Let’s face it: for those at the highest level of the game, football is a business. The biggest clubs across Europe will by now have digested UEFA President Michel Platini’s new plan to help encourage economic fair play and equal opportunities for clubs competing in European competitions. Whilst this may be a cause for celebration for many clubs, a small but powerful minority will be disappointed by Platini’s attempt to alter the landscape of European football. His aim is to prevent clubs living beyond their means and running up huge debts. There will soon be limits placed upon the amount of debt that a club can run up. If they don’t meet UEFA’s standards, they will be barred from taking place in European contests such as the Champions League and the Europa League.

On the face of it, there’s nothing wrong with the changes that Platini is attempting to force through. Of course, most of the money in football lies within the Premier League, so it’s easy to view the move as an attempt by UEFA to reign in the likes of Manchester United and Chelsea who have used their superior finances to give themselves a real presence within the Champions League over the last decade. Michel Platini will no doubt be looking at the manner in which Manchester City are developing with some trepidation.

Under the surface of Platini’s reasoning, however there are a few problems. The way that United have become debt-laden is significantly different from the manner that Chelsea have built up their own debt. How can UEFA judge which clubs have the right to play and which don’t? More importantly, how do clubs who are struggling under the weight of debt start to rebuild without access to the lucrative finances available for participating in the Champions League? There are also talks regarding placing a cap on the amount of spending (which will be limited at 60% of its annual turnover) a club is permitted to do if they have entered into the Champions League.

This wouldn’t be without problems either. How can the ‘smaller’ teams that manage to enter the Champions League build upon and solidify what they’ve got if they can only spend as much as teams who already have good squads, such as Barcelona and United?

If the rules did go into effect, it would no longer be a “Champions” League. There would be no United, no Chelsea, no Barcelona. It would be a League made up of the teams who are in the best position financially in Europe.

Given the problems with Platini’s proposal, it doesn’t surprise me that the idea of Europe’s top clubs forming their own breakaway competition has resurfaced. This new competition, the European Super League would be outside of UEFA’s dominion, and face none of the financial restraints that Platini hopes to implement in the Champions League and the Europa League.

Of course, such a move would only help to make football’s richest even more wealthy and keep those teams without financial backing outside of the flow of cash.

It strikes me that the European Super League would be a bad thing for both UEFA and clubs in general. As such, it’s at the benefit for all to find some kind of middle-ground by which steps towards a financially equal landscape in European competitions can be made whilst also offering a financial incentive for big clubs to remain in competitions such as the Champions League.

For more footballing debate and dicsussion please follow @ThePerfectPass on Twitter!

Buy Last 16 Champions League tickets here!