deter smaller clubs from trying to cheat more so than the larger
clubs, consequently having negative implications on the level of competitive
balance within a league. This supports the views above that the level of
competitive balance will ultimately be negatively affected as a result of the
financial fair play rules. In turn, this will result in less exciting competitive
leagues throughout Europe, therefore having a detrimental effect on the game of
football and how fans view the sport.
Competitive balance is not the only implication the financial fair play system
potentially will have on the supporters. If each club are to manage on a ‘break-

N0387589
10
even’ basis, since the funding of growth by a club’s owner is no longer viable,
other sources of revenue must be identified, it is therefore surely the fans who
will exercise economic pressure to provide the extra income needed via
increased prices (tickets, catering, merchandise, TV subscriptions, etc.). An
example of a potential revenue source would be to increase ticket prices to
account for the shortfall. Analysis by Financialfairplay.co.uk (2012) revealed the
increased ticket price amount that clubs would require to charge if they were to
manage on a ‘break-even’ basis. The study of the Premier League finances
revealed that supporters receive match-day subsidies averaging around £25 per
ticket. Manchester City topped the subsidy table, the level of loss per ticket sold
was revealed to be £161.
Figure 2.0 – Average season ticket price compared to average weekly wage
(Business of Soccer, 2014)
In addition to the ticket pricing statistics above, Harris (2014) states that since
the 2010-2011 season, the average most expensive season ticket price for the
twelve most consistent clubs in the BPL has approximately increased by 19%.
“The top 3 clubs driving this increase are Manchester City, who went from £515
to £850 (67% increase), Tottenham, who went from £1,175 to £1,895 (61%
increase), and Sunderland, who went from £545 to £869 (59% increase).” The
increase in ticket pricing is a concern, particularly as they are increasing by more
than three times the rate the average weekly wage is rising. During the same
time the average weekly wage in Great Britain has only increased by 6% and in
fact there are only a few clubs to increase ticket prices at or below the rate of

N0387589
11
average wages, these included West Brom (-8%), Stoke City (2%), Manchester
United (2%), Chelsea (3%), and Newcastle (6%).
The statistics that support Harris (2014), detail the impact for supporters
relative to their overall income in 2014-15 will be much more significant than in
previous seasons. In 2010-11 the average British worker would be able to
purchase the average most expensive season ticket for 1.8 times of their weekly
wages, in 2014-2015 it would amount to 2.1 times. This negative implication of
the financial fair play rules is clearly evident and very much unacceptable for a
club’s loyal supporters, potentially damaging the view of fans surrounding the
game of football.
2.3 RQ 3 – Supporters’ views of the Financial Fair Play Rules
Currently there is limited academic literature surrounding the general views of
fans regarding the financial fair play rules in football. The most recognisable
information to date that shows the opinion and views of supporters of football, is
the support and backing of the Dupont case mentioned above. Dupont originally
representing football agent Daniel Striani, also now represents the supporters’
club of both Manchester City FC, Paris Saint-Germain FC and other clubs affected
by the challenge. Both fans’ groups have been added to the action, lodged with
the European Commission in May 2013. Dupont stated to the Independent
(2015), “If some fans, as consumers of the end product of football, want to join
the action in progress they are free to do so. That would hearten undoubtedly
supporters who have already joined by the legal process.”
There are a number of fans already supporting the case represented by Dupont;
however this is largely from the supporters of football clubs likely to be most
affected and punished as a result of the financial fair play rules. This does not
necessarily represent the views of all football supporters surrounding the rules
and as stated there is limited academic literature portraying the general
consensus of football fans. Research will now be conducted on this basis.

N0387589
12
3. Research Methodology
3.1 Research Contribution
Following a critical literature review of both academic literature and secondary
research it is clear the discoveries portray inconsistencies. This poses the
following question; what are the views of supporters regarding the financial fair
play rules?
Responding to the variations portrayed in the literature surrounding the
subjects, it can be argued that this is due to academics and other secondary
research exploring the affects of the financial fair play rules. Therefore, the
amount of information available regarding the view of the fans as stakeholders is
limited and insufficient. To ensure this research study contributes to current
academia, the study has articulated three research questions, which are as
follows:
3.2 Research Philosophy & Approach
3.2.1 Social Constructionism
As this study looks at the social phenomena of football supporters, the extent to
which the financial fair play rules will affect them as stakeholders and their views
surrounding this, it was decided that a joint approach of a social constructivist
research philosophy would be employed.

N0387589
13
“Social constructionism views reality as being socially constructed. Social
actors... may place many different interpretations on the situations in which they
find themselves in.” (Saunders, et al, 2009, p.111).
Sanders et al. defines this philosophy that individual people, in this study’s case
the fans, will perceive different situations in various ways as a consequence of
their own view on the world. In addition to this, another definition states; “Social
constructivism occupies a sometimes uneasy - ontonological middle ground
between individualism and structuralism by claiming that there are properties of
structures and of agents that cannot be collapsed into each other” (Risse, 2004,
p.4). As social constructivism looks at the social phenomena happening in social
environments this philosophy can allow the study to measure ever-changing
perspectives of a variation of supporters as stakeholders. Therefore, an inductive
approach to this research study will develop whereby theories will be formulated
towards the end of the research as a result of observations.
3.3 Research Design
3.3.1 Research Purpose - An Exploratory Study
Subsequently, upon generation of the research questions, philosophy and
approach, Saunders et al. (2012) proposes that the following aspects of the
research design are vital to understand what is to be achieved and how it is
intended to do so to ensure an effective research conclusion. The aim of the
research is to assess the effect of the financial fair play system in football on the
fans as stakeholders. Consequently, the study supported qualitative research. As
Hair (2007, p.154) argues, “When conducted well, exploratory research provides
a window into consumer perceptions, behaviours and needs”, required for this
study to assess the views of football supporters.
3.3.2 Research Strategy - A Multiple-Method Study
This investigation can be considered exploratory with regards to the study’s
qualitative nature. Saunders et al. (2012) suggests that when conducting
exploratory research, interviews or focus groups are ideal research designs as
both interviews and focus groups provide more than questionnaires in the sense

N0387589
14
that they convey attitudes and perceptions. Carson et al. (2001) explains a focus
group as a group interview that focuses clearly upon a particular issue, product,
service or topic and encompasses the need for interactive discussion amongst
participants. Saunders et al. (2012) again argues this research method allows
for the identification of opinion through participant discussion with a structured
approach and the ability for the facilitator to encourage discussion, keeping
within the boundaries of the topic being discussed whilst at the same time not
leading the group towards certain opinions. Consequently a focus group will
therefore be conducted on a group of participants aged 18-25.
“There is considerable value in examining both the rationales that are given for
combining quantitative and qualitative research and the ways in which they are
combined in practice” (Bryman, 2006, p.111).
This argues that a single research technique is actually a weakness. This is
supported by Creswell (2012) who states that a combination of both forms of
data provides a better understanding of the research problem than either data
can by itself; therefore a multiple-method approach is to be conducted. In
conjunction with an explanatory focus group, an online self-completion
descripto-explanatory questionnaire is also selected as a forerunner to attain
research data regarding the views of the general public and football fans of all
ages. Witmer et al. (1999) argues that adopting a web-based approach observes
etiquette, meaning respondents can remain anonymous and are unable to
modify the questionnaire.
Therefore, the questionnaire will adopt a web-based approach via social media
platforms to allow respondents to remain anonymous, important with regards to
ethical issues as well as the comfort of the respondents. A statement
surrounding anonymity will be added to the questionnaire along with the
purpose of the research. The questionnaire is largely constructed using a series
of Likert scales “in which the respondent is asked how strongly she or he agrees
with a statement or series of statements usually on a four-, five-, six- or seven
point rating scale.” (Saunders, 2011, p. 378). A four point rating scale has been
used in this study as it forces the respondent to express their feelings explicitly.

N0387589
15
“Surveys are popular as they allow the collection of a large amount of data from
a sizeable population in a highly economical way” (Saunders, 2011, p.144). This
research method provides the ability to tailor each question to exact
specifications of the research issue. This level of control allows a much greater
chance of collecting the required results and will enable a fast and efficient
collection of data while providing more scope for analysis.
The questionnaire to be used in this study can be seen in Appendix 1.0.
Figure 4.0: A Model of the Study’s Multi Method Data Collection Approach
3.4 Sampling Method
3.4.1 Stratified Systematic Technique
A sample of a hundred participants from the general public, interested in the
sport of football, will be researched using a probability stratified systematic
sampling method. This has been chosen due to the varied lifestyle, age and
gender and therefore will ensure the data collected is proportionally represented
and in doing so will enable the relevance of data collected to be much greater.
The questionnaire will feature mainly closed questions in order to ensure the
collection of quantitative data, as open questions may lead to high levels of
discussion and qualitative data.
Data Collection
Questionnaire
Descripto-Explanatory
Questionaire
Conveying respondents attitudes
and views of a large survey group
regarding the FFPR.
Focus Group
Non-Standardised Focus Group
Conveying respondents attitudes
and views of a small focus group
regarding the FFPR, whilst
allowing further explanations
through researcher probing.

N0387589
16
The age group 18-24 has been identified as this is the age group most likely to
be impacted by the financial fair play rules. This is due to their current level of
monetary income as well as their remaining years as supporters of football.
Subsequently, a focus group of this age group will be researched using a non-
probability purposive homogenous sampling method. As Neuman (2003) states
this form of sample is often used when working with very small samples and
when you wish to select cases that are particularly informative. This method
allows the group to be studied in great depth to ensure the data collected will
answer the research question and all objectives are met. The investigator will
conduct one focus group interview discussion however will limit the sub group
only to males as the majority of fans within the given age group are of this
gender.
3.5 Data Analysis
After conducting the research, the following stage in the process was data
analysis. At this stage, the researcher recognised that due to a multiple-method
strategy a multiple-method data analysis was also necessary. For the descripto-
explanatory questionnaire Sanders et al. states that for ranking or scale
questions, such as where a respondent is asked to rate how strongly she or he
agrees with a statement, ranked ordinal data should be collected as identified by
the researcher due to the Likert-type questions. The most appropriate measure
of this data collection is the mode, the most frequent responses by respondents;
therefore pie charts were produced to present the key findings.
For the qualitative focus group, the researcher identified a general inductive
approach was required. Thomas (2006) suggests this is a systematic procedure
for analyzing qualitative data whereby the analysis is likely to be guided by
specific evaluation objectives. It is current with general patterns of qualitative
data analysis as described by Miles and Huberman (1994) whereby three broad
tasks occur: data reduction, data display and conclusion drawing or verification.
The coding process for the inductive analysis of data for this study can be seen
in Figure 5.0.

N0387589
17
Figure 5.0: The Coding Process in Inductive Analysis
Source: Adapted from Creswell (2003, p266, Figure 9.4)
4. Findings and Discussion
Following on from a review of the existing literature and a discussion of the
methodological approach adopted within this study, this section provides a
consideration of the key findings and discussion to emerge from this research. In
essence, this section is based around the three research questions (RQ) which
are displayed in Figure 6.0. RQ1 and RQ2 findings have largely been identified
and answered within the existing literature; however the supporters’ perspective
surrounding these two questions will be presented. These in part will also
contribute for RQ3, where additional findings will be presented. Analysis and
discussion of all three research questions will appear throughout.
The results presented within this section are from the online self-completion
descripto-explanatory questionnaire, which can be found in Appendix.1. The
questionnaire was published through the use of Google Drive. The aim of the
Initial
reading of
text data
Identify
specific text
segments
related to
objectives
Label the
segments of
text to create
categories
Create a
model
incorporating
most
important
categories
Reduce the
overlap and
redundancy
among the
categories

N0387589
18
questionnaire was to measure the views of the fans of football regarding the
UEFA Financial Fair Play Rules (FFPR). The results are presented as percentages
and with graphs that can be seen in Appendix.2. As noted, a focus group has
also been conducted and this will be used in conjunction with the questionnaire
to provide further qualitative results.
To analyse the supporters views and perspectives of UEFA’s Financial Fair Play
(FFP), it was important to assess whether the fans as a whole actually knew
what financial fair play is and whether they understood these rules.
Out of 101 respondents, 67% acknowledged that they knew what FFP is and that
they understood the rules, 28% knew what FFP was however admitted they did
not understand the rules, while a further 5% had not heard of the FFP rules. In
Appendix 2.4, a pie chart is shown to represent visually the degree in which the
supporters as respondents knew of FFP and how well these rules were
understood. This is an important question, firstly as it shows the majority of the
sample have an understanding of FFP and the implications of the rules and
secondly, so the results of the questionnaire reflects that of a group that
understands the FFPR. This is relevant because, if more than 50% of the
respondents replied that they had not heard of the rules and therefore didn’t
understand them, then the validity of this study would be in question. This is
simply due to the fact that the fans’ perceptions, although difficult to measure
currently, would not be able to be measured at all and therefore the study and
research would require amendment.
Although the majority of respondents that participated in the questionnaire
responded with the view to understanding the FFPRs, when the same question
was asked of the focus group and discussion was encouraged by the facilitator
there was evidence to suggest the average fan has only an understanding of the
FFPRs on a basic level and there is still a sense of ambiguity surrounding the
rules. This is confirmed by respondent one, who stated:
“The rules are not exactly clear and easy to understand to the everyday
fan not particularly interested in finance” (Respondent One).

N0387589
19
These findings link directly with RQ1 surrounding UEFAs FFPRs and corporate
governance. The first principle stated in the literature by OECD (2004)
acknowledges the need for disclosure and transparency. These findings suggest
although there is a basic interpretation, the rules are not understood by all
stakeholders. However, although this implies the rules do not portray good
corporate governance, the rules are disclosed to all and are transparent and
therefore this suggests improvement is necessary by UEFA to ensure all
stakeholders are confident with what is required of football clubs.
4.1 RQ1 - UEFA Financial Fair Play & Corporate Governance
Thus establishing an understanding of the supporters knowledge and
understanding of the FFPR, it was important to gauge the fans’ perceptions on
the extent that the UEFA FFPRs are just good corporate governance. Referring to
the literature, UEFA’s rules were identified to lie alongside that of the OECD
Principles of Corporate Governance (2004) and they have received support from
both the European Parliament and the European Commission. When the sample
of 101 respondents were posed this question, 61% agreed that the rules were in
fact just good corporate governance with a further 7% strongly agreeing. In
Appendix 2.5 and Figure 7.0 there is a graphical representation of the degree to
which the supporters agreed to this question. As stated it can be seen that a
large percentage of respondents, meaning the fans overall agreed that FFP is
good corporate governance, reiterating the statement proposed in the literature
by the OECD. In addition to this, Appendix 2.6 shows approximately 54% agreed
and 25% strongly agreed that the financial fair play rules were required in order
to protect football financially as a sport. Referring to the literature, UEFA.com
(2014) recognised that financial fair play is about improving the overall financial
health of football, asserting that the FFPRs are in fact good corporate
governance.

N0387589
20
Figure 7:0 – Supporters’ Perspective of UEFA Financial Fair Play & Corporate
Governance
The above findings suggest that the fans of football as a whole agree that the
rules implemented are good corporate governance and that financial fair play is
required to protect the football industry. However when these two questions
were posed within the focus group discussion, it appeared that the findings
portrayed in the above graph were not conclusive. This is illustrated by
respondent seven, who stated:
“I do in fact believe UEFA Financial Fair Play Rules to be good corporate
governance and I do believe rules are required to protect the financial
aspect of the game of football. However I am unsure, with the
implications financial fair play will have on the game of football and on
the fans, whether the financial fair play rules is the best method to
protect football finances” (Respondent Seven).
All respondents agreed that UEFAs FFP is in principle good corporate
governance. However as stated in the literature, the OECD (2004) principles
identify that the corporate governance framework should recognise the interests
of a wide range of stakeholders, including the supporters of football clubs and
the game of football. If there are negative implications on fans then this
therefore implies that FFP cannot be seen as corporate governance as it does not
take into account fully the repercussions for all stakeholders.

N0387589
21
4.2 RQ2 - Implications of Financial Fair Play Rules on the Supporters
After establishing the fans knowledge on UEFAs Financial Fair Play Rules and the
extent these rules are corporate governance, the next set of questions were
categorised to understand the supporters views surrounding the implications
these rules may have affect on them as stakeholders. Referring to the literature,
Dupont (2013), Sass (2012) and Preuss et al. (2014) all argue that the FFPRs
imposed by UEFA will directly affect the competitive balance of European
football. However when discussed further within the focus group a number of
respondents did not agree with the literature, this is confirmed by respondent
three, who commented:
“This season is one of the first seasons with FFP being enforced and in
my opinion; it is one of the best seasons in the league that I can
remember. Smaller clubs with lesser budgets are still managing to beat
the likes of Manchester City, Manchester United, Chelsea, Liverpool,
Arsenal and Spurs who have a lot more to spend” (Respondent Three).
The above implies that the anticompetitive balance of European football
described in the literature is not particularly evident to all fans of the game of
football. The focus group discussion suggests that a number of supporters
believed FFP ultimately has in fact resulted in the opposite; a fairer environment
where by more clubs can win or achieve success.
In addition to this, the focus group also acknowledged that previous to the FFPRs
being implemented, the rise of wealthy owners in the English Premier League
was having a direct affect on the English national team. This is illustrated by
respondent four commenting:
“Since the rise of wealthy owners in the premier league the national
team has seen a decrease in quality as former first team players for the
top 5-6 sides are reduced to the bench or being sent out on loan to
lower clubs where they aren’t playing the standard of football required
of an established international player” (Respondent Four).

N0387589
22
Discussion within the focus group suggests that with the FFPRs in place, there
will be a greater emphasis on encouraging home grown talent through
academies and into the first teams of the clubs in the English Premier League,
resulting in improving the prospect of the national side and therefore the
attractiveness to football fans within England. This does not directly link to the
competitive balance of a specific league as noted in the literature by Dupont
(2013), Sass (2012) and Preuss et al. (2014) as it regards the national side of a
specific European country, although it is presumed this will correlate for other
European leagues with UEFAs FFPRs imposed, and therefore relevant to the
supporters surrounding the implications of the rules and their views.
Dupont (2013), Sass (2012) and Preuss et al. (2014) all argue that due to FFP
and the unbalancing of competition this would also result in a less attractive
viewing spectacle for the fans. When the sample of respondents who participated
in the questionnaire was asked this question, again the findings were not
conclusive with that of the literature. Approximately 59% of respondents
disagreed that the rules were affecting the attractiveness or enjoyment of
football, with approximately an extra 16% strongly disagreeing with this
argument. This is further shown in a visual representation in Figure 8.0 and
Appendix 2.7.
Figure 8:0 – Supporters’ perspective of the attractiveness of football since UEFAs
FFPRs.
The above suggests that although the majority of football fans disagree that the
attractiveness or enjoyment of football is affected, there are still approximately a
quarter of supporters that believe the financial regulations are having an effect.
This suggests that different fans have different views as to what contributes to
an attractive, enjoyable football industry. Where many enjoy watching exciting
home grown talent in the highest league, a number also enjoy the spectacle that

N0387589
23
wealthy owners introduce to the English Premier League. This is confirmed by
respondent five stating:
“At the end of the day, they (wealthy owners) are the ones coming over
and spending the money on new players that help make the Premier
League more exciting” (Respondent 5).
In addition to the competitive balance argument, both Financialfairplay.co.uk
(2012) and Harris (2014) identified in the literature acknowledge the increase in
economic pressure on supporters as a result of the FFPRs, especially in the form
of increased ticket prices. This negative implication of UEFAs rules was examined
in the questionnaire with respondents asked to choose the preferred method to
increase revenue or reduce costs. Only 1% of respondents reacted that an
increase in ticket prices would be their preferred method to increase revenue. A
majority of approximately 58% noted that an increase in the amount of
sponsorship and advertising revenue (selling stadium rights, more company
logos on kits etc) would be the best method to increase revenue for a club
struggling to break even. There is a graphical representation of these findings
seen in Appendix 2.8. Further to the overwhelming findings portrayed in the
questionnaire, these results were also evident within the focus group discussion.
The focus group as a whole were split over the best method, whether to increase
revenue through sponsorship or cut costs, however, all respondents
acknowledged that they would not agree with the raising of ticket prices for fans.
This is detailed by respondent three who declared:
“Ideally I would prefer them to increase revenue but without raising
ticket prices. This is of course easier with bigger clubs as they can get
new and bigger kit deals or (raise money) by re-naming the
stadium/training ground” (Respondent Three)
Referencing back to the literature of Financialfairplay.co.uk (2012) and Harris
(2014), statistics show that there has been an increase in match day ticket
prices for supporters and the findings suggest this would not be the preferred
method by fans as it results in economic pressure for them as stakeholders.
However if clubs were to increase revenue by means of sponsorship as noted by

N0387589
24
respondent three, this implies that the argument posed in the literature by
Dupont (2013), Sass (2012) and Preuss et al. (2014) would be supported as
bigger European clubs would be able to secure the more beneficial and larger
sponsorship deals.
4.3 RQ3 – Supporters’ views of the Financial Fair Play Rules
As stated in the literature review, there is limited academic literature
surrounding the general views of fans towards UEFA’s financial regulations.
There is only literature to suggest that a number of fans are in support of the
case against UEFA and their rules by Dupont (2013); however this does not
necessarily represent the views of all football supporters. Therefore the final
group of questions were gathered together to identify further the fans views in
regard to UEFAs Financial Fair Play Rules in general.
The first two questions in this group, shown in Appendix 2.9 and 2.10 attempts
to gauge how supporters as stakeholders perceive how a football club should be
managed and the extent profit is more important than success on the pitch or
vice versa. A correlation of answers from respondents was evident within the
results, with approximately 40% agreeing that football clubs should be run for
success on the pitch rather than to make profit whereas approximately 34%
noted that football clubs should be run to make profit rather than success on the
pitch. When addressed within the focus group discussion similar findings were
acknowledged. These findings imply a need for both success on the pitch and
profitability are required to ensure the fans, as stakeholders, are content.
The next set of questions attempts to gauge whether UEFAs FFPRs are enough
to improve the current financial situation of football clubs and ensure the long-
term future of these clubs. When the respondents of the questionnaire were
asked whether the rules imposed are sufficient, regarding ownership of football
clubs, to ensure the long term future of football clubs the findings appear to be
inconclusive. Approximately 47% of respondents reacted as dissatisfied in
comparison to 41% who agreed the rules are sufficient. A visual representation
of these findings can be found in Appendix 2.11. Further to these findings, when

N0387589
25
the respondents were asked whether the FFPRs were enough to improve the
current financial situation of football clubs and reduce their losses,
approximately 47% agreed in comparison to 41% in disagreement. This can
graphically be seen in Appendix 2.12 and Figure 9.0.
Figure 9:0 – Supporters’ views on the extent FFP is enough to reduce football club
losses.
The findings imply that there is no real identification from football fans as to
whether the FFPRs are successful in what UEFA are attempting to achieve. This
suggests that many of the supporters still believe the financial regulations
imposed do not suffice and there is a need for further regulations or an
improvement in punishments for not complying with the rules. This is noted
within the focus group discussion, whereby respondent two stated:
“I think the bans could be harsher. Penalising teams by cutting the
amount of players they can use in tournaments is a good idea and so is
a transfer embargo. Simply a financial punishment is not enough of a
problem to the big teams” (Respondent Two).
The final set of questions attempted to understand the fans’ perspective on the
FFPRs moving forward beyond this current season and into the future. The first
question proposed to the respondents of the questionnaire asked whether the
FFPRs will help to ensure a brighter future for the English football industry.
Approximately 65% agreed the rules would ensure this with a further 8%
strongly agreeing. This can be seen as a graphical representation in Appendix
2.13. This is further acknowledged in the focus group discussion with all
respondents agreeing the rules will be beneficial for the industry. This is
illustrated by respondent five who commented:

N0387589
26
“It will hopefully benefit all teams eventually, fans will see more home-
grown players, leagues and tournaments will be even and clubs will not
suffer financially” (Respondent 5).
The overwhelming findings noted above suggest that the vast majority of
supporters agree that with the rules enforced by UEFA, the English football
industry is in a promising position going forward.
In addition to this, the final question posed to the respondents of the
questionnaire, was the extent they believe FFP is having positive or negative
implications on the game of football. The respondents were asked to agree for
positive implications and disagree for negative implications. Approximately 58%
agreed with a further 11% strongly agreeing the rules enforced by UEFA were
having a positive effect on football. This is shown as a visual representation in
Figure 10.0 and Appendix 2.14.
Figure 10:0 – Supporters’ views on the extent FFP is having a positive or negative
effect.
The focus group discussion similarly responded with the view of FFP having a
positive effect on the game of football; however it was evident that many
respondents were still sceptical of how complete the rules are. The findings
suggest that although the FFPRs as an overview is having positive implications
there is still a need for further development. This is noted by respondent 7, who
concluded with the statement:
“I do believe the financial fair play is having positive implications on
the game of football however I believe there is still a need for further
development. There is still discussion on the implications on us as fans

N0387589
27
and it is about finding a middle ground going forward into the coming
seasons” ( Respondent 7).
5. Limitations and Future Research
After illustrating the study’s findings and academia, a summary of the subjects
in question has been deduced. Despite this, the researcher recognises the
findings have arisen from a specific geographic location, as the study was
conducted within the UK and limited to a small sample. As the UEFA Financial
Fair Play Rules are enforced throughout European leagues, this can be seen as a
limitation of this study. To improve the research reliability, future research could
adopt a larger scale study employing numerous researchers across all leagues
affected by the financial fair play rules.
Although limitations of the study have been identified, the research has enriched
the literature and has informed areas for future academic contributions. The
study demonstrated positive signs of supporters accepting and adapting to
football with UEFAs Financial Fair Play Rules enforced, although it would be
interesting to compare these findings with a focus group including older
demographics. Similarly it would be interesting to compare these findings with
future research into UEFA’s plan and development of the financial fair play rules.
6. Conclusion & Recommendations
This study has examined a variety of literature in conjunction with the fans views
surrounding the financial fair play rules enforced by UEFA. It has questioned the
extent these added financial regulations are just good corporate governance or
whether they are in fact affecting the sport itself and the way the supporters
view the sport.
In relation to RQ1, the statements proposed in the literature by UEFA (2014)
and the OECD (2004), supported by the European Parliament and European
Commission, are confirmed by the findings of the questionnaire. It argues that

N0387589
28
the UEFA Financial Fair Play Rules are good corporate governance and the
findings suggest the fans have a basic understanding of the rules and believe the
rules are required to protect football. There is an argument acknowledged in the
focus group that due to the rules not appearing transparent to the average fan,
the rules disagree with the first principle noted by OECD (2004) in the literature
surrounding the need for disclosure and transparency. However as stated within
the findings, although this implies the rules do not portray good corporate
governance, the rules are disclosed to all and are transparent and therefore it
suggests improvement is required by UEFA to ensure all stakeholders have a
greater understanding of what is required of football clubs.
Furthermore in relation to RQ2, Dupont (2013), Sass (2012) and Preuss et al.
(2014) all stated the rules to be anti-competitive, resulting in less exciting
competitive leagues throughout Europe and therefore having a detrimental effect
on the game of football and how the supporters view the sport. This suggested
the rules were not good corporate governance in relation to the second principle
stated by OECD (2004) in the literature as all stakeholders views are not taken
into consideration. The findings of the questionnaire disagreed with the literature
as the majority of fans did not believed the rules imposed by UEFA were
affecting the attractiveness or enjoyment of football. However, there were also
findings within the focus group that agreed with this literature and held the view
that the foreign wealthy owners being removed are negatively affecting the
sport. This is seen to be due to the philosophy of social contructionism employed
within this study, as Saunders (2009) defines whereby individual people perceive
different situations in various ways as a consequence of their own view on the
world.
In addition to this, Financialfairplay.co.uk (2012) and Harris (2014) identified in
the literature an increase in economic pressure on supporters as a result of the
rules imposed by UEFA, especially in the form of raised ticket pricing. The
findings suggested the fans do not agree with the increase in ticket prices stated
in the literature and increasing revenue through other means such as
sponsorship can be seen to agree with the literature posed by Dupont (2013),
Sass (2012) and Preuss et al. (2014) as the larger clubs would be able to secure
the more beneficial and larger sponsorship deals.

N0387589
29
Finally in relation to RQ3, limited academic research existed surrounding the
general views of supporters towards financial fair play; therefore three groups of
questions were used to identify the general views of fans as stakeholders. The
first set of questions attempted to identify the importance of profit over pitch
success or vice versa. The findings of the questionnaire and the focus group
discussion acknowledged a need for both to ensure the supporters are content.
The next set attempted to gauge whether financial fair play was sufficient to
ensure the future of football clubs and reduce losses. The findings were
somewhat inconclusive however identification of future development and further
regulations was deemed necessary. The final set of questions attempted to
assess the fans’ perspective of UEFAs rules moving forward into the future. The
findings concluded the rules were having positive implications for the game of
football and the supporters were optimistic of a bright future for the English
football industry and, despite further development necessary.
The overall conclusion suggests supporters believe UEFA’s Financial Fair Play
Rules are good corporate governance in principle and the findings imply the rules
ensure a positive and bright future for the English football industry. However the
restriction on club spending has only been enforced for a single season and it is
evident further development is required to ensure the supporters, as
stakeholders, are content moving forward into the future.

N0387589
30
References
Bryman, A. (2006). Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: how is it
done?. Qualitative Research, 6(1), p.111.
Carson, D. (2001). Qualitative marketing research. London: SAGE.
Creswell, J. (2002). Research design. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage
Publications, p.266.
Creswell, J. (2012). Educational research. 4th ed. Boston: Pearson, p.22.
Deloitte, (2014). A Premium Blend - Annual Review of Football Finance. [online]
p.2. Available at:
http://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/uk/Documents/sports-business-
group/deloitte-uk-annual-review-football-finance.pdf [Accessed 25 Mar. 2015].
Dupont, J. (2013). Football's Anticompetitive Streak. [online] WSJ. Available at:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324077704578357992271428
024 [Accessed 8 Mar. 2015].
Europa.eu, (2015). EUROPA - EU institutions and other bodies. [online] Available
at: http://europa.eu/about-eu/institutions-bodies/ [Accessed 6 Mar. 2015].
Europarl.europa.eu, (2012). Texts adopted - Thursday, 29 March 2012 - A
corporate governance framework for European companies - P7_TA(2012)0118.
[online] Available at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-
//EP//TEXT+TA+P7-TA-2012-0118+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN [Accessed 13 Nov.
2014].
Financialfairplay.co.uk, (2012). Ticket prices subsidised by club losses. [online]
Available at: http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/latest-news/ticket-prices-
subsidised-by-club-losses [Accessed 24 Mar. 2015].

N0387589
31
Geey, Daniel, (2011), ‘The UEFA Financial Fair Play Rules’ A Difficult Balancing
Act”, Entertainment and Sports Law Journal, Vol.9 –Intervention. P1-2
Hair, J. (2007). Research methods for business. Chichester, West Sussex,
England: John Wiley & Sons, p.154.
Harris, W. (2014). Premier League Ticket Prices Cause Uproar Amongst
Supporters Ahead of 2014-15 Campaign. [online] Business of Soccer. Available
at: http://www.businessofsoccer.com/2014/08/14/premier-league-ticket-prices-
cause-uproar-amongst-supporters-ahead-of-2014-15-campaign/ [Accessed 24
Mar. 2015].
Hoque, Z. (2006). Methodological Issues in Accounting Research: Theories,
Methods and Issues. Spiramus: London. p416
Jean-Louis Dupont, (2013). [online] Available at:
http://www.elegis.be/files/CPAnglais.pdf [Accessed 8 Mar. 2015].
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.).
London: Sage Ltd
Neuman, W. (2003). Social research methods. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, p.51.
OECD Principles of Corporate Governance. (2004). 2nd ed. [ebook] Paris: OECD
Publishing, pp.17, 21, 59. Available at:
http://www.oecd.org/daf/ca/corporategovernanceprinciples/31557724.pdf
[Accessed 24 Mar. 2015].
Risse, T. (2004). Social Constructivism Meets Globalization. [online] p.4.
Available at: http://userpage.fu-
berlin.de/~atasp/texte/globalization_constructivism.pdf [Accessed 24 Mar.
2015].
Sass, M. (2012). Long-term Competitive Balance under UEFA Financial Fair Play
Regulations. 5th ed. [ebook] Magdeburg: Magdeburg University, p.1. Available

N0387589
32
at: http://www.fww.ovgu.de/fww_media/femm/femm_2012/2012_05.pdf
[Accessed 8 Mar. 2015].
Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (2009). Research methods for business
students. 5th ed. New York: Prentice Hall, p.111.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (2012). Research methods for business
students. 6th ed. Harlow, England: Pearson, p.161.
Szymanski, S. (2014). Fair Is Foul: A Critical Analysis of UEFA Financial Fair
Play. International Journal of Sport Finance, [online] (9.3), pp.218-229.
Available at:
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1552838213?accountid=14693.
The Independent, (2015). Financial Fair Play: Stop the FFP 'train' immediately,
says lawyer in landmark case. [online] Available at:
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-and-comment/financial-fair-
play-stop-the-ffp-train-immediately-says-lawyer-in-landmark-case-
10073381.html [Accessed 24 Mar. 2015].
Thomas, D. (2006). A General Inductive Approach for Analyzing Qualitative
Evaluation Data. American Journal of Evaluation, 27(2), p.238.
Preuss, H., Haugen, K. and Schubert, M. (2014). UEFA financial fair play: the
curse of regulation. Sports Law & Economics, [online] 2(1):33-51(2282-5673),
p.33. Available at: http://www.ejss-journal.com/index.php/uefa-financial-fair-
play-the-curse-of-regulation [Accessed 8 Mar. 2015].
UEFA, (2011). The European Club Licensing Benchmarking Report - Financial
Year 2011. [online] Nyon, Switzerland: UEFA, p.15. Available at:
http://www.uefa.org/MultimediaFiles/Download/Tech/uefaorg/General/01/91/61
/84/1916184_DOWNLOAD.pdf [Accessed 25 Mar. 2015].
UEFA, (2012). The European Club Footballing Landscape. [online] UEFA.
Available at:

N0387589
33
http://www.uefa.org/MultimediaFiles/Download/Tech/uefaorg/General/02/09/18
/26/2091826_DOWNLOAD.pdf [Accessed 25 Mar. 2015].
UEFA.com, (2014). Protecting the game – UEFA.org. [online] Available at:
http://www.uefa.org/protecting-the-game/club-licensing-and-financial-fair-
play/news/newsid=2083789.html [Accessed 24 Mar. 2015].
UEFA.com, (2014). The official website for European football – UEFA.com.
[online] Available at:
http://www.uefa.com/community/news/newsid=2064391.html [Accessed 24
Mar. 2015].
Witmer, D., Colman, R. and Katzman, S. (1999). From Paper-and-Pencil to
Screen-and-Keyboard: Toward a Methodology for Survey Research on the
Internet. Doing Internet Research: Critical Issues and Methods for Examining the
Net, pp.145-162.

N0387589
34
Appendices
Appendix 1 – Google Drive Questionnaire Available at:
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1S3yQodZ0iqF0J69iJ0_jslOYiqxJ_33j1dQEY-
FZHm4/viewform?usp=send_form

N0387589
37
Appendix 2
Questionnaire Graph Results: Showing the supporters perspective surrounding
UEFA’s Financial Fair Play Rules.
The following graphs show visual representations of the general questions asked
of the respondents at the beginning of the questionnaire.
2.1 – General Questions

N0387589
38
The following graph shows a visual representation of the question asked of the
respondents surrounding their knowledge of UEFA’s Financial Fair Play.
2.4 – Financial Fair Play Knowledge
The following graphs show visual representations of the questions asked of the
respondents surrounding UEFA’s Financial Fair Play and corporate governance.
2.5 – Corporate Governance
2.6 – Corporate Governance

N0387589
39
respondents surrounding the implications as a result of UEFA’s Financial Fair
Play.
2.7 – Implications of UEFA’s Financial Fair Play
2.8 – Implications of UEFA’s Financial Fair Play
respondents to gauge the importance of profit over pitch success, or vice versa.
2.9 – Profit over Pitch Success

N0387589
40
2.10 – Profit over Pitch Success
respondents to gauge whether UEFA’s Financial Fair Play Rules are sufficient to
ensure long term futures of football clubs and reduce their losses.
2.11 – Are the FFPR sufficient?
2.12 – Are the FFPR sufficient?

N0387589
41
The final graphs show visual representations of the questions asked of the
respondents to gauge the views of the supporters surrounding UEFA’s Financial
Fair Play Rules in the future.
2.13 – UEFA’s Financial Fair Play in the future
2.14 – UEFA’s Financial Fair Play in the future

N0387589
42
Appendix 3
NBS/ Ethics03 Activities with standardised ethics concerns.
NOTTINGHAM TRENT UNIVERSITY
Nottingham Business School
Name of student – Lucas Hesling
Student registration number – N0387589
Course of study – Accounting & Finance
Module name and code – BUSI32630: Research Project (Acc & Fin)
Working title of research project - To what extent are financial regulations, such as
the Financial Fair Play (FFP) system in football, just good corporate governance or are
these added regulations affecting the sport itself and the way consumers view their
sport, especially those aged 18-25.
Carrying out research for your coursework gives rise to ethical issues. First you need to
make sure that you complete and submit the correct form to show you have recognised
those ethical issues. If you answer ‘Yes’ to any of the three questions below, then this is
the correct form for you. If you answer ‘No’ to all three statements, you need to fill in
form NBS Ethics02 instead.
Does the project involve collecting and/or analysing primary or
unpublished data from, or about, living human beings?
Yes No
Yes
Does it involve collecting or analysing primary or unpublished
data about people who have recently died, other than data that
are already in the public domain?
No
Does it involve collecting or analysing primary or unpublished
data about or from organisations or agencies of any kind, other
than data that are already in the public domain?
No
This document sets out the considerations you must respect, to ensure you conduct your
research in accordance with correct ethical principles. The form has three sections:
i) there are a series of statements which set out what you must do, what you must not
do, and what you can do after due consideration, when undertaking your research.
ii) there are a series of expandable boxes, in which you type your answers to a series
of questions. These ask you to set out your expected research activities, the ethical
concerns that arise and how you propose to deal with them. You then sign at the
end of this section.
iii) your supervisor (for a Research Project) or module leader (for other modules) must
give ethical approval before any primary data collection can be undertaken, making
sure you have accounted for all reasonably foreseeable ethical considerations. Prior
to giving this approval, you and s/he must agree the primary data collection
activities you will undertake. Your supervisor or module leader will complete the
checklist before signing the form to give their approval for the research. They then
return the signed form to you.

N0387589
43
You are strongly advised to study this checklist early in your research planning, as it
will help you decide which types of primary data collection to undertake in your
research.
It is your responsibility to ensure you get the signed form back, as you must
include it as an Appendix in the final coursework submission.
You should discuss this form with your project supervisor or the Module Leader, before
completing and submitting it to them for the ethical approval of your project. If, after
studying this form, you and your supervisor/module leader feel that the potential ethics
issues are greater than are allowed for in this form, you can consider submitting form
NBS Ethics04 to the School Research Ethics Committee for their approval.
Things you must do
1. If you intend to do research involving organisations, you must first obtain
permission from an appropriate manager. If you are doing the research in your own
organisation, you should ask your line manager in the first instance. In organisations
you do not work for, it is advisable to approach the line manager who has
responsibility for the people you wish to involve in your research. These initial
contacts will confirm if you need further permission from any other authority within
the organisation.
2. If the research involves an NHS organisation you may need ethical approval from an
appropriate NHS ethics committee. Details can be found at
>http://www.nres.nhs.uk/<. See also the guidance offered in NBS Ethics01.
3. Before you ask participants to consent to taking part in your research, they should
be given full information about the nature of the project, the information to be
collected, how it will be stored and processed, for how long it will be kept and who
will see the final report (for example lecturers for assessment). Very rare exceptions
to this are if your research includes covert observation; or if you believe strongly
that the quality of the data collected would be compromised by participants having
this information in advance. In these specific cases, you must arrange to de-brief
participants as soon as possible afterwards.
4. All participants must give their consent to participation, normally in writing before
any data can be collected. This consent must be voluntary on their part – there can
be no coercion to participation. This includes making it clear that participants can,
without having to give an explanation, refuse to answer any question. They can also
stop participating at any point. This includes the right to withdraw their data from
your project at any time up to a specified point. This can be a fixed period of time
(such as ‘for two weeks after the data collection’); or a specific but unquantified
period (such as ‘until data analysis begins’). For questionnaires not delivered in
person, a statement on the front such as ‘completing and returning this
questionnaire will be taken as consent to your participation in the research project’,
or similar, can be used.
5. You must obtain explicit permission from participants before making electronic
recordings of interviews, meetings, focus groups, etc. This applies also to
photographs or videos. If images are of, for example, a company factory, you must
also obtain their permission to include the location in the photographs or videos.
6. Confidentiality must be respected. This means ensuring that all primary data
collected are stored securely. This includes documents and files generated as part of

N0387589
44
your analysis. All documents, tapes, CDs, etc, must be held in a secure location,
such as a locked filing cabinet, when not being used. Electronic files should be
password protected. Consider using encryption software such as Truecrypt to protect
electronic files. No data should be made available to, or discussed with, anyone
other than your supervisor(s), examiner(s) for the purposes of assessment, and for
the detection of academic irregularities. You should destroy all materials at the end
of your studies.
7. Anonymity (of individuals and organisations) must be respected. This means that, in
the submitted coursework, it should not be possible for a reader to identify a
participant from what you have written. The only exception is if the participant has
given explicit permission for you to use their name. One way to preserve anonymity
is to use false names, although too much contextual detail could still allow
identification. In some cases, such as elite interviews, where a participant can only
be one of a few possible people, you must be honest about the limits to maintaining
anonymity. If a potential participant is concerned about this, NBS REC has
developed a letter, with NTU Legal Services, which offers assurances to participants
that the project will only be seen by a small number of (named) individuals, only for
the purpose of assessment, and that everyone will be made fully aware of the
confidential nature of the information in the coursework.
Things you can do, but only after careful consideration and after putting
precautions or contingency plans into place (which you set out in section 2
of this form)
8. Interviews or questionnaires administered using email, electronic bulletin boards or
forums can make it difficult to maintain participants’ anonymity. Make sure they are
aware of this and are still willing to participate, in accordance with the principles of
informed consent. The use of the World Wide Web to administer questionnaires does
not pose much threat to participants’ anonymity, but they must still be advised
beforehand about the limitations to anonymity. If you are using online discussion
forums to collect data, permission should be obtained from the system operator.
9. If your research will involve working with children under the age of 16, you must
complete form “Ethics06 Working with U16s” as well as this form, Ethics03.
Children aged 16 and 17 are allowed legally to give informed consent regarding their
own participation. Even so, if your research will involve working with children aged
16 and 17 you are strongly advised to follow the guidelines set out in Ethics06, and
the ‘first of all do no harm’ principle set out in Point 10 below, but you do not have
to submit Ethics06.
10. If the project will involve investigation of sensitive subjects with adults, especially:
 the political opinions of any individuals,
 their religious or ideological beliefs,
 their membership of a trade union,
 their physical or mental health (including stress),
 their sexual behaviour or orientation,
 the commission of criminal offences or court proceedings concerning individuals
then keep to the ‘first of all do no harm’ principle. In practice this will mean
considering, with your supervisor or tutor, any risk of harm there may be and
deciding what should be done if problems arise. If for example, during an interview
someone begins to admit to a criminal offence you should anticipate this possibility

N0387589
45
and know how to react. You might in this situation warn the interviewee that if they
continue, you will be obliged to report the conversation to the authorities and to
your supervisor.
11. If the assignment involves undertaking research outside of the UK, you must take all
reasonable steps to ensure you abide by local customs and legislation, in addition to
the requirements laid down by Nottingham Trent University and UK law.
Things you should not do
12. No quotations should be attributed to named individuals without their consent.
13. In carrying out the assignment you must not ask questions, or collect data, about
matters that are not directly related to the project.
14. Within an organisation, you must not use management’s agreement that you may
carry out your research to put pressure on staff to take part.
15. You must not undertake illegal or unethical activities on behalf of any individual or
organisation (such as spying, or industrial espionage).
16. You must not contravene the Data Protection Act 1998. To help guide students and
staff, NBS REC has prepared a Guidance Note on the main elements of the DPA. For
the full legislation, see <http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/29/contents>.
17. You must not contravene Nottingham Trent University regulations, including the
Student Code of Behaviour and the Computer Use Regulations.
18. In the interests of protecting the integrity of the research, participants should not
normally be given the right to comment on, or amend, the findings of the project or
the inferences, conclusions or recommendations you draw from them.
19. You must not endanger yourself, nor any participant in the research, either
physically or psychologically. If your research involves an activity that is essential
but could give rise to significant Health and Safety concerns, you should fill in a risk
assessment form. For more details, see
<https://portal.ntu.ac.uk/health_safety/Pages/index.aspx>
Please provide further details in the boxes below, about the ethics
issues which you expect to arise from the primary data collection for
your project, and how you propose to address them. Please feel free
to make reference to the numbered statements above:
1. Summarise the nature of the primary data collection activities in your research; and the
ethics concerns you expect, at this stage, to arise as a result
Please refer to activities identified in the Primary Data Collection Checklist, below. Please refer to the
ethical concerns in your project; do not discuss general ethics issues. If this application relates to a
Research Project, you can also refer to your Scoping Document, as they must be submitted together.
Consider here also possible physical, psychological, economic or reputational harm that could result.
I plan to produce an online questionnaire to analyse the views of the general public on financial
regulations in sport, specifically the financial fair play system in football.
I also plan to conduct a focus group of 18-25 year olds to again analyse their views in more detail
regarding the financial regulations within sport as this age group is the most likely to be impacted.

N0387589
46
I do not believe there will be any possible physical, psychological, economic or reputational harm that
could result from either of these primary data collection activities.
2. Informed Consent and Voluntary Participation
How will you ensure participants are fully informed about the nature of your project and their
involvement in it, before agreeing to participate? How will you ensure their participation is entirely
voluntary? Please submit a Participant Information Sheet with this form.
I will brief and inform all participants within the focus group of the nature of the project, the
information to be collected, how the information will be stored and processed, how long it will be kept
and who will be seeing the final report before being asked to consent to taking part in the research. I
will ensure I have gained written consent to participation before I collect any data within the focus
group and I will ensure their consent is voluntary.
The questionnaire produced will include a statement on the front detailing that the completion and
return of the questionnaire will be taken as consent to participation in the research project.
3. Confidentiality
How will you ensure the security of the unprocessed, primary data, including compliance with relevant
legislation, in particular the Data Protection Act 1998, (for example storage in a locked cabinet,
password-protected computer, encrypted files, etc)?
Confidentiality will be respected while conducting research. All primary data will be stored securely in a
locked secure place. Electronic files recorded will be password protected and will be encrypted to
ensure protection. No data will be discussed with anyone other than the supervisor noted in proposal
document. All materials will also be destroyed at the end of the study.
4. Anonymity
How will you ensure, as far as possible, the anonymity of participants’ identity in the coursework you
submit?
The anonymity of participant’s identity will be respected in both cases of primary data collection. The
questionnaire will be designed to ensure all participants are anonymous. Similarly with the focus group,
no individual names will be included in the submitted coursework and the nature of the research will
not disclose any information regarding the participant.
5. Do you have any other concerns about the project that have not been addressed above?
I do not have other concerns regarding the project that have not been addressed in the above.
Declaration by the Student (or Students, for a Group Project)
I confirm that I shall conduct this project in strict accordance with this protocol,
undertaking only those research activities as set out in the Primary Data Collection
Checklist, below.
Name of student – Lucas Hesling
Signed (student) – Lucas Hesling
Date – 11/11/2014

N0387589
47
Primary Data Collection Checklist
This checklist is intended to serve a number of purposes.
For Students:
•To help you choose appropriate data collection methods when completing the form
above;
•To ensure you know exactly what has been agreed and what you are allowed to do.
For Supervisors:
•To provide you with a simple means of indicating to students what they can and cannot
do when undertaking primary data collection for the project outlined above.
Subsequent Changes to This Agreement
As the research progresses, the primary data collection activities a student wishes to do
might change. In this case, the student and supervisor must revisit this checklist, to
determine whether a new Ethics03 needs to be submitted, or not.
Resubmit Ethics03 if new primary data collection activities are proposed which give rise
to new ethical considerations. Examples might include undertaking, say, a survey when
one was not intended initially. A less obvious example would be where, initially a student
might have applied to interview managers, and now wishes also to interview employees.
This raises new ethical concerns because of specific power relationships within the
organisation.
Do Not Resubmit Ethics03 if any proposed changes to primary data collection do not give
rise to new ethical considerations. Examples might include wanting to interview more
managers than initially agreed.
Declaration to be signed by the Supervisor or Module Leader, once the primary
data collection checklist, below, has been completed.
I confirm that the student has set out clearly on this form the intended research
activities and the ethical concerns which will arise.
I confirm that the student has set out clearly on this form how all of the ethical concerns
raised will be addressed in the research.
I have agreed with the student the specific primary data collection activities that can be
undertaken as part of this research.
I have addressed any concerns raised in Box 5 above.
Name of Supervisor/Module Leader
Signed
Date

N0387589
48
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank the respondents of the questionnaire and the participants
within the focus group who provided me with some valuable data and fascinating
insights. This paper would not have been possible without their co-operation and
assistance.
I would also like to thank the Nottingham Business School at Nottingham Trent
University for providing me with the correct tools required to conduct this study,
and Graham Pitcher my research project supervisor for his support and guidance
throughout this process.
Finally I would like to give special thanks to my family for their support and
motivation whilst conducting and writing my research project.

Lucas Hesling Research Project

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (16)

Similar to Lucas Hesling Research Project

Similar to Lucas Hesling Research Project (20)

Lucas Hesling Research Project