Revamp our game.

[TheBigIguana]

Only thing that levels the game out is salary caps.

That would need all of Europe to agree to it though.

Id love to see it myself, I’m old enough to remember John Barnes getting £10k a week off them lot and thinking that was incredible, unimaginable wealth.. our gash players get that now every bloody day !!

It's actually pretty straightforward if UEFA wants to do it. If they put a cap on European competitions then it would de facto apply to every league too as no team would go over to win the league and then not be able to play in Europe the following season.

 

[NilSatisOptimum]

Tracey Crouch MP will chair the review of football. Literally one of one handful of principled Tories left.

Has a habit of going against party and it's government in particular anything sport, from its weakness on betting to badger culling does resign too.

Hopefully her ill health (breast cancer), is kicked into touch.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/56852632

 

[number4.]

Only thing that levels the game out is salary caps.

That would need all of Europe to agree to it though.

Id love to see it myself, I’m old enough to remember John Barnes getting £10k a week off them lot and thinking that was incredible, unimaginable wealth.. our gash players get that now every bloody day !!

When you look at the mechanics of a salary cap it is very very messy.

If you do it as a % of turnover, you effectively lock in the top teams as they have the highest revenue.

if you do it as flat number, you are increasing the peril of relegation and no way the likes of Everton, LCFC, the six would put themselves in that position. Also, if it was flat you would still create a system where by half the clubs in the league would over spend to give themselves a chance of survival

 

[The binman chronicles]

When you look at the mechanics of a salary cap it is very very messy.

If you do it as a % of turnover, you effectively lock in the top teams as they have the highest revenue.

if you do it as flat number, you are increasing the peril of relegation and no way the likes of Everton, LCFC, the six would put themselves in that position. Also, if it was flat you would still create a system where by half the clubs in the league would over spend to give themselves a chance of survival

It would have to be a flat value. I doubt clubs would spend beyond their means. I doubt Brighton, Burnley etc. are going to spend over their income to go right to the cap. At the end of the day the best players will gravitate to the best clubs, no point in paying over the odds for a Sigurdsson type player, you hope the averagely good players would reduce their wage demands.

Set at something like 200 million for the squad with the maximum you can spend on one player at around 250k a week and football has been saved. No way some players should be earning 500k +. If they are that good their personal sponsorship deals should supplement their income.

 

[number4.]

It would have to be a flat value. I doubt clubs would spend beyond their means. I doubt Brighton, Burnley etc. are going to spend over their income to go right to the cap. At the end of the day the best players will gravitate to the best clubs, no point in paying over the odds for a Sigurdsson type player, you hope the averagely good players would reduce their wage demands.

Set at something like 200 million for the squad with the maximum you can spend on one player at around 250k a week and football has been saved. No way some players should be earning 500k +. If they are that good their personal sponsorship deals should supplement their income.

I think idealistically it's a brilliant idea, but there are serious laws of unintended consequences about it. Naturally a salary cap becomes a target rather than maximun and you will quickly get to a point where the majority of teams are pushing to it, this will overstretch some & others will will be there already, if you look at the NFL, where i appreciate revenue is shared more equitably all franchises are spending the entire salary cap (to the cent)

The second issue is relegation, we (everton) will probably be at 100/1 shot, maybe a little bit less than that to get relegated from the league, if you flatten the league to a situation where all teams a running close to the salary cap, you are talking about an 18% chance of relegation, which owners just simply wont go for.

It simply doesnt work in a relegation environment - maybe there should be a hyper league with no relegation or threat of being removed

 

[catcherintherye]

I think idealistically it's a brilliant idea, but there are serious laws of unintended consequences about it. Naturally a salary cap becomes a target rather than maximun and you will quickly get to a point where the majority of teams are pushing to it, this will overstretch some & others will will be there already, if you look at the NFL, where i appreciate revenue is shared more equitably all franchises are spending the entire salary cap (to the cent)

The second issue is relegation, we (everton) will probably be at 100/1 shot, maybe a little bit less than that to get relegated from the league, if you flatten the league to a situation where all teams a running close to the salary cap, you are talking about an 18% chance of relegation, which owners just simply wont go for.

It simply doesnt work in a relegation environment - maybe there should be a hyper league with no relegation or threat of being removed

I'm pretty sure it works in rugby with relegation.

If there was a proper control of costs then the clubs could generate and hold enough cash to insulate themselves from things like relegation. I'm not sure it does the game any good to have these massive drop offs.

 

[TimHowardsBeardJuice]

Scrap the system where each member country gets one vote in the governing bodies. Sounds wonderfully democratic but when the likes of Tuvalu and Turks and Caicos islands have the same weight as huge countries that’s where the rot sets in when they sell their votes, just like the Olympics, and that’s how you end up with a World Cup in Qatar.

 

[The Legend of Southall]

It would have to be a flat value. I doubt clubs would spend beyond their means. I doubt Brighton, Burnley etc. are going to spend over their income to go right to the cap. At the end of the day the best players will gravitate to the best clubs, no point in paying over the odds for a Sigurdsson type player, you hope the averagely good players would reduce their wage demands.

Set at something like 200 million for the squad with the maximum you can spend on one player at around 250k a week and football has been saved. No way some players should be earning 500k +. If they are that good their personal sponsorship deals should supplement their income.

I think you could squeeze that down to £150k on one player and still not see a scenario were every player is being paid the maximum.

I think my main concern at this point, is that the scab 6 will be rubbing their hands in glee at the prospect of reduced wage bills. That is going straight in their pocket. Unless we do something, like also making them pay a set % of their turnover to grassroots football.

 

[Terrarian]

VAR needs binning across the globe

 

[The binman chronicles]

I think you could squeeze that down to £150k on one player and still not see a scenario were every player is being paid the maximum.

I think my main concern at this point, is that the scab 6 will be rubbing their hands in glee at the prospect of reduced wage bills. That is going straight in their pocket. Unless we do something, like also making them pay a set % of their turnover to grassroots football.

Re the 150k I totally agree, how much is too much? We would all say we could live like kings on 20k a week but the genie is out of the bottle and tbh Messi/Ronaldo probably deserve that much and it also kind of works better to stop the hoarding of players which should be better for competition. At 250k the maximum amount of players that could be on the top end would 15, at 150k it would be 25 which is almost the whole first team squad and therefore a bit too much. We would want some decent players not just going to the rich teams who can afford the whole salary cap and it will give players a decision - do I go to get 50-75k at the biggest clubs or do I go and chase the money and get 150-200k somewhere else who have more scope.

Re profit you still need to spend on transfer fees to attract the top end footballers so I'd imagine a club will be looking at 300-400 million a season so you would have to be earning a lot to cream off the top but if they do is it so bad? One of the reasons why they want to start the super league is because they have no guarantees to make money especially if they don't get CL, if we basically take that away what have they got to moan about? They have the baked in advantage that the best players will still gravitate to these clubs but they have to be run well as the competition should be better too and therefore the chance of being overtaken is a real threat - but it shouldn't kill them now if they lose the 70 odd million available from European football.

 

[TimHowardsBeardJuice]

From the USA, home of all that is evil in sport, I can tell you that salary caps do some good but it’s really complicated.

First, revenue is a lot more level between teams to begin with because all revenue is shared evenly except stadium income and local broadcast rights. That the Lakers sell 100x more swag than the Memphis Grizzlies doesn’t matter, it’s all whacked up evenly.

Second, there are so many exemptions and alternatives built into the system in the NFL and NBA that it kind of defeats the purpose- it’s like the tax code, your tax is supposed to be X but then there are all these fiddles.

I posted elsewhere about baseball’s luxury tax. Teams can spend what they want, but any spend over the threshold is taxed and the money redistributed to certain player benefit compensation funds and to low payroll teams (revenue varies much more in baseball than other US sports.

From Wikipedia:


Just as with the old system, teams would have to pay a percentage of every dollar by which their payroll exceeded the set threshold. Under the 2002 and 2006 CBAs, the agreement brought about a progressive taxation system. They agreed that first time offenders would pay a fee of 17.5% of excess payrolls (later increased to 22.5%), second time offenders would pay 30%, and third time offenders would pay 40%. In the 2012 CBA, after seeing teams go over more than three times, the agreement added a 50% taxation level when teams went over the limit four or more times. Under the 2016 CBA, first time offenders would pay a fee of 20% on the dollar, second time offenders would pay a 30% on the dollar, and third or subsequent time offenders would have to pay 50% on the dollar (These offenses must be in consecutive years for these percentages. If a team falls below the threshold one year the penalty re-sets the next year to the "first offense").[2]

From 2003 to 2017, in every year at least one team has surpassed the tax threshold; only eight different teams have passed the threshold in that period.

2021 cap is $210 million for a 40 man roster (25 players ina game day squad). Baseball has a bizarre salary structure where first and second year players are cost controlled at <$1M, players in years 3-5 can go to arbitration with their teams, but in year 6 can become free agents to the highest bidder, so when a generational talent like Mookie Betts hits the market you get these 10 year $365m contracts.
It doesn’t escape notice that in the supposedly unfettered capitalist society USA, the sports leagues have monopoly and socialism, whereas in the leagues dirty socialist countries of Europe it’s straight up capitalism “red in tooth and claw,” weak ass FFP notwithstanding.

So if City spends 50m over the threshold, you could have, say, 30% or 15M diverted to direct payments to teams all the way down the pyramid, and for example, a certain amount for a pension fund for players in lower tiers who didn’t earn much in their careers,or something similar.

One issue: some low payroll teams pocket the money and don’t plow it back into the on field product. Certain miserly baseball owners don’t try too hard to compete, they just enjoy the appreciation of their franchises. Presumably the threat of relegation would prevent that, but any kind of limit on spending, cap tax whatever,
IMO should be accompanied by a floor, ie you can’t spend BELOW a certain amount, to deter the Kroenkes of the world.

 

[The Legend of Southall]

Re the 150k I totally agree, how much is too much? We would all say we could live like kings on 20k a week but the genie is out of the bottle and tbh Messi/Ronaldo probably deserve that much and it also kind of works better to stop the hoarding of players which should be better for competition. At 250k the maximum amount of players that could be on the top end would 15, at 150k it would be 25 which is almost the whole first team squad and therefore a bit too much. We would want some decent players not just going to the rich teams who can afford the whole salary cap and it will give players a decision - do I go to get 50-75k at the biggest clubs or do I go and chase the money and get 150-200k somewhere else who have more scope.

Re profit you still need to spend on transfer fees to attract the top end footballers so I'd imagine a club will be looking at 300-400 million a season so you would have to be earning a lot to cream off the top but if they do is it so bad? One of the reasons why they want to start the super league is because they have no guarantees to make money especially if they don't get CL, if we basically take that away what have they got to moan about? They have the baked in advantage that the best players will still gravitate to these clubs but they have to be run well as the competition should be better too and therefore the chance of being overtaken is a real threat - but it shouldn't kill them now if they lose the 70 odd million available from European football.

Regarding the 1st point. I'd say you've certainly put a lot more thought into it than I have, I definitely agree with your reasoning. I'd also add that, restricting all English clubs to paying a maximum of, say, £20k a week would certainly just lead to all players being paid the maximum. It would also put us at a disadvantage compared to most European top flights.

Regarding your 2nd point. No, I don't necessarily* see it as a bad thing. I was just more worried that the scab 6 owners would be seeing what they did as a positive under such a rule change. I still very much believe they must face some sort of consequence for their actions.

*leaving my inherent dislike for capitalism for another day, and another thread.

 

[terryefc]

VAR needs binning across the globe

It's not VAR that needs binning - it's incompetent officials.