Q: Mr. Gandini, let's start with the main discussion "issue" in recent months: Financial Fair Play has started. How was this project born and up to what point it has been a path on which UEFA has cooperated with the other actors?
Let me first say that I have never really loved too the adjective "fair", especially since it implies that those who do not respect the requirements are "unfair". However, the idea has been mediatically successful, so we have continued to use it.
The project is the result of a shared discussion, born from the inspiration of President Platini, but then reasoned between UEFA, the football clubs (represented by ECA), the Federations and players (represented by FIFPro).
The very first idea actually stems during the Champions League Final in Moscow in 2008, which saw Manchester United opposed to Chelsea. Two clubs which, for different reasons, at that time had very high debt: MUtd for the LBO transaction occurred earlier, Chelsea due to Abramovich will to achieve leading positions in Europe quickly.
President Platini initially considered that it was necessary to achieve a total elimination of debts. Within the ECA, however, we observed that the presence of bank debt, in itself, is not a negative factor, since it is traditionally an element common to all companies pertaining to different industries.
From there we started to build a regulation that was centered on balancing the budget, in the belief that this was the really interesting goal. And, not less important, in the identification of some parameters that would help to ensure the sustainability of the debt: this is the real issue.
Q: By the end of June we should know the first observations by UEFA Club Financial Control Body (the body created at UEFA to manage from a procedural point of view and on all assessments of compliance with the requirements Financial Fair Play, NdR) What kind of relationship exists between the individual and the CFCB Club? Does it all work mediated by UEFA and the national associations or meetings were held with the primary stakeholders, ie the Club, to have a concrete and practical comparison on individual aspects?
The relationship between the individual Clubs and the CFCB is straightforward: each Club will send its data and documentation to have them assessed for Financial Fair Play purposes.
We do not really expect big differences in the approach between this "new" party and those who already oversee the budgets of the Club (the audit firm for the statutory financial statements, the Covisoc for the national license) considering that the CFCB can reasonably ask for clarification or additions to the documentation provided and then begin a contradictory to arrive to a shared view.
Should the position of CFCB diverge from the Club one and should this conflict lead to determine the sanctions against this club, then it will start the traditional procedure with the steps before the Disciplinary Committee and, subsequently, to TAS in Lausanne.
Q: What attitude do you expect from CFCB in this first phase of implementation of Financial Fair Play?
I presume the CFCB will initially adopt a less formal and more substantial approach. The path in the implementation of the new legislation was deliberately built to lay down clearly the target, but also to put the Clubs in a position to comply with the requirements within a reasonable time. There are, in fact, structural components (the diversification of revenues, the salaries, the funding sources) that can not be changed within one or two seasons.
I think the CFCB will pay particular attention to verify whether, in the event of a Club's failure to comply with one or more parameters of the Financial Fair Play, it has started a virtuous path to reach the expected result or whether, instead, the problem has not been properly addressed.
The decision to identify a set of sanctions that starts from the "recall" to reach the "withdrawal of the title" will allow CFCB to dose appropriately its intervention, taking into account the overall context within which a Club has operated. I do not expect, thought, an "Inquisition" approach, but rather a management of emerging issues. In a resolute way (CFCB born for this and can not change its mission), but in also with an "understanding" approach.
In any case, I'd like to remember that the assessments made by the CFCB during 2013 will relate to the 2011/12 FY, ie one of the two that make up the first observation period. So this first year will be a step closer to the verification of 2014 Spring, when the very first sanctions would be decided.
Q: The subject on which everyone is waiting to see what will happen, and many believe to be the real "test" to see if the Financial Fair Play is "a serious matter", comes from the sponsorship "fair value" when coming from related parties: the most striking example is Paris Saint-Germain's contract with the Qatar Tourism Authority, signed with retroactive effect for 2011/2012. What is your opinion on what will happen?
Undoubtedly the case of QTI sponsorship of PSG is special. Much will depend on how the lawyers of the PSG will be able to justify the value (and retroactivity) of the sponsorship agreement as part of "related party transactions". To be honest … none of us envy at this time PSG! To prove that a sponsorship of 150 million is indeed withinh the "fair value" is complex and, as far as I'm concerned, difficult. But I also assume that if they moved this way they have build an effective line of defense.
As for the support of the French Football Federation is concerned, I think it's natural. Among other things, it is important to remember that the "fair value" is specific request coming from Financial Fair Play, but does not necessarely impact on each Federation internal assessment process. For which, therefore, PSG 2011/12 Annual Report was not liable to reliefs.
Q: What are the elements of the Financial Fair Play that, in his view, would need further consideration?
I'm glad you asked me that question, because I think that the discussion in recent months has been too focused on PSG and Manchester City sponsorships, while there are other issues which, I believe, have not yet found a solution that ensures uniformity in the assessment process. I mean that there are differences in the accounting criteria of each nations and UEFA evaluation process still do not make all Clubs "equal".
A first example is the substantial absence of Annual Report official audit by most of the clubs pertaining to Eastern Europe (including Russia) Federations. I have the utmost respect, of course, the correctness of the owners and shareholders of the Company, but it is also true that we have a part of the UEFA world that has stringent procedures and request a third party (the audit firm) control, while another part of the same world can potentially draw up budgets and provide them to CFCB without these being subject to any external check.
A second example concerns a peculiarity of Spanish law, according to which annual contributions coming form the Club's shareholders are treated as ordinary income. This, especially when we tried to send a signal contrary to "football maecenas" is a bit incoherent. Why, for example, the 180,000 Barcelona shareholders can annually fund their Club and Abramovich (to say a random name) cannot?
A third example concerns a matter which has recently even led to the opening of an infringement procedure by the European Commission, which disputes some Dutch and Spanish clubs for having been beneficiaries of "state aid". Also in this case it is known that in some UEFA areas there are Governments, either directly or through subsidiaries, that deliver substantial contributions to the Clubs, as sponsorships or tax benefits.
Unfortunately, all these issues are not easy to solve, because it is clear that football clubs are, firstly, subject to the individual laws of their own Nation and, therefore, close their Financial Statements in accordance with those regulations. I also understand that it might be difficult to map all these specificities in order to fully identify harmonization criteria for the purposes of the CFCB controls.
What I hope to happen is that, quickly, also these matters will be addressed. We will then probably come to the determination that there are no viable solutions, but at least we will have tried.
If it was up to him, Gattuso, Pirlo, Inzaghi etc would still be here. 
