Salary cap

[Clutton Caveman]

Why dont we cap the number of organisations we have to pay to watch a decent percentage of games each week, then cap the amount each can charge their customers based on the number of games they offer.

The effect would soon filter down and the crazy difference between Prem and Championship income would reduce

We would all spend a lot less money on subscriptions each month and instead spend this elsewhere to boost the economy

[Mr Popodopolous]

9 hours ago, Tinmans Love Child said:

I like the idea of an overall cap on what a club can spend on player wages, rather than on an individual basis, so if you choose to blow your budget on one player getting say £200k a week, and that means the rest of the squad ‘only’ gets £10k per week, then that’s up to you.
 

The overall cap can be a % of income which means as a minimum the club should at least break even, this is to ensure the stability of the club.  This still means the bigger clubs have more cash (which they always have had anyway) but it would mean that the best players get shared around as they can’t all get the big wages in one place, which levels the playing field.  Don’t they do a similar thing in rugby where there is a cap but you can have one or two players who can earn way more?

I think they have one or two 'marquee' players in rugby at any given club who are outside the cap then beyond that a total cap and all in the squad have to fit with this.

[Mr Popodopolous]

45 minutes ago, Clutton Caveman said:

Why dont we cap the number of organisations we have to pay to watch a decent percentage of games each week, then cap the amount each can charge their customers based on the number of games they offer.

The effect would soon filter down and the crazy difference between Prem and Championship income would reduce

We would all spend a lot less money on subscriptions each month and instead spend this elsewhere to boost the economy

Market economy, competition?

Are monopolies a good thing? Could always make exemptions for sport of course but unsure if a monopoly is a positive.

[Mr Popodopolous]

2 hours ago, CHIPLEY RED said:

In theory FFP is an attempt at salary cap because it limits a clubs expenditure based on the clubs income but we all know there are ways around it and unlike rugby the authorities will not act against the big clubs.

I think it can depend on who is in charge of the authorities at a given time. Can play a role anyway.

UEFA seem quite keen to nail Man City under this leadership, whereas before they didn't.

Likewise the EFL under Parry and to an extent this was true under Jevans as well, l seem a lot tougher than they were under Harvey. Including and especially with respect to 'big' players. See Derby and Sheffield Wednesday as examples.

The EFL in general seem very tough under Parry. The number of clubs they've charged or pulled into misconduct hearings this season.

It shouldn't really make a big difference based on who is in charge, but in reality it definitely seems to.

[Mr Popodopolous]

3 hours ago, 054123 said:

Again does that matter?

Maybe we’re talking at cross purposes, but I really couldn’t care if Barcelona could pay Mo Salah triple what Liverpool could what does it matter? All that matters is the league you compete in.

We had this before with a salary cap and Italian clubs paying vast amounts more, it didn’t detract from the spectacle of supporting football. Attendances didn’t drop.

In parts of the late 1970s to mid 1980s, attendances certainly did drop.

However that had nothing really to do with lack of high salaries or international players. Mainly a perfect storm of reasons.

Hooliganism, risk or perception will have out a proportion off, fences at grounds can't have helped, some really were decaying by this point, rising unemployment in the country and especially certain regions...all played a real role in attendance falls.

Nothing really to do with foreign players or wages or lack of but things did combine for a fall.

[Robin101]

I think it does matter if the quality of players/football in our top league suffers. 
 

If Spain, for example, became the centre of top level football with all the worlds top players then, given the domination of the internet, it wouldn’t be hard for people to watch these players play. TV deals for English networks would surely follow, and suddenly you’d have kids wearing Real Madrid shirts instead of Liverpool ones.

You might think ‘who cares’, but I think attendances at games around the country would fall and clubs would go bust. Think about it, if the prem becomes championship quality we’ll have to return to watching league one standard of football in the championship!

Given that the Premier League appears to be the UK’s greatest export these days I don’t think they’ll be tinkering with it anytime soon I’m afraid.

[lkntrkljbflrbh3eljth]

The thing about salary caps is that they work really well in closed-shop leagues where you have a regular supply of fresh talent and not much competition from abroad for players. But they don't work in a system with promotion and relegation. If we're talking about capping total team salaries, either you have a different cap for each league in a system (which massively disadvantages promoted clubs and causes issues when teams are relegated too), you have a set cap for all levels (which would be far too high for 90% of clubs to even notice it and would hence not prevent overspending), or you tie the cap to team revenue (which is basically FFP). Each one of those options comes with pretty clear disadvantages. There are also issues regarding enforcement - for example, should youth team salaries be counted against the cap or not - which almost all leagues that have salary caps (aside from perhaps rugby and cricket leagues) do not have to consider.

If we talk instead about capping individual player earnings, that simply reinforces the current status quo. In the NBA, where individual player salaries are capped, players simply gravitate to teams where other stars are playing, teams which have a history of winning, or teams based in cities that are nice to live in (usually some combination of all of the above). Teams from smaller markets can usually compete for a while (because the league further limits the movement and salaries of recently drafted players in a way which would be completely illegal under EU law) but then find they cannot offer enough money to tempt their best players to stay in town when a team from LA or Miami comes calling offering the same salary but right next to the beach.

Also, unilaterally implementing a salary cap in England would risk the loss of a lot of players to foreign leagues not instituting salary caps, which could decrease the quality of the domestic game significantly. If a salary cap were imposed instead by FIFA or UEFA that causes a huge number of other questions. For example, what currency should the cap use? What do you do about the massive differences in national tax regimes? What's to stop a country from doing what Colombia did in the late 1940s and early 1950s and operating outside of FIFA jurisdiction in order to create a national super league?

As well as them being completely unworkable in practice, I don't like the idea of salary caps for another reason - that they tend to redirect money from the people who do all the work towards owners who are simply riding a wave and looking for a return on their investment. They want to compete without having to pay to do so. Salaries should be held in check by the prospect of going out of business (like in any other business) and not artificially limited.

[054123]

5 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

In parts of the late 1970s to mid 1980s, attendances certainly did drop.

However that had nothing really to do with lack of high salaries or international players. Mainly a perfect storm of reasons.

Hooliganism, risk or perception will have out a proportion off, fences at grounds can't have helped, some really were decaying by this point, rising unemployment in the country and especially certain regions...all played a real role in attendance falls.

Nothing really to do with foreign players or wages or lack of but things did combine for a fall.

I wonder what attendances across Europe were like at the time for comparison?

[Cowshed]

3 hours ago, 054123 said:

I wonder what attendances across Europe were like at the time for comparison?

It depends on what league you look at. In Italy the attendances are now lower than they were thirty years ago. Top level football in England, Germany and Spain are twenty thousand higher. 

EPL finance is significantly influenced  by having high numbers of foreign players. The product needs its foreign international stars. Its sold globally and teams reflect its global nature.  

With amazon etc wanting to broadcast the EPL the next tv deals will bring in ever more finance. Players wages will go up. 

[054123]

6 hours ago, Cowshed said:

It depends on what league you look at. In Italy the attendances are now lower than they were thirty years ago. Top level football in England, Germany and Spain are twenty thousand higher. 

EPL finance is significantly influenced  by having high numbers of foreign players. The product needs its foreign international stars. Its sold globally and teams reflect its global nature.  

With amazon etc wanting to broadcast the EPL the next tv deals will bring in ever more finance. Players wages will go up. 

So the question is then, ‘who needs who?’

I’m a firm believer that football came first. It wasn’t created for TV. It was created to be played and subsequently people enjoyed watching it.

The ridiculous situation described is that football needs expensive players, to make it popular on tv, to then draw massive tv revenue, purely to pay expensive players.

How silly is that? 

People would still tune in to watch the title run in or deciding game, regardless of who the actual players are, ergo you would still have a popular tv programme and therefor command high viewing rights fees.

Football has the advantage here. It will always be the most popular and passionately supported game in this country. If the sky money dwindled it would simply mean players are paid less.

People would still love and support their teams, just like they did before multi billion pound tv deals and £500k per week players.

 

[Cowshed]

27 minutes ago, 054123 said:

So the question is then, ‘who needs who?’

I’m a firm believer that football came first. It wasn’t created for TV. It was created to be played and subsequently people enjoyed watching it.

The ridiculous situation described is that football needs expensive players, to make it popular on tv, to then draw massive tv revenue, purely to pay expensive players.

How silly is that? 

People would still tune in to watch the title run in or deciding game, regardless of who the actual players are, ergo you would still have a popular tv programme and therefor command high viewing rights fees.

Football has the advantage here. It will always be the most popular and passionately supported game in this country. If the sky money dwindled it would simply mean players are paid less.

People would still love and support their teams, just like they did before multi billion pound tv deals and £500k per week players.

 

The EPL is its own entity. It exists for itself and has its own separate resources. Its not a ridiculous situation, it is a logical one where the EPL gravy train and astronomical success is fuelled by its cyclic purchasing global players for its global product. Filling teams with homegrown players who are developing or mediocre would harm its finances v other leagues (China) who are developing their product for the global market.

I’m a firm believer that football came first. It wasn’t created for TV. It was created to be played and subsequently people enjoyed watching it .. And it is evident that very few fans really care. Humble Bristol City play with no homegrown players in their XI. The team is filled with foreign players who are here because Bristol City of cash they would not get in their Country of origin. Bristol City could field eleven Eskimos and as long as it was relatively successful it would be accepted.

If the sky money dwindled it would simply mean players are paid less .. It would mean the game would have to be restructured if alternative funders were not found. The EPL exists because of TV money and one of the major incomes the FA has is money from TV and sponsorship. 

People would still love and support their teams, just like they did before multi billion pound tv deals and £500k per week player … Some would but go back to the days of seven and eight local  less expensive players even at City's level many peoples view will change. Fans now grow up and expect teams to be filled with foreign players.

I view football as a whole but understand it isn't. A hope for is that the EPL will share 5% of their income with the FA and that is used across grass roots football. The EPL with its foreign clubs, with foreign owners and players cannot even commit to that. The EPL is a free market existing in a free market.

[Sixtyseconds]

Salary caps ..

Football is sponsored by betting companies.

And clubs are owned by the type of people who live in super yachts and own Countries.

It ain't real.

Less … They will always want more toys for their clubs.

[Mr Popodopolous]

In terms of salary caps, the only way- and would either have to be agreed by clubs or enforced by a true external regulator.

@Sixtyseconds You say that about own countries, super yachts etc and I'd say Man City's owners fit that category- but UEFA appear to have got them in the end for FFP related offences. Though if it wasn't for Football Leaks, have to wonder if UEFA would've bothered- I've a feeling we all know the answer there? Maybe they (UEFA) were genuinely unaware pre Football Leaks?

What you need, say you have one at this level instead of FFP- you need a Saracens type punishment- points docked in a large number (they got 35 for the initial offence- in football terms that's 21), they got a further 35 (so up to 42 in football) as p[art of a settlement- to ensure their relegation, as they didn't wish to open their books further- that's the equivalent of a 63 point deduction in football!

Plus, a big fine- proportionate to the overspend or as a proportion of turnover- Saracens £5.6m may not be a lot in football terms but as a proportion of turnover it'd be markedly higher in cash than the one Saracens received.

From an article, a review into financial regs in rugby recommends the following- article likely lifted from various national sources but...

Combine these powers with a fearless, fairly incorruptible regulator and yes a salary cap would be quite enforceable in football.

This is rugby as I say but...to me, breach a salary cap and you get relegated. Doesn't matter where a club is in the League, they go down!

Plus potential for other penalties in addition, depending on the circumstances surrounding the breach.

That said, Saracens, felt like they were serial or regular offenders- certainly not their first anyway- I suppose the nature of the breach as opposed to merely the size of it or the breach itself also played a role in their landmark punishment.

Quote

Premiership clubs face being stripped of their titles for breaching salary cap regulations under increased powers recommended by an independent review.

The review, led by former government minister Lord Myners, proposes greater flexibility for a disciplinary panel, also including the ability to demand stiffer fines, a return of prize money, and potential suspensions.

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/sport/rugby/gallagher-premiership-could-introduce-tougher-4133693

[Hampshire reds]

with talk of a salary cap in the championship we should be in a good position. looking at the  youngsters we have coming through.  Walsh. Morrell. o'Leary vyner tayor moore. just to name a few. and i know there is more. The future looks very bright.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Update on salary cap stuff.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2020/06/13/exclusive-efl-will-invite-saracens-style-chaos-salary-caps-warns/

Gordon Taylor's not happy! However it seems first stage vote on salary caps is on Monday, in EFL.

It's quite simple Gordon- if clubs found in breach, and this can be analysed by external auditors plus Mr. Parry who is an accountant by trade, pretty sure he has done auditing, as well as of course head of PL, CEO at Liverpool and on UEFA's FFP committee...if wrongdoing is found and I believe with that team it would be, then a club gets relegated- or docked points, depending on severity, deceit levels etc. I'm inclined to say any club found in breach could have as a default punishment the Saracens treatment but I'm unsure.