Maybe the point being made by av1 is that FFP has absolutely nothing to do with the amount of money that Arsenal get for shirt sponsoring from Puma.
FFP has its faults, though not as many as people allege, IMO. But Arsenal's deal will reflect their long record of finishing in the top 4 and thus being in the Champions league, getting worldwide coverage, 60K gates and having built up a huge fanbase and so on.
Arsenal anyway run their club in such a way as to not be affected by FFP in terms of it making them chave to change their business plan.
would they be getting a deal that big if it wasnt for FFP? i would argue that the deal is largely down to market values, say for example liverpool and their deal with warrior, which is inflated due the owner have ties with the brand, man city and their deal with etihad, PSG and their deal with emirates, barca and their intel deal, utd with dhl.... would the deals be this high if it wasnt for FFP? personally i doubt it
then as I and Rovers were alluding to the knock on effect is that forget that we cant compete with arsenal financially, we aren't allowed to compete with arsenal financially even if randy started feeling generous again
fans of FFP will no doubt say we should copy arsenal's business model and get smarter off the pitch, when we do, and we sign our £30m a year shirt deal, how much do you think arsenal's will be worth? deals like this just highlight for me what a terrible rule it is
Why would a company, completely unaffiliated with the club (before the deal obviously) pay way way more for their sponsorship deal just because of FFP?
If Man City start getting the scoreboard sponsored by the chairman's dad for £100 million a season then the weaknesses of FFP come into play.
But I don't see why Puma would give a shit about FFP to be honest. It doesn't affect them.