Exclusive: Mata sale potentially part of wider Chelsea strategy – FFP Expert

The Juan Mata transfer looks set to be the biggest of the entire January transfer window; the thought that Chelsea would seek to help strengthen a direct title rival in Manchester United struck many as bizarrely short-sighted, even when factoring in the hefty £37.1m fee received for his services.

However, there may be other factors at work buried just beneath the surface, namely the Financial Fair Play (FFP) implications that are little understood by the most, but have become an absolutely integral part of how an elite football club plans its long-term business operations.

In an attempt to try and get to the bottom of the thought process behind Mata’s big-money move to Manchester, we caught up with FFP expert Daniel Geey to see whether Jose Mourinho has become as much of an accountant now as he has a football manager.

Did Chelsea sell Juan Mata to Manchester United in order to meet their FFP commitments?

Daniel Geey: Chelsea and all other clubs that are competing in UEFA competition this season will soon be assessed by UEFA’s Club Financial Control Body (CFCB). This will be based on each club’s 11-12 and 12-13 accounts. This means that the Mata transfer will not be relevant for this first monitoring period for both Manchester United and Chelsea. It will be relevant for the second monitoring period which will include this current accounting period (i.e. the 13-14 season) when the transfer took place. It means that Chelsea may have been concerned for the second monitoring period that they had a specific sum of money they could spend and recouping a significant amount through the Mata sale was part of a wider FFP compliance strategy.

Jose Mourinho seemed extremely aware of the need to balance the books this month, do managers have to be more mindful of the financial implications of their transfer dealings now than before?

DG: Most managers will have become aware of the UEFA, Premier League and Football League spending restrictions which have all entered into force in the last few years. As such, when setting budgets on a yearly basis and planning transfer strategy, FFP has become an increasingly important part of this process. Like any manager, Mourinho will have been given a certain amount of money to spend and would have identified players to strengthen particular areas of his team. That budget will have been calculated in part based on FFP compliance projections. If Mourinho wished to spend over the amount provided to him by the club, logic dictates that player sales would be needed.

What is the exact process a club has to consider and carry out when looking at a potential deal?

DG: When a player is purchased, his cost is capitalised on the balance sheet and is written-down (amortised) over the length of his contract. The amortisation of the transfer fee lasts for the length of the contract and will be included in calculating a club’s FFP break-even position. For example, a player signs in January 2014 for a transfer fee of £40 million on a 5 year deal. The transfer fee in the club’s accounts will show the amortised amount of £8 million (£40m divided by the 5 year contract) each year for 5 years. Therefore in Manchester United’s 13-14 accounts, they will have an additional £8m of transfer amortisation costs due to the Mata purchase.