Right, found some time. The stated objective of the regulations is re-balancing competition and enhancing long term financial stability. Their main vehicle to achieve these objectives is through the 'break-even requirement', which places limits on debt and restricts the influence private investors and patrons can have on the financial position of clubs. IMO, the break-even requirement is not sufficient to restore the competitive balance. Success breeds success. Clubs already successful are at a huge competitive advantage when it comes to possibility of future success because they have benefited from investing in better playing and managerial staff and infrastructure brought about by their previous success - whether brought about organically (Man United) or fast-tracked by a wealthy benefactor (Chelsea). To avoid the unchallenged dominance of a few clubs, an additional redistribution of income is needed. Then a question arises how to redistribute this income - which is difficult in open ended competitive leagues (i.e those where there are no fixed, distinct boundaries that cannot be breached; thus those that employ a promotion/relegation system, those that do not restrict entry of clubs based on geography, etc ... thus basically every domestic European league). I guess the outcome of what I'm saying is that to me the regulations will have the effect of maintaining the status quo - preventing another 'nouveau riche' scenario of Chelsea or Manchester City. It will become nigh on impossible for another 'have not' club to contest consistently for honours and even if some club manages to do so, they'll be an exception to the rule. I think the intentions are noble but in its present form they could end up having the opposite effect of that desired; indeed there is a possiblity of UEFA being sued for anti-competitive measures like restricting the free movement of capital and labour. In terms of loopholes, UEFA are alive to some of the ones that can be exploited - and you'd think they'd keep updating their requirements as more and more such get arounds come to their notice - for example PSG and City got into trouble recently because UEFA had already anticipated clubs trying to get around the regulations by artificially inflating revenues through the use of related parties. It is true though that there is enough leeway (acceptable loss deviations, phased implementation) that most clubs will fall into compliance. You can't expect UEFA to be extremely stringent - these very clubs are what gets them their moolah. Ultimately what will decide the success of the regulations is whether UEFA's bite matches their bark. I'm not entirely convinced. I've always had a soft spot for Germany. But this time I'm also looking forward to see how Belgium and Brazil get on. The beautiful thing about the World Cup for someone like me is that it allows me to be neutral and non-partisan; so I'm justing hoping for good, watchable football. Most underrated player in the world? I don't know. But I always thought Park Ji Sung and Dirk Kuyt were better players than they were given credit for. College major? Are those American terms? I'm unfamiliar with them. In India 'college' years last for 5-6 years after school (upto 10th grade). In college the 3 main streams available are commerce, science and arts. I pursued commerce and graduated with a 'Bachelor in Commerce' degree a few years back. I'm currently pursuing the professional qualification of Chartered Accountancy. Oh yes, I was fanatical about cricket. I come from a part of India where cricket is the alpha and omega of sports. Football is more popular in the eastern and north-eastern parts of the country and the coastal south western states of Goa and Kerala. For most of my childhood, just like every other 'regular' boy my age, all I wanted to do was play cricket with my mates once I got home from school. My football exposure in those times was limited to watching the World Cup every 4 years. I distinctly remember the 2002 edition, for example. Particularly one of the earlier games - Germany vs Saudi Arabia where they scored 8 and Klose did those backflip celebrations. I got interested in club football - and this is slightly embarrassing to admit - through a video game called New Star Soccer 3. I chose a career at Chelsea in that game (blue is my favourite colour and I liked the name of the club ) and started looking up the actual players. Frank Lampard caught my attention and I decided to follow England in the 2006 World Cup. The interest in football coincided with my decline in interest in cricket and for a couple of years I'd keep up with Chelsea's results without any deep emotional investment. I began to consider myself a fan after one of the games in the 07-08 season (vs Arsenal at home; Drogba came on as a substitute and scored 2, we won 2-1) when I realised that Chelsea's performances and results actually have an impact on my day. I still follow cricket to this day but not with as much fervour as I used to. I love test cricket in particular. My username is the nickname of my favourite cricketer growing up - a Sri Lankan batsmen called Aravinda de Silva. You have to understand that generally, Indians (when I say that, I mean rural Indians - close to 70% of the population still lives in rural areas) are a deeply conservative people at heart. Their generational nurturing is steeped in traditions, thoughts, ideas and practices that go back thousands of years. This makes it difficult to accept and embrace change; it's a time consuming process. When you couple that mentality with the ignorance and insularity that results from a lack of education, these attitudes develop. I'm not excusing their behaviour, just trying to tell you why they may do what they do. In terms of your question about discrimination against the HIV-inflicted, yes it's a reality. For reasons mentioned above and also for the reason that knowledge about public health issues, about sanitation, about modern medicine is minimal among a large section of the society. For example, some believe that homosexuality is a disease, that it's a result of increasing western influence and that it's disease that's been imported here from outside. Ignorance and the resulting prejudice, as you can see. My attitude is that discrimination of any kind is wrong. About women - the situation is terrible and very disconcerting. The social structure here is patriarchal and the attitudes towards women's rights and their empowerment are backward and borne out of this social structure. Sexual frustration caused by deep-rooted conservatism is also a huge problem that's giving rise to more and more sexual crimes against women. Rape, female foeticide, infanticide, acid attacks, workplace harassment etc are common (if not rampant) - whether in the cities or in the villages. Put it this way - if I had daughters, I wouldn't want to raise them here.
