There was this quote from Wenger on the other thread about how the FFP will supposedly make things more interesting:
However, the FFP rules will probably ossify the football hierarchy, as Stefan Szymanski, a well known sports economist has said:"When you look at the history of England, there are Nottingham Forest, Aston Villa and Derby County who have all won championships.
"If that is possible again it will be even more interesting."
http://www.playthegame.org/fileadmin..._Szymanski.pdf
He also makes a good point questioning the criticism of the so called "fat cats" and "oil sheikhs" that some people love to revel in. Wenger is being disingenuous by claiming the FFP will enhance competition, when it seems to be more likely that it will simply strangle competition. You won't get the likes of Villa, Forest and County being competitive again because the only way they can is through investment from an owner, i.e. non football income. However, the new rules makes it much more difficult for owners to takeover clubs and finance losses through this "non football income" because of the demand to live within your own revenues, and the result will invariably be that the top clubs can cement their position at the top, while those not within the elite will find it very hard to achieve anything beyond mid-table mediocrity or avoiding relegation.Significant risk that the dominance of the strong clubs will be enhanced, while the financial instability of lower divisions is not addressed
So perhaps we shouldn't see the FFP as a panacea. Although on the other hand, it does help us because it makes it unlikely that clubs like Villa, Everton, etc can ever begin challenging for a champions league spot, therefore reducing competition. However, let's be honest that our demand for a strong enforcement of FFP is due to selfish reasons, rather than a concern for the welfare of football as a whole.