Following Manchester City's proposed ban and fine for breaking Financial Fair Play rules, I thought this is piece in today's Mail on Sunday by Oliver Holt was interesting :

City deserve ban but UEFA rules are warped
If the Court of Arbitration for Sport rejects Manchester City’s appeal and rules that their two-year ban from the Champions League for committing ‘serious breaches’ of UEFA’s club licensing and Financial Fair Play regulations should stand, it will be hard to argue that they do not deserve their punishment. If the charges are upheld, it will mean City were playing by one set of rules while most of their competitors were at a disadvantage. But there is a more important issue to consider, too. Because the FFP rules are warped. They are twisted so that they can rescue clubs such as Manchester United and AC Milan from the self-inflicted mediocrity that serial mismanagement has plunged them into.
Manchester City deserve their punishment but are also the victim of an unfair set of rules. By linking spending to revenue, they are twisted to prevent the upward mobility of clubs such as City and of any club who try to force their way into the traditional elite. Friday’s punishment of City is a classic case of how the elite make sure their cosy club remains a closed shop. The insulting part — the funny part — is the lie that FFP is designed to improve the overall financial health of European football. If UEFA wanted to do that — if they really cared about other clubs — they would introduce a salary cap and a revenue-sharing system similar to the ones that operate in American team sports. But the top clubs are too greedy to entertain that. So they won’t. It is an awful lot easier to penalise ambitious, well-run clubs such as Manchester City instead and pretend it is for the good of all when, in fact, it is just a ruse to help the rich get richer.