Isn't it only shifty cunts that have the necessary sort of money?
It's a system set up to fail.
-
I recently read that Baseball (?) requires owners to put funds in escrow to cover the contractual liabilities they sign up to. That sort of thing could put a stop to owners who want to spend recklessly but don’t have the will/pockets to keep up when the intended riches don’t materialize.
-
The downside I suppose would be Newcastle and City being miles ahead of everyone else.
I cant see any other effective solution if we want a fair competition, than a fixed salary cap. But then the risk is that the prem wouldn't be the rights cash cow any more, or maybe the money is such now that it could be self sustainable?
-
Newcastle and City are miles ahead of everyone else.
-
You can keep spending limits in place if you want. It’s still the case that clubs will be limited by the ability of their owners to fund the escrow.. but it would generally ‘only’ amount to a few years of anticipated cash shortfall. The bigger issue is, perhaps, what to do about clubs where the economics is based on revenues which could, of course, take a dive. Do the owners of ManYoo have to have funds set aside to cover if they get relegated? Can you demand that the owner of Forest does if they don’t? Or do you just accept that if a club is relegated there is going to be an insufficient backup (which is the case as it stands, of course).
A salary cap needs to be, at least, continental. For elite level, anyway. But even at that, the powers might be too worried about Saudi-types. Currently, serious players want to play in Europe.. but the bigger the money gap, the bigger the risk. Just ask the PGA.
Is there a single example of a salary capped league, in any sport, that successfully competes with comparable uncapped leagues?
Forest, of course, would be under any realistic PL cap.. and we are both in breach of sustainability rules and entirely fucked if we go down or the owner fucks off.
-
No way the current EPL clubs would agree to a salary cap.
And if the new regulator (let's not forget the EPL is imposing/acting on these rules in a bid to limit the regulator's power) tries to enforce it, the clubs would just quit for the European Super League.
No matter what the regulator may impose, there are ways around it (eg Ineos/Glazers sell MUFC's assets/player registrations to a new "Manchester Red Devils" club set up purely to play in the ESL - It would upset the UK-based fans, but not the global brand who only watch the club on TV. And if the regulator tries to stop it, move the club to Dublin) -
Every American PL owners wet dream is a closed Euro league with a salary cap. If they’d got that league running, you can bet your ass a salary cap would have followed. But in that scenario it would be high enough that there wouldn’t ever be a threat from Saudi or China (etc).
Hedge-fund yanks are not in this to watch the workers capturing all the value.
-
I think the Saudi/other ships have sailed from a football perspective. With NFL/NBA (possibly MLB) there isn’t enough interest elsewhere to challenge the hegemony (at least, not right now) so they can get away with a closed league and a salary cap. However football (soccer) is a much more global product so whatever cap they would propose would be eclipsed by Saudi interests. See LIV golf for more details. 5 years ago, there was no way the US PGA Tour would have dreamt of haemorrhaging some of the works best players for such eye-watering amounts.
-
I don’t see a Saudi-like league trumping a league with all the European giants. A salary cap would be at a very high level (far higher than any of the domestic leagues could set) and whilst a petro-state might be able to pay more, the total cost would be astronomical because there’s a huge difference between throwing comedy money at a few superstars and outbidding clubs for entire squads of players… which is what you have to do if you want a commercial proposition. I know they overpay for their sportswashing.. but there are limits. LIV isn’t really a comparison because only a relative handful of people got big bucks, the marketing proposition for a bunch of golf stars playing a tournament is very different to a football league full of clubs with no history. The majors were always irreplaceable as the pinnacle of golf, and LIV didn’t try and mess with that.. ManYoo vs Real Madrid and Inter vs Bayern (etc) ain’t ever getting replaced by Al-Wotsit vs Al-Thingy.
The current Saudi experiment looks like it’s falling apart already. Like China before it. Saudi can no more buy a premier football league than it could buy a premier Baseball league.
Tour golf is about the players. You can buy a bunch of those. Football is about the clubs.
-
They are also buying those to hedge their bets.
-
A functional playing field leveling salary cap is never going to be on the agenda for the 'ship. It's cute and naive that anyone might think that such notions have any place in the real world.
The 'ship was created specifically to provide a funding advantage to the elite clubs. The spending of Chelski was specifically intended to financially dope the market, to exclude other participants and gain a market position that was not merited for the 'historic' club. The spending of manshitty was specifically intended to financially dope the market, to exclude other participants and gain a market position that was not merited for the 'historic' club. Profit and sustainability was intentionally brought in to prevent new market entrants from financially doping the market to achieve a new market position, and to ensure sustainable profits for the owners of the financially better positioned clubs - those with both 'historic' and financially doped market positions. The idea is to have established clubs with more earnings than the rest, maintain their financial position, by keeping them able to buy the best talent, without making it a free for all and allowing other market entrants to compete.
This allows them to bully the lower earning clubs and leagues, and dominate the sporting arena and maximise earnings - sporting and commercial. All of the moves that you see in global football development are other market participants trying to get an increased share of the pot, or get into the circle that the rules, competitions, and governance protect (the historic european clubs, the billionaire owned english clubs, the expansion of international comps).
If our experience of the world over the course of our lifetime has taught us anything, it's that financial power is used to accumulate community assets, exploit the earning power of those by pushing up the costs for all concerned, and concentrating the wealth and benefit in as narrow a group as possible.
As I have been explaining for some time now. We are ra-ra-ra-ing for a financial heirachy, for which in this particular case a spin off is the occasional outbreak of a decent football game...hopefully with a limited number of nasty upsets.
-
Even a salary cap based on turnover? Which similarly entrenches the currently rich.
-
I was just in the process of amending my post. See above.
-
Does the English Super League have a salary cap? If so, the NRL. The NRL also indirectly competes with rugby union, albeit they are a distant fourth in the battle between football codes in Australia.
-
England's rugby union top league has a cap. Two teams went into administration last year. The French leagues mostly hump us. Our top internationals are moving to France for more money so can't play for England. Salary caps don't appear to work on any level in multi national sports.
-
Stags’ home game is off tonight. Pitch is frozz.
Snow!
