Chelsea: Man City rich enough to buy a new level of FIFA hypocrisy

Manchester City escaped a transfer ban for the same youth-related infractions as Chelsea. This is hypocrisy manifest.

Chelsea’s transfer ban, a result of violating FIFA’s laws regarding the transfers of under-18 players, has been one of the defining characteristics of the current state of the club. Plenty of people have performed incredible feats of mental gymnastics trying to paint this punishment as a blessing in disguise: it’s the reason for hiring Frank Lampard, slotting Mason Mount and Tammy Abraham into the starting XI, and sparing the likes of Fikayo Tomori and Reece James another season in the loan army. All of that is well and good, but it’s still a punishment, plain and simple.

The reasons for FIFA’s rule make general sense: concerns about the exploitation and trafficking (their words, not mine) of minors. That’s certainly noble, but it’s ridiculous to say that Chelsea’s practices have shown any hint of violating the basic spirit of the law. For reference, the highest profile of the 29 infractions Chelsea was charged with involved the acquisition of Bertrand Traore in 2013.

Even with a context-appropriate assessment of the case, by the letter of the law, Chelsea violated FIFA’s rules, so they are subject to a two-window transfer ban. Fair enough. This would be acceptable – albeit inconvenient – if the rule was enforced with any level of consistency.

All three of the major Spanish clubs have been subject to the same ruling in recent years, yet none were enforced as intensely or immediately as Chelsea’s. Real Madrid had their ban shortened to just one January window during the 2016/17 season, while Atletico Madrid and Barcelona both had the associated fines reduced and signed players in the summers of 2017 and 2015, respectively.

What’s more, FIFA initially recommended a four-window transfer ban, which is nearly unprecedented.

Chelsea’s treatment of youth players has always been used as a stick with which to beat the club by fans and critics over the years. Until recently, the club was undeniably terrible at affording significant first-team minutes to academy players, preferring to bring in older stars who could make an immediate impact. It was a model that was rewarded with a considerable haul of trophies, which those same fans and critics had to respect.

With all that as history and precedent, earlier this week, Manchester City were hit with a fine of around £315,000 for the same infractions FIFA charged Chelsea. No transfer ban, not even a need to appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, which Chelsea did back in June.

Wait, what?

The BBC article reporting on City’s punishment (or lack thereof) is vague as to the actual severity of the violations, but they sound like carbon copies of Chelsea’s case. Chelsea’s high score of 29 instances of illegal signings is probably hard to beat, but it would be a big surprise if this whole case was only surrounding the two players mentioned in the BBC report.

A double standard like this is pretty much par for the course when we’re talking about FIFA, whose corrupt, unscrupulous behavior is the stuff of legend by now.

You’d be hard-pressed to come up with a good reason why Manchester City deserve preferential treatment from football’s governing body. This is a club that was recently fined by the Premier League for transfer violations, and have unsurprisingly run afoul of Financial Fair Play, as well. In each case, they’ve avoided any meaningful punishments, while clubs like Chelsea and AC Milan have been slapped with a transfer ban and exclusion from European competitions, respectively, for breaking the same rules as City.

I get it, not all crimes are made equal, and I’m sure there’s plenty of legalese that justifies FIFA’s decision.

What doesn’t make sense, though, is how FIFA can impose two punishments, months apart, that are this disparate for the same infraction. Chelsea were assessed a FOUR WINDOW transfer ban and a fine of around half a million pounds, and were fortunate to reduce the ban to just two windows. Manchester City were hit with a smaller fine and a transfer ban of exactly zero windows.

There’s an old quote in college basketball from longtime coach Jerry Tarkanian: “The NCAA is so mad at Kentucky they’re going to give Cleveland State another year of probation.”

Coach Tark’s gist is that, rather than punish the larger program for their own crimes, a smaller one will be punished even more severely to serve as an example. Chelsea are comparatively bigger than Cleveland State, but the point still stands.

There’s a very realistic argument that Chelsea’s draconian punishment is partly so FIFA can avoid going to war with Manchester City, a club whose financial backing dwarfs that of Chelsea. Roman Abramovich is a very, very rich man, but having the state-sized wealth of the Abu Dhabi royal family puts City in a different financial stratosphere altogether.

Even for a governing goliath like FIFA, attempting to outspend Manchester City in a legal battle is a fool’s errand.

It wasn’t that long ago that Chelsea were arguably in the driver’s seat for football club wealth, but Chelsea’s relative spending power has steadily decreased over time, while City’s knows no earthly bounds.

At the end of the day, Chelsea have a transfer ban and Manchester City have a pittance of a fine. That’s life. Nothing you or I can say will change that (unless you’re Gianni Infantino).

City fans will probably laugh in my (virtual) face for complaining, and supporters of smaller clubs will roll their eyes at my griping about the travails of mega-rich clubs.

If this diatribe accomplishes anything, it’s that, as Chelsea fans, it’s time to accept the club’s new position in the hierarchy of world football.

There will be plenty of good times ahead, and hundreds of clubs would love to be in Chelsea’s position. But, when push comes to shove, clubs like Manchester City and Paris Saint-Germain will be the ones walking away without a scratch, while Chelsea limp away battered and Blue.