The Sinister 6 - Premier League Owners Charter

[TheBigIguana]

Suspect that with the yanks increasingly barging their way in, they'll see this as an opportunity to run things as they do in American sport and business, where oligarchs collude with each other to drive down wages.

'Won't accept our insulting contract offer? Not even arsed, we're in the Champions League anyways. Off you go then... though I suspect you'll find the other "superclubs" will see your value the way we do'.

You don't think American athletes are well paid relative to footballers? I don't know about that...

 

[PITA]

Looks like the English clubs have got the okay from PL Ceo Richards Masters as long as the ESL games are midweek.

A massive gigantic positive about the ESL is the FFP rules are going to be more stringent and applied harshly than the joke that is UEFA did with FFP, hopefully owner linked commercial deals could be omitted like Perez talked about a few months ago, still wonder if PSG will still refuse and if City are fully committed to it.

Great it's open invitation instead a closed shop and FFP fully incorporated properly then it's got my attention.

Can't think why!

 

[The Gueye Science]

You don't think American athletes are well paid relative to footballers? I don't know about that...

It's a closed shop, limited to 30 teams, vs literally thousands of football teams. What is a salary cap if not collusion to supress wages?

 

[OneTrueLegend]

I hope it happens and the scan six can finally do one. They’ve pretty much destroyed football in this country anyway a sit is. They can all F off and everyone else can have a competitive interesting league without corrupt refereeing, match fixing, doping, and the relentless media manipulation for the favour of a few certain teams. Will almost be like the game most of us grew up watching where if you had a decent team and manager you had a chance every season at a trophy, not watching City and Liverpool B teams win cups and their A teams go on half season winning runs.

I dont think that is how it will work. The super league would replace the champions league, not the premier league. If teams qualify for it through their previous years league position, then what is the objection? What this changes is instead of 7 premier league teams qualifying for the Champions league, Europa League and Europa Conference. There would be 6 teams qualifying for the Super League (not sure on what happens to the Europa League and Europa Conference).

This could actually be positive for the FA Cup and League Cup. If you could win one of the domestic cups and qualify for the Super League, I think most of the premiership, outside the top 4, would play very strong teams in the cups.

 

[Saint Domingo]

I don't disagree with you or anyone else on a lot of this but I do think it is funny that people think having different refs with no VAR means that suddenly they're not going to be fuming at referees anymore

I don’t mind fuming at the odd ref who has had a stinker when you’re playing Palace or Leicester etc. because in those scenarios it probably would even itself out over the course of a season

What is dispiriting is the continued feeling of big club bias, especially at home grounds ‘the ref probably felt he couldn’t give that at Anfield/Old Trafford’, and the hysterical media reaction that accompanies any decision that doesn’t go the way of the big teams to pile pressure on referees for the next game.

It’s like they just find new ways to screw teams. It used to be players handling balls on the line, then it was teams conceding goals that weren’t over the line, or the ball was out of play in the build up. So they brought in additional officials and goal line technology. So then it seemed to be ridiculous offside calls, absurd penalty decisions etc. So VAR came in, and now we’ve got a situation where they either don’t consult VAR or they do and just abuse it to legitimise an incorrect decision e.g the dodgy offside lines.

Is it too much to ask for officials to stop finding ingenious ways around the technology and just embrace some fair impartial refereeing.

 

[TheBigIguana]

It's a closed shop, limited to 30 teams, vs literally thousands of football teams. What is a salary cap if not collusion to supress wages?

Well you should tell the footballing world that then, I've been looking because it interests me and there are hundreds of NFL players making more than what the highest paid Everton player makes.

Spotrac is notoriously unreliable for the Prem because clubs don't have to accurately report wages but they've got like 70 or so guys at 6m per year. Again that is a mid to low level NFL player.

 

[TheBigIguana]

I don’t mind fuming at the odd ref who has had a stinker when you’re playing Palace or Leicester etc. because in those scenarios it probably would even itself out over the course of a season

What is dispiriting is the continued feeling of big club bias, especially at home grounds ‘the ref probably felt he couldn’t give that at Anfield/Old Trafford’, and the hysterical media reaction that accompanies any decision that doesn’t go the way of the big teams to pile pressure on referees for the next game.

It’s like they just find new ways to screw teams. It used to be players handling balls on the line, then it was teams conceding goals that weren’t over the line, or the ball was out of play in the build up. So they brought in additional officials and goal line technology. So then it seemed to be ridiculous offside calls, absurd penalty decisions etc. So VAR came in, and now we’ve got a situation where they either don’t consult VAR or they do and just abuse it to legitimise an incorrect decision e.g the dodgy offside lines.

Is it too much to ask for officials to stop finding ingenious ways around the technology and just embrace some fair impartial refereeing.

I would say though that this is not all the referees fault. I wouldn't expect it to all just end when (I don't even feel like it is an if anymore) the scummy top clubs leave. The environment would be different but not that different.

 

[EverTheOptimist]

It's a closed shop, limited to 30 teams, vs literally thousands of football teams. What is a salary cap if not collusion to supress wages?

Salary cap won't work, state owned clubs would divert the wages off the turnover to state owned banks to hide from the authorities, city did it with image rights to a Caymen Islands account created by a man city fan Tory peer, that was leaked in the emails in 2019.

The whole point of the ESL is football leadership has had enough of Uefa getting the biggest slice of the money ( TV and commercial) whilst letting the sportswash teams manipulate the FFP rules with petty fines, Uefa are utterly pathetic, they put in five year statute rules, then decide to enforce PSG and City breaking FFP rules and take them to task, but they are so corrupt they did this at the end of year 4 of the violations, so PSG and City just delayed the process knowing CAS would throw the charges out when the trial started after the five year statute.

ESL teams can cut Uefa out and create their own individual TV rights if this ESL goes ahead.

 

[The Gueye Science]

Well you should tell the footballing world that then, I've been looking because it interests me and there are hundreds of NFL players making more than what the highest paid Everton player makes.

Spotrac is notoriously unreliable for the Prem because clubs don't have to accurately report wages but they've got like 70 or so guys at 6m per year. Again that is a mid to low level NFL player.

I should have explained more clearly. American sport is much more profitable because they run a closed shop, imposing strict limits on the number of teams allowed to participate. 30 NFL teams for a market of 330 million v a Football League alone of 94 teams for a country of 65 million. The oligarchs who own sports "franchises" also use legalised bribery to compel local government to build their stadia for them, unlike anywhere else in the world. And they also impose a barter system, unlike the rest of the world where player contracts have to be purchased, thus ensuring that much of the player value is in the form of transfer fees rather than wages. So there is much more money available to spend on wages. Unlike in Europe, where the economy adheres much closer to market principles, the American economy is largely a series of rent-seeking cartels who compete via state capture rather than against each other.

But that said they also very much collude to suppress wages, in the form of "luxury taxes" and "salary caps" and "drafts" for young talent. In baseball they were even caught red-handed doing so, in the 1980s. And this is what they are trying to do here; eliminating the need to compete for Champions League lucre means that paying high wages to compete against other teams is unnecessary, so they just can tell players to do one if they don't accept contracts below market value.

 

[TheBigIguana]

I should have explained more clearly. American sport is much more profitable because they run a closed shop, imposing strict limits on the number of teams allowed to participate. The oligarchs who own sports "franchises" use legalised bribery to compel local government to build their stadia for them, unlike anywhere else in the world. And they also impose a barter system, unlike the rest of the world where player contracts have to be purchased, ensuring that much of the player value is in the form of transfer fees rather than wages. So there is much more money available to spend on wages. Unlike in Europe, where the economy adheres much closer to market principles, the American economy is largely a series of rent-seeking cartels who compete via state capture rather than against each other.

But that said they also very much collude to suppress wages, in the form of "luxury taxes" and "salary caps" and "drafts" for young talent. In baseball they were even caught red-handed doing so, in the 1980s. And this is what they are trying to do here; eliminating the need to compete for Champions League lucre means that paying high wages to compete against other teams is unnecessary, so they just can tell players to do one if they don't accept contracts below market value.

The thing is, and this is the point I'm trying to make because none of what you're saying is wrong, is that despite all of that the players get more out of it than the vast, vast majority of footballers do. I just find it hard to accept the point that this is ultimately bad for the individual players on the whole. Yes it could all obviously be better but, and I think this is an important bit that is often missed, some of these "wage suppression" mechanisms also make the league money. I can tell you right now that an uncapped NBA is not an entertaining league and is making less money for the players on the whole if it were to be set up that way.

Look I hate owners in sports and I know that from their prospective it is all about reigning in the spending they have to do to be competitive. But it also does make these leagues more competitive and that is why they're the products they are. It is a good thing done for the wrong reasons.

 

[The Gueye Science]

The thing is, and this is the point I'm trying to make because none of what you're saying is wrong, is that despite all of that the players get more out of it than the vast, vast majority of footballers do. I just find it hard to accept the point that this is ultimately bad for the individual players on the whole. Yes it could all obviously be better but, and I think this is an important bit that is often missed, some of these "wage suppression" mechanisms also make the league money. I can tell you right now that an uncapped NBA is not an entertaining league and is making less money for the players on the whole if it were to be set up that way.

Look I hate owners in sports and I know that from their prospective it is all about reigning in the spending they have to do to be competitive. But it also does make these leagues more competitive and that is why they're the products they are. It is a good thing done for the wrong reasons.

Do you think that reserving Champions League places for pre-designated elite teams will have a neutral effect on their players' wages? I don't.

It's the same as how at least half of the American sports teams these days don't give their players contracts for more than the minimum required, or for more than a year or two. There is no risk of being relegated and they are actually incentivised to lose, because then they are rewarded with "draft picks". Yes, the wages are still higher than in football, for all the reasons I've explained, but they are still a fraction of what the market dictates they should be. I'll bet the wage-to-turnover ratio for every premier league side is at least three times higher than any American team. How many American teams are there who spend more on wages than their turnover???

And I don't think it does make the leagues more competitive - the vast majority of the games have absolutely nothing at stake. Who cares if the New York Mets defeat the Reds in September, or the Brooklyn Woosh against the Miami Kaboom mid-season. Not only are the games completely meaningless but these days both sides are more likely than not actively trying to lose. Whereas outside America, even though the quality may be poor, every single Watford or Norwich City fixture matters tremendously, because literally hundreds of millions of Pounds are at stake. And the atmosphere is intense whereas 90% of American sports fixtures consist of bored people poking at their phones.

 

[TheBigIguana]

Do you think that reserving Champions League places for pre-designated elite teams will have a neutral effect on their players' wages? I don't.

It's the same as how at least half of the American sports teams these days don't give their players contracts for more than the minimum required, or for more than a year or two. There is no risk of being relegated and they are actually incentivised to lose, because then they are rewarded with "draft picks". Yes, the wages are still higher than in football, for all the reasons I've explained, but they are still a fraction of what the market dictates they should be. I'll bet the wage-to-turnover ratio for every premier league side is at least three times higher than any American team. How many American teams are there who spend more on wages than their turnover???

And I don't think it does make the leagues more competitive - the vast majority of the games have absolutely nothing at stake. Who cares if the New York Mets defeat the Reds in September, or the Brooklyn Woosh against the Miami Kaboom mid-season. Not only are the games completely meaningless but these days both sides are more likely than not actively trying to lose. Whereas outside America, even though the quality may be poor, every single Watford or Norwich City fixture matters tremendously, because literally hundreds of millions of Pounds are at stake. And the atmosphere is intense whereas 90% of American sports fixtures consist of bored people poking at their phones.

For the players in that competition they'll almost certainly go up.

This happens a lot less than you think. Almost never in the NFL. Basketball it was a big problem but they've addressed it, really only a couple teams are actively tanking. A few are just really bad.

The American system isn't perfect but, and call me crazy if you want, I think a system where the best players can end up anywhere (the NFL and NBA has had MVPs from Wisconsin recently FFS) and where everyone has a chance of moving to the top if they do things right is the best call. And yes maybe teams aren't injecting everything into wages like they could or should. At the same time that really isn't enough to justify the European system being better for me. Lastly lets not pretend like the PL is some kind of shining light of atmospheric grounds these days.

 

[EverTheOptimist]

Uefa have bitten back!!!?

 

[Muggins]

Hopefully in this new modern age, someone will start a breakaway league, and hopefully they’ll be chilli dogs and beer….and T-Shirt Cannons!!

 

[TheBigIguana]

Uefa have bitten back!!!?

Gross