I understand your point and do have some sympathy with what you say, but my view is that unless any cap was European wide, it would lead to the very top players going to Spain/Italy when they leave their own Leagues, and therefore dilute the EPL's worldwide appeal.
I am not sure what the answer is but a salary cap isn't it. It harks back to the early 20th century and I am sure that horse has long since bolted.
Brilliant article Faith, 5 stars
A salary cap is pretty capitalist. You are essentially forcing money out of the employees pocket and into the pockets of the billionaire owners who can play the top players less and pocket the difference.
Yes I agree there are obvious difficulties.
But the solution is clearly to cut costs, not increase revenues.
An even more ideal situation would be to see a few of these clubs go bust. Especially Real Madrid. Might make the other owners think twice about offering wages the club cannot cover with the huge revenue available to them. It’s just stupidity. And instead of taking responsibility and accepting the consequences, like we had to! They are moving the goal posts to save their own backsides
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 1 minute ago
A salary cap is pretty capitalist. You are essentially forcing money out of the employees pocket and into the pockets of the billionaire owners who can play the top players less and pocket the difference.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That is true. And a very good point. So maybe salary cap isn’t the answer. But lower salaries/expenditure is the solution.
comment by HaveFaithInLeeds (U8688)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 1 minute ago
A salary cap is pretty capitalist. You are essentially forcing money out of the employees pocket and into the pockets of the billionaire owners who can play the top players less and pocket the difference.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That is true. And a very good point. So maybe salary cap isn’t the answer. But lower salaries/expenditure is the solution.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There are a number of issues surely, owners like the Sheikh Mansour have inflated the market so they can pay what they like to get and keep players. It is an uneven playing field. Secondly, there are players that inflate the market for all.
What is needed is the owners of the mega rich clubs to realise that paying over the market value in salaries and in transfers is bad for all of the game.
Take the Vultures away and that'd give clubs a little more say when bargaining!..
Why should people get megabucks for getting a contract for players?..
And those megabucks a lot of time are per player!..
Agents are a problem and they drive prices way to high, but try explaining to the top players they're part of the problem, they'll disagree!..
I think the EPL clubs should do more to support lower league clubs. Like a cut of profits goes to lower league teams or something.
Sky pay astronomical amounts to the EPL teams but lower league clubs get hardly anything. Remember us in the Championship? All the games on Sky and never got a decent cut.
Im not sure about a salary cap as it would be difficult to inforce and would need to be Worldwide or the players would just leave. The top players playing in the Premier league is what makes it exciting.
Comment deleted by Article Creator
comment by HaveFaithInLeeds (U8688)
posted 35 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 1 minute ago
A salary cap is pretty capitalist. You are essentially forcing money out of the employees pocket and into the pockets of the billionaire owners who can play the top players less and pocket the difference.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That is true. And a very good point. So maybe salary cap isn’t the answer. But lower salaries/expenditure is the solution.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What if further measures are put on to limit income once finances are under control?
Such as UEFA making sure that X % of games are shown on free to air tv. The excess profits are then reduced in favour of giving the fans a better product.
comment by Outwood White (U9610)
posted 2 minutes ago
I think the EPL clubs should do more to support lower league clubs. Like a cut of profits goes to lower league teams or something.
Sky pay astronomical amounts to the EPL teams but lower league clubs get hardly anything. Remember us in the Championship? All the games on Sky and never got a decent cut.
Im not sure about a salary cap as it would be difficult to inforce and would need to be Worldwide or the players would just leave. The top players playing in the Premier league is what makes it exciting.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah I agree, if a salary cap is the answer it would have to be worldwide, otherwise as mention in OP China would just take all the players.
Also agree that if we can reduce wages, which is 100% down to stupid owners, then we can start directing the wealth so much better. And lower leagues, to grass roots should of course benefit.
If you could salary cap the owners as well as the players and managers and create a maximum ceiling transfer fee of say 70 million Euros then it would be a much more level playing field and significantly reduce the chances of clubs going bankrupt.
comment by Macca: Emily Bishop's love child (U8194)
posted 1 hour, 27 minutes ago
If you could salary cap the owners as well as the players and managers and create a maximum ceiling transfer fee of say 70 million Euros then it would be a much more level playing field and significantly reduce the chances of clubs going bankrupt.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah but then you'd have the "big" sides having to actually compete for success. A thoroughly outrageous suggestion.
comment by VOF - Its all about believing .... (U17124)
posted 59 seconds ago
comment by Macca: Emily Bishop's love child (U8194)
posted 1 hour, 27 minutes ago
If you could salary cap the owners as well as the players and managers and create a maximum ceiling transfer fee of say 70 million Euros then it would be a much more level playing field and significantly reduce the chances of clubs going bankrupt.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah but then you'd have the "big" sides having to actually compete for success. A thoroughly outrageous suggestion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And that's the true biggest hurdle in the way of actually reducing the wages.
That's the irony. These owners complaining most about the finances are the very same people refusing to allow an adjustment of players wages because they would rather see the clubs go bust than lose their competitive advantage.
Many other hurdles in the way don't get me wrong. But these idiots are by far the biggest
Any changes have to be global, so no club/team can gain an unfair advantage. No point enforcing caps/changes in England/Europe etc ... if a club anywhere else can just tempt players with a bigger ransom. Maybe a salary budget per squad, the registered and declared squad of X number of players maybe? So you can have a Messi/Ronaldo type taking 25% of your budget, but the other 75% needs to be spread across the rest. Just me thinking out loud, i'm sure it's a concept with big holes in it ...
I know most will be looking forward to getting back in stadiums, but now people are use to it maybe they should stay away, at least until football realizes somethings wrong!..
And if people could go without TV they could say I'm out of here until the prices are a little more affordable!..
That way both sides of the grab can see enough is enough!..
"Any changes have to be global, so no club/team can gain an unfair advantage."
That's an odd one, because German football is much cheaper than English, and I think Sky and co are as well!..
comment by VOF - Its all about believing .... (U17124)
posted 3 minutes ago
Any changes have to be global, so no club/team can gain an unfair advantage. No point enforcing caps/changes in England/Europe etc ... if a club anywhere else can just tempt players with a bigger ransom. Maybe a salary budget per squad, the registered and declared squad of X number of players maybe? So you can have a Messi/Ronaldo type taking 25% of your budget, but the other 75% needs to be spread across the rest. Just me thinking out loud, i'm sure it's a concept with big holes in it ...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Huge holes in it!
But just because a few lads can't solve all the issues on a Thursday morning on JA606 doesn't mean it can't be resolved.
Give me a budget of a few million and 12 months and I might be able to get pretty close though.
One such hole is to make sure that the parents of players don't end up being hired as admin staff for £25k/week. I know rugby league has a reputation for finding ways round the salary cap. But like I said, give me a few million and I will see what I can come up with.
Never said it was perfect .......
Typed in between writing a guide at work ....
I was thinking along the lines of the RL model though.
Do you know what might be alternative idea?
This is a 30 second thought so don't be surprised if it doesn't work.
But think about it from the opposite angle. Why not put rules on borrowing. Ban borrowing from banks/lenders unless for specific exceptions (eg. ground improvements, unforeseen circumstances like a pandamic)
And if money is to be invested by owners it cannot be provided as a loan and cannot be returned.
Will clearly need a lot more thought but is an attempt to force clubs to restrict clubs ability to spend more on wages than they have coming in. And ensure owners cannot rack up debt against the club.
comment by HaveFaithInLeeds (U8688)
posted 44 minutes ago
Do you know what might be alternative idea?
This is a 30 second thought so don't be surprised if it doesn't work.
But think about it from the opposite angle. Why not put rules on borrowing. Ban borrowing from banks/lenders unless for specific exceptions (eg. ground improvements, unforeseen circumstances like a pandamic)
And if money is to be invested by owners it cannot be provided as a loan and cannot be returned.
Will clearly need a lot more thought but is an attempt to force clubs to restrict clubs ability to spend more on wages than they have coming in. And ensure owners cannot rack up debt against the club.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It depends. If you applied this only to one type of business (eg football clubs) and not other types of businesses then I would imagine it would be challenged as unfair pretty quickly.
Similarly, for the purpose of contract law, registered businesses are classed as a person, the same as you or I. If they want to ask the bank for a mortgage or a loan they have the same rights as you or I.
If reports are to be believed then Man U pushed ahead with this ESL plan even though Fergie voted against it but was outnumbered in the boardroom.
So what if the football authorities made it law than any boardroon decision about the clubs wage structure signings, takeover, breakaway league etc had to be voted for by every board member for it to be sanctioned and the boardroom had to include a supporters club rep that had a vote too which gives a little more insurance against crazy decisions being made.
A Spurs and Arsenal supporters rep I do not think would have voted to leave their original grounds if they were aware of the debt the club would be getting into.
Spurs debt is 1.1billion. What a Kamikaze decision to get that much into debt just to say they have a bigger capacity than Arsenal.
Even Man Utd's so called serviceable debt of 700million would not have had a unanimous boardroom vote to sanction the Glaziers takeover.
West Ham would not have got a fan rep to vote for leaving Upton Park for the soulless London Stadium.
I'm sure someone will find a hole in this idea but to me this would stop owners from betraying the fans for their own personal greed and ego.
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 39 minutes ago
comment by HaveFaithInLeeds (U8688)
posted 44 minutes ago
Do you know what might be alternative idea?
This is a 30 second thought so don't be surprised if it doesn't work.
But think about it from the opposite angle. Why not put rules on borrowing. Ban borrowing from banks/lenders unless for specific exceptions (eg. ground improvements, unforeseen circumstances like a pandamic)
And if money is to be invested by owners it cannot be provided as a loan and cannot be returned.
Will clearly need a lot more thought but is an attempt to force clubs to restrict clubs ability to spend more on wages than they have coming in. And ensure owners cannot rack up debt against the club.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It depends. If you applied this only to one type of business (eg football clubs) and not other types of businesses then I would imagine it would be challenged as unfair pretty quickly.
Similarly, for the purpose of contract law, registered businesses are classed as a person, the same as you or I. If they want to ask the bank for a mortgage or a loan they have the same rights as you or I.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Obviously I don’t know the legal position and this would not be a new uk law. This would be implemented by a football organisation as rules to access the competition.
Page 1 of 1
First
Previous
1
Next
Latest
Sign in if you want to comment
Bored of hearing that revenues need fixing
Page 1 of 1
posted on 22/4/21
I understand your point and do have some sympathy with what you say, but my view is that unless any cap was European wide, it would lead to the very top players going to Spain/Italy when they leave their own Leagues, and therefore dilute the EPL's worldwide appeal.
posted on 22/4/21
I am not sure what the answer is but a salary cap isn't it. It harks back to the early 20th century and I am sure that horse has long since bolted.
posted on 22/4/21
Brilliant article Faith, 5 stars
posted on 22/4/21
A salary cap is pretty capitalist. You are essentially forcing money out of the employees pocket and into the pockets of the billionaire owners who can play the top players less and pocket the difference.
posted on 22/4/21
Yes I agree there are obvious difficulties.
But the solution is clearly to cut costs, not increase revenues.
An even more ideal situation would be to see a few of these clubs go bust. Especially Real Madrid. Might make the other owners think twice about offering wages the club cannot cover with the huge revenue available to them. It’s just stupidity. And instead of taking responsibility and accepting the consequences, like we had to! They are moving the goal posts to save their own backsides
posted on 22/4/21
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 1 minute ago
A salary cap is pretty capitalist. You are essentially forcing money out of the employees pocket and into the pockets of the billionaire owners who can play the top players less and pocket the difference.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That is true. And a very good point. So maybe salary cap isn’t the answer. But lower salaries/expenditure is the solution.
posted on 22/4/21
comment by HaveFaithInLeeds (U8688)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 1 minute ago
A salary cap is pretty capitalist. You are essentially forcing money out of the employees pocket and into the pockets of the billionaire owners who can play the top players less and pocket the difference.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That is true. And a very good point. So maybe salary cap isn’t the answer. But lower salaries/expenditure is the solution.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There are a number of issues surely, owners like the Sheikh Mansour have inflated the market so they can pay what they like to get and keep players. It is an uneven playing field. Secondly, there are players that inflate the market for all.
What is needed is the owners of the mega rich clubs to realise that paying over the market value in salaries and in transfers is bad for all of the game.
posted on 22/4/21
Take the Vultures away and that'd give clubs a little more say when bargaining!..
Why should people get megabucks for getting a contract for players?..
And those megabucks a lot of time are per player!..
Agents are a problem and they drive prices way to high, but try explaining to the top players they're part of the problem, they'll disagree!..
posted on 22/4/21
I think the EPL clubs should do more to support lower league clubs. Like a cut of profits goes to lower league teams or something.
Sky pay astronomical amounts to the EPL teams but lower league clubs get hardly anything. Remember us in the Championship? All the games on Sky and never got a decent cut.
Im not sure about a salary cap as it would be difficult to inforce and would need to be Worldwide or the players would just leave. The top players playing in the Premier league is what makes it exciting.
posted on 22/4/21
Comment deleted by Article Creator
posted on 22/4/21
comment by HaveFaithInLeeds (U8688)
posted 35 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 1 minute ago
A salary cap is pretty capitalist. You are essentially forcing money out of the employees pocket and into the pockets of the billionaire owners who can play the top players less and pocket the difference.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That is true. And a very good point. So maybe salary cap isn’t the answer. But lower salaries/expenditure is the solution.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What if further measures are put on to limit income once finances are under control?
Such as UEFA making sure that X % of games are shown on free to air tv. The excess profits are then reduced in favour of giving the fans a better product.
posted on 22/4/21
comment by Outwood White (U9610)
posted 2 minutes ago
I think the EPL clubs should do more to support lower league clubs. Like a cut of profits goes to lower league teams or something.
Sky pay astronomical amounts to the EPL teams but lower league clubs get hardly anything. Remember us in the Championship? All the games on Sky and never got a decent cut.
Im not sure about a salary cap as it would be difficult to inforce and would need to be Worldwide or the players would just leave. The top players playing in the Premier league is what makes it exciting.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah I agree, if a salary cap is the answer it would have to be worldwide, otherwise as mention in OP China would just take all the players.
Also agree that if we can reduce wages, which is 100% down to stupid owners, then we can start directing the wealth so much better. And lower leagues, to grass roots should of course benefit.
posted on 22/4/21
If you could salary cap the owners as well as the players and managers and create a maximum ceiling transfer fee of say 70 million Euros then it would be a much more level playing field and significantly reduce the chances of clubs going bankrupt.
posted on 22/4/21
comment by Macca: Emily Bishop's love child (U8194)
posted 1 hour, 27 minutes ago
If you could salary cap the owners as well as the players and managers and create a maximum ceiling transfer fee of say 70 million Euros then it would be a much more level playing field and significantly reduce the chances of clubs going bankrupt.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah but then you'd have the "big" sides having to actually compete for success. A thoroughly outrageous suggestion.
posted on 22/4/21
comment by VOF - Its all about believing .... (U17124)
posted 59 seconds ago
comment by Macca: Emily Bishop's love child (U8194)
posted 1 hour, 27 minutes ago
If you could salary cap the owners as well as the players and managers and create a maximum ceiling transfer fee of say 70 million Euros then it would be a much more level playing field and significantly reduce the chances of clubs going bankrupt.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah but then you'd have the "big" sides having to actually compete for success. A thoroughly outrageous suggestion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And that's the true biggest hurdle in the way of actually reducing the wages.
That's the irony. These owners complaining most about the finances are the very same people refusing to allow an adjustment of players wages because they would rather see the clubs go bust than lose their competitive advantage.
Many other hurdles in the way don't get me wrong. But these idiots are by far the biggest
posted on 22/4/21
Any changes have to be global, so no club/team can gain an unfair advantage. No point enforcing caps/changes in England/Europe etc ... if a club anywhere else can just tempt players with a bigger ransom. Maybe a salary budget per squad, the registered and declared squad of X number of players maybe? So you can have a Messi/Ronaldo type taking 25% of your budget, but the other 75% needs to be spread across the rest. Just me thinking out loud, i'm sure it's a concept with big holes in it ...
posted on 22/4/21
I know most will be looking forward to getting back in stadiums, but now people are use to it maybe they should stay away, at least until football realizes somethings wrong!..
And if people could go without TV they could say I'm out of here until the prices are a little more affordable!..
That way both sides of the grab can see enough is enough!..
"Any changes have to be global, so no club/team can gain an unfair advantage."
That's an odd one, because German football is much cheaper than English, and I think Sky and co are as well!..
posted on 22/4/21
comment by VOF - Its all about believing .... (U17124)
posted 3 minutes ago
Any changes have to be global, so no club/team can gain an unfair advantage. No point enforcing caps/changes in England/Europe etc ... if a club anywhere else can just tempt players with a bigger ransom. Maybe a salary budget per squad, the registered and declared squad of X number of players maybe? So you can have a Messi/Ronaldo type taking 25% of your budget, but the other 75% needs to be spread across the rest. Just me thinking out loud, i'm sure it's a concept with big holes in it ...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Huge holes in it!
But just because a few lads can't solve all the issues on a Thursday morning on JA606 doesn't mean it can't be resolved.
Give me a budget of a few million and 12 months and I might be able to get pretty close though.
One such hole is to make sure that the parents of players don't end up being hired as admin staff for £25k/week. I know rugby league has a reputation for finding ways round the salary cap. But like I said, give me a few million and I will see what I can come up with.
posted on 22/4/21
Never said it was perfect .......
Typed in between writing a guide at work ....
I was thinking along the lines of the RL model though.
posted on 22/4/21
Do you know what might be alternative idea?
This is a 30 second thought so don't be surprised if it doesn't work.
But think about it from the opposite angle. Why not put rules on borrowing. Ban borrowing from banks/lenders unless for specific exceptions (eg. ground improvements, unforeseen circumstances like a pandamic)
And if money is to be invested by owners it cannot be provided as a loan and cannot be returned.
Will clearly need a lot more thought but is an attempt to force clubs to restrict clubs ability to spend more on wages than they have coming in. And ensure owners cannot rack up debt against the club.
posted on 22/4/21
comment by HaveFaithInLeeds (U8688)
posted 44 minutes ago
Do you know what might be alternative idea?
This is a 30 second thought so don't be surprised if it doesn't work.
But think about it from the opposite angle. Why not put rules on borrowing. Ban borrowing from banks/lenders unless for specific exceptions (eg. ground improvements, unforeseen circumstances like a pandamic)
And if money is to be invested by owners it cannot be provided as a loan and cannot be returned.
Will clearly need a lot more thought but is an attempt to force clubs to restrict clubs ability to spend more on wages than they have coming in. And ensure owners cannot rack up debt against the club.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It depends. If you applied this only to one type of business (eg football clubs) and not other types of businesses then I would imagine it would be challenged as unfair pretty quickly.
Similarly, for the purpose of contract law, registered businesses are classed as a person, the same as you or I. If they want to ask the bank for a mortgage or a loan they have the same rights as you or I.
posted on 22/4/21
If reports are to be believed then Man U pushed ahead with this ESL plan even though Fergie voted against it but was outnumbered in the boardroom.
So what if the football authorities made it law than any boardroon decision about the clubs wage structure signings, takeover, breakaway league etc had to be voted for by every board member for it to be sanctioned and the boardroom had to include a supporters club rep that had a vote too which gives a little more insurance against crazy decisions being made.
A Spurs and Arsenal supporters rep I do not think would have voted to leave their original grounds if they were aware of the debt the club would be getting into.
Spurs debt is 1.1billion. What a Kamikaze decision to get that much into debt just to say they have a bigger capacity than Arsenal.
Even Man Utd's so called serviceable debt of 700million would not have had a unanimous boardroom vote to sanction the Glaziers takeover.
West Ham would not have got a fan rep to vote for leaving Upton Park for the soulless London Stadium.
I'm sure someone will find a hole in this idea but to me this would stop owners from betraying the fans for their own personal greed and ego.
posted on 22/4/21
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 39 minutes ago
comment by HaveFaithInLeeds (U8688)
posted 44 minutes ago
Do you know what might be alternative idea?
This is a 30 second thought so don't be surprised if it doesn't work.
But think about it from the opposite angle. Why not put rules on borrowing. Ban borrowing from banks/lenders unless for specific exceptions (eg. ground improvements, unforeseen circumstances like a pandamic)
And if money is to be invested by owners it cannot be provided as a loan and cannot be returned.
Will clearly need a lot more thought but is an attempt to force clubs to restrict clubs ability to spend more on wages than they have coming in. And ensure owners cannot rack up debt against the club.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It depends. If you applied this only to one type of business (eg football clubs) and not other types of businesses then I would imagine it would be challenged as unfair pretty quickly.
Similarly, for the purpose of contract law, registered businesses are classed as a person, the same as you or I. If they want to ask the bank for a mortgage or a loan they have the same rights as you or I.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Obviously I don’t know the legal position and this would not be a new uk law. This would be implemented by a football organisation as rules to access the competition.
Page 1 of 1