Putting a limit on teams spending

the Guru

I was chatting a to a colleague this morning about the super Bowl and he said that all the pro teams have a limit of how much the team can spend each year on buying players and team wages etc... this makes the teams more equal, and prohibits teams buying up all the top players.

Do you think something like this would work in the premiership, capping the spending on teams like Chelsea, so they cant dominate the league????

What are you thoughts?

Seaneh

becuase of the nature of soccer and that fact that there are more than 1 league, fifa would have to impliment the rule, and the danger is that if fifa were to do this, g14 would just break away (as they have threatened before) and bring all thier money with them.

Nalz

regardless of the above issues (which are major issues) it would be way too difficult to implement, and would cas more damage then good.

event

how woul you decuide on a limit?

would be impossible to implement

Savman

the Guru wrote:

I was chatting a to a colleague this morning about the super Bowl and he said that all the pro teams have a limit of how much the team can spend each year on buying players and team wages etc... this makes the teams more equal, and prohibits teams buying up all the top players.

Do you think something like this would work in the premiership, capping the spending on teams like Chelsea, so they cant dominate the league????

What are you thoughts?

It was said that you can't buy success. Chelsea proved otherwise.
It was said you can't win anything with kids. ManU proved otherwise.

I can't see how they could ever bring something like this into footy. Like any other trade, the big boys would never allow it and remember the premier league is pretty much controlled by the teams in the division, there was murmurs a few years back of the Premier League wanting to breakaway from the FA (think about it, what do the english FA actually do?). If the FA tried to enforce a limit, the premier league would probably just do its own thing independently of the FA.

How you'd introuduce it on a global scale is another matter entirely and probably impossible.

PHB

I think there should be a team wage cap. I don't agree with spending limits, although I do agree with limits of spending based on your revenue, so that cases like Leeds can't be allowed to happen.

I think a team wage cap would encourage teams to strongly encourage bringing people through the youth, and also increase the ability of smaller teams to keep hold of star players, as the lure of massive amounts of cash wouldn't be there.

Savman

PHB wrote:

I think there should be a team wage cap. I don't agree with spending limits, although I do agree with limits of spending based on your revenue, so that cases like Leeds can't be allowed to happen.

I think a team wage cap would encourage teams to strongly encourage bringing people through the youth, and also increase the ability of smaller teams to keep hold of star players, as the lure of massive amounts of cash wouldn't be there.

Capping wages, although a viable option, doesn't mean that "extra" money would go to youth schemes etc. It would just mean the clubs get richer which means the chairmen and shareholders get richer. Giving the clubs that extra wad of cash is nearly as bad as giving it to the players. Either way the players, thru their money grabbing agents, will be demanding a slice of the cake as they know they are the main attraction.

I don't really know how you control it, but for the record I'm actually pro wage caps.

jesus_thats_gre

the Guru wrote:

I was chatting a to a colleague this morning about the super Bowl and he said that all the pro teams have a limit of how much the team can spend each year on buying players and team wages etc... this makes the teams more equal, and prohibits teams buying up all the top players.

Do you think something like this would work in the premiership, capping the spending on teams like Chelsea, so they cant dominate the league????

What are you thoughts?

Yes but the whole financial side of the NFL is very different. Revenues for shirts sales etc are split equally between all clubs. Also consider the way that the weakest teams get the strongest players in the draft is also a massive deal. Both sports are stuctured totally differently.

MrPillowTalk

Spending caps and wage caps are good in principle, but in reality all they will do is spread corruption throughout the game as clubs seek ways around the rules.

And very difficult to implement.

iregk

With regards to the NFL its a totally different ball game (obviously but not in the literal sense!). The wage cap is there but its something like 110mill a year. Not exactly small change. There is no transfer cap, but between teams in american sports players are not usually sold they are traded so no transfer value or fee is usually in place. Obviously this is not somethign that would work in football!!!

I know where phb is going when he says spending and wages should be gauged on revenue but this will also help to increase the gap. How can a small club expect to get up there with the big clubs if they cannot spend big at times. its a hard one, but I'm all for a cap across the board.

redspider

Yes, I think there should be a lot of financial regulations and limits put in place to prevent the succesful teams dominating. I have argued these points before as it will make the game more even.

For example, clubs should be limited to what they can spend on transfers and on salary's. I think there should be an absolute limit on this and it would be perfectly enforceable as Clubs would need to abide by such limits to obtain their Uefa licences. What a limiting value would be set at is unclear, but it could be as low as 50m euro per annum. It could also be league dependent, and perhaps a formula could be worked out where the average income of the division is used as a scaling factor. For example, if the income of a division is 1,000m and there are 20 teams, the average income is 50m. That could be the limit, or perhaps it could be 1.75 x 50m or whatever. But such a formula could b applied to all leagues across Uefa.

Clubs/companies should also be regulated to live within their means, so something in the region of 95% maximum spend in relation to Income. It could also be done in relation to a 'reserve fund' which is built up over time. That would prevent any club from going bust because they can only spend this season what they have built up in the reserve fund from the previous season(s) and as long as its within its cap.

Incomes should not be limited, and those clubs/businesses with excessive 'profits' (excess of Income over costs) should be 'special taxed' where the monies are ploughed back into the sport from the grass-roots up.

Youth players should also be more widely distributed, whether done via a draft picking system, which may be difficult to implement, or some other way.

Clubs should also be limited in squad size (33) and should not be allowed to loan players out. That system would mean that the bigger clubs would have access to fewer players than they do now.

etc

The general idea is to promote regulations that de-concentrate the rewards.

---

Now, having said that such regulations like the above and like what Platini is in favour of with national quota's per team, etc, that makes things closer in terms of a level-playing field of resources.

However, how that will affect the performances and the entertainment is another story. Are closer leagues more entertaining? Would there be better football or worse? Would 6 close teams in England be better than the current 4? The Chelski 'experiment' with nearly unlimited funds has produced success in their league, but was their style more entertaining? Some would say not.

One thing is for sure, if you list the clubs/businesses in terms of money, it looks verfy similar to the points table. So, as fans you have to ask, is this money we are watching or football?

Redspider

redspider

Below is an example. If the rewards werent so concentrated as they are today, and if new regulations were brought into place, this type of thing could be avoided:

Hearts insist rising debt is 'manageable'
06/02/2007 - 10:42:43

Hearts insist they are not worried by a loss of £5.282m (€8.2m) for the financial year which incorporated last season.

The club’s wage bill more than doubled from £4.5m (€6.8m) to £10m (€15m) in the year to July 31 2006, on the back of squad strengthening, and total overall debt climbed to £28.4m (€43.1m).

However the Hearts board insist their operation is running smoothly.

jesus_thats_gre

If they were to place caps on clubs, it would be nice if they done it based on the clubs success the previous season while the clubs that finish near the bottom have more to spend. Sorta like the draft in the NFL where the worst team gets the best player but with money instead.