They certainly seem very very limited, but I don't think you can fully compare football with general competition laws, as the teams agree to play by the rules when entering a tournament / league etc.
What UEFA can do is change the scopes of punishment and arguably the right to appeal.... Ultimately this will change the landscape dramatically and all of the below are on the table
1) Arms war between national states pretending to be football clubs
2) Uefa tightening regulations and reducing appeal rights (not sure if this can happen)
3) European superleague
4) Establishment clubs around Europe fighting more aggressively for TV rights on their own or bigger slices of the pie, particularly in the flatly distributed PL
In terms of "just smash it" hopefully we show real aggression
I'm a bit lost as to what points you're trying to make here. I can't stress this enough, but members clubs rules are not allowed to trump the laws of a country. I have said this from the outset. I said City would appeal, I said City would win, those who doubted it through these vague notions of "you have to sign up to the rules" back at me. Thats been proven wholly untrue. Think of it this way, South Africa used to have rules, they made everyone sign up to that were racist and therefore didn't feet the rules of countries. You can't do that.
Secondly, UEFA can't change the right to appeal in relation to CAS. CAS is a separate body. UEFA do not have it within their gambit to exert any influence of who can or can't go to CAS. Absolutely no control. They can make it harder to appeal internally, which would just make them more liable to be litigated against, and looked upon even less favourably in an impartial legal court. Any move to make it harder to appeal within UEFA will just make it even harder to have punishments upheld. If they are serious about revamping FFP, there will be some serious himble pie eaten, and a radical overhaulingof many of the key features (to penalising high wage bills, clubs who are in debt, and away from punishing certain clubs who acquire sponsorships).
As for the final 4 points.
1) I think this "arms race" comment is incendiary. We have always had an arms race in football. From the moment football was created it's been an arms race. Everton were invited into the football league partly because of an owner who had lots of money. Liverpool were then given preferential treatment, because the owner went on to form them. And so it went on.
My own view of this, is some clubs spend money, I'm in favour of legislation, but it's needs to be far simpler/understandable, and about trying to challenge rather then re-enforce the status quo (as all rules should be). However in general I'd rather have no legislation than bad legislation. All FFP has done is make football less competitive and a less interesting spectacle. So the arms race has already begun, and is in no small part down to FFP.
2) As indicated above, UEFA have no power to do this, and if the tried to would be counter sued for massive amounts money.
3) This European Super League gets bandied about a lot. I've written at great length on it before. To summarise; there is no real demand for it, if there was even a chance of a demand for it it would have occurred, given the budgets of most teams,it would be a flop and they would be bankrupt. Aside from that, I would love to see the justification from UEFA, who angered at changes they perceive against legislation as reducing inequality, their solution would be to create a European Super League.
4) People can ask for what they like. The unique aspect of the PL compared to other leagues is the competitive nature of it.We should be fighting to keep that, and re-enforce it. I mean it's not an argument that has anything to do with FFP. However if a side asks for more, I'd be in favour of expelling them. Their are certain clubs who extract far more than they put in already, and without the PL they would go bust. If they want to start demanding more, kick them out.