UEFA Propose To Limit Salaries and Transfer Fees

flyswatter

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7898484.stm

What does everyone think of this proposal?

Iang87

More anti-premiership **** from Platini.

Personally i do feel its a good idea to do it across the board, it'll make the competition more even and clubs will be able to plan better maybe keeping them out of administration.

But as i said above prob Platini's way of trying to damage english football

newbie2

It'll never get through. European market laws etc.

Frisbee

It would be great if it happened but it won't.

Clubs bidding the likes of 100 million for one player is a little sickening...

whatawaster

Something needs to be done anyway, and if this works, then great.

PHB

I agree with these laws. I think wages should be strongly linked to your annual turnover, clubs need to be financially viable. That said, I do think people should be allowed invest, just not quite as much as the Man City owners do. As such, I think there should be a strong link with then an upper limit on how much the chairman can put in. But chairmen should be allowed invest, its what helps build up big clubs.

Then again, if this only applies to European football stuff, then City could just build up the squad, stay out of Europe for one year, and then the following year try get in again. Maybe it should be for the previous 3 years or something.

Either way, relatively good idea if they can work it out practically so that is doesnt go too far either side, but strikes the balance that works.

stovelid

Reading the thread on a proposed super-league just before this. Platini's talk will be adding more impetus to the bigger clubs to consider this.

I'd love to see an effective salary/transfer cap, but it would have to be right across the board.

SectionF

Common sense proposals.
But watch them and Platini get ritual abuse in the English press and, by extension since most of the material will be bought in, in the Irish press.

astrofool

I find it funny that an english game (football) has become controlled at the upper levels by a bunch of european pansies. They had no problems when AC Milan were winning the CL year after year (and the league by bribes), and ignored what Real Madrid were doing to transfer fee's (still the highest ever when they bought Zidane, and wanted Ronaldo for 80m+?), and getting bailed out to the tune of hundreds of millions by the government.

As soon as the English clubs dare start to dominate in Europe, they want to change all the rules.

eagle eye

I cannot believe that some of you are going off on a tangent that this is just anti English League stuff. Platini is the main man in Uefa right now, he has been saying this stuff for years. Its not like he just decided it when English clubs/Premier League started to dominate European.

Trippie

astrofool wrote: »

I find it funny that an english game (football) has become controlled at the upper levels by a bunch of european pansies. They had no problems when AC Milan were winning the CL year after year (and the league by bribes), and ignored what Real Madrid were doing to transfer fee's (still the highest ever when they bought Zidane, and wanted Ronaldo for 80m+?), and getting bailed out to the tune of hundreds of millions by the government.

As soon as the English clubs dare start to dominate in Europe, they want to change all the rules.

There was outrage when Silvio bought Milan in the 80's and they didnt win the league by bribes, in the early 90's they had probably the greatest modern day team ever assembled. But it wasnt as if the likes of Man city where by they tried to buy a whole team. They had invested in youth and had a mixture of both home grown talent and outside players bought. The same basic principle applies to Madrid and their "galactico" which I think the president called it a team of "Zidane's and Guti's". The fact is he only wanted to bring one superstar in each year and still bring through the home grown players for the "boring" positions.

I dont have a defense for Madrid selling off their training ground and the other money making schemes.

What City threatened to do was to offload a whole current team and bring in a brand new one. Obviously we know this not to be true now but the original comments from that clown are still the ones remembered the most. Also a point is that while the likes of Italy and Spain have paid huge cash for players in the past it has always been for players perceived to be worth that much. The amount of average/bad players going for crazy money is the difference in my opinion as they are perceived not to be worth that. The ronaldo thing was a number quoted by the press but at the time due to the amount of cash average players were going for to average teams then 80 million was his perceived value.

stovelid

astrofool wrote: »

I find it funny that an english game (football) has become controlled at the upper levels by a bunch of european pansies. They had no problems when AC Milan were winning the CL year after year (and the league by bribes), and ignored what Real Madrid were doing to transfer fee's (still the highest ever when they bought Zidane, and wanted Ronaldo for 80m+?), and getting bailed out to the tune of hundreds of millions by the government.

As soon as the English clubs dare start to dominate in Europe, they want to change all the rules.

It was a different football landscape when Milan were dominating Europe. And a different UEFA president.

The issues of inflationary wages, transfers and club debt have obviously come to a head at time when the EPL is the biggest league and Platini has come to office. The Chelsea /City issues are obviously what has provoked this.

Platini has obviously decided to try and tackle this. The Madrid and Milan stuff was happening during Lennart Johansson's tenure.

Iang87

SectionF wrote: »

Common sense proposals.
But watch them and Platini get ritual abuse in the English press and, by extension since most of the material will be bought in, in the Irish press.

of course platini will get abuse. the man does genuinely have a serious problem with the premiership and english football which in turn makes him biased hence the man shouldn't be in charge

leggo

It's not a case of 'they'. Platini has been trying to do SOMETHING about the extraordinary expenditure in European football since day one. Leeds are a prime example of what can happen with a club spending beyond their means...and add to that the current world financial climate and there's trouble ahead if something isn't done.

Unfortunately, I don't think Platini will be able to do anything about it. The top, and most powerful, clubs will veto the idea and thus nothing can get through. When his plans fail, Platini will likely become a martyr for his own cause. There WILL have to be SOMEthing done about it in the future...but it'll come at the cost of Platini's head. Shame.

Tristram

I'd support the introduction of salary capping.

Benedict XVI

It would make shag all diference

Form the articel I see the follwing

He spelt out that UEFA is now exploring the idea of limiting salaries and transfers to a particular, as yet undecided, percentage of a club's sporting revenue - which, crucially, wouldn't include direct investment from a rich owner.

So lets say have a cap of 60% or turnover.

Now Man Utd have a turn over of say 10 million, so they can spend 6 million on transfers, wages etc.

Stoke on the other hand have a turnover of say 1 million, so they can spend 600,000 on transfers, wages etc.

therefore Utd have 5,400,000 more to spend than Stoke

It may stop the super rich from waltzing and buy a league title but it will do nothing to bridge the gap between the haves and have nots.

_blank_

astrofool wrote: »

They had no problems when AC Milan were winning the CL year after year

Milan won back to back European Cups in 1989 and 1990. They won it again in 94, 03 and 07.

The last time a club won back to back European Cups before that was Liverpool in 1977 and 1978.

The last time clubs from the same country won back to back European Cups was that Milan team 1989 and 1990.

Previous to that, English clubs won the European Cup every year from 1977 to 1982, then again in 1984.

Your point is ridiculous.

leggo

Now Man Utd have a turn over of say 10 million, so they can spend 6 million on transfers, wages etc.

Stoke on the other hand have a turnover of say 1 million, so they can spend 600,000 on transfers, wages etc.

therefore Utd have 5,400,000 more to spend than Stoke

It may stop the super rich from waltzing and buy a league title but it will do nothing to bridge the gap between the haves and have nots.

The fact that the top teams have less cash to spend gives the smaller teams the opportunity to challenge for competitions more. It may not mean that Stoke will be a Top 4 club within one season...but it'll bridge the gap between Stoke and the mid-table sides. Thus, Stoke could potentially finish 7th in the Premiership, earn money through their improved revenue and a potential UEFA Cup place and, within 2-3 years, challenge for the title.

Those interested in the matter, listen to the end of the most recent 5 Live World Football Phone-In. One of the panellists, an Englishman (whose name escapes me), explains Platini's possible motives for this move in a way that makes much more sense than the conspiracy theories thrown about.

Zonda999

Speakin of Man City, anyone read this:

Milan have denied media reports that they were in discussions about selling a stake to the Abu Dhabi United Group, owners of Premier League side Manchester City.

Italy's Corriere della Sera newspaper said in an unsourced front page report that the group was interested in buying 40 per cent of Milan.
"In relation to what has been published this morning in Corriere della Sera about a possible sale of part of the club, (holding company) Fininvest and Milan announce that the news is without foundation," a Milan statement said.
Milan, owned by Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, missed out on the lucrative Champions League this season and funding for new signings has been tighter than usual.
Manchester City tried to buy Milan playmaker Kaka last month for a world record fee of around £90 million.
Milan considered selling but talks broke down and the Brazilian decided he wanted to stay in Italy.
Reuters

If this was done just to source some of Milan's players, it would have gone way too far.

Tom65

Has anyone with a better grasp on economics than me considered this? Surely capped transfer frees would disrupt the market? Not even getting into the issue of EU market competition law, football transfers is a free market, but surely a transfer fee cap would disrupt that as much as foreign owners do? There aren't that many transfers that go over £30m - my (admittedly brief) research tells me there's been 9 (Zidane, Figo, Crespo, Buffon, Robinho, Vieri, Berbatov, Shevchenko). So what would the cap be at £30m or £40m? Because that would drive any transfer fee up to to the cap. Even £60m would inflate prices. £100m wouldn't make a difference. Only City can pay that money, other clubs know they can pay that money, know where the cap is and will demand that much.

Now, this is just my analysis, so please feel free to pick holes or completely destroy my argument...

stovelid

Tom65 wrote: »

Only City can pay that money, other clubs know they can pay that money, know where the cap is and will demand that much.
.

Yeah, but hypothetically, City could pay 100m for a player and the club would get it for sure. But the club could then be outbid on by City on other targets they want to buy with the money.

The idea of a cap would be to stop clubs like City consistently outbidding everyone. You only need one club to break the informal cap you are talking about. And one club always will: Madrid, Chelsea and now City.

Benedict XVI

Tom65 wrote: »

Has anyone with a better grasp on economics than me considered this? Surely capped transfer frees would disrupt the market? Not even getting into the issue of EU market competition law, football transfers is a free market, but surely a transfer fee cap would disrupt that as much as foreign owners do? There aren't that many transfers that go over £30m - my (admittedly brief) research tells me there's been 9 (Zidane, Figo, Crespo, Buffon, Robinho, Vieri, Berbatov, Shevchenko). So what would the cap be at £30m or £40m? Because that would drive any transfer fee up to to the cap. Even £60m would inflate prices. £100m wouldn't make a difference. Only City can pay that money, other clubs know they can pay that money, know where the cap is and will demand that much.

Now, this is just my analysis, so please feel free to pick holes or completely destroy my argument...

The salary cap would be based on your revenue, therefore the clubs that turnover more could spend more on a transfer fee.

Benedict XVI

leggo wrote: »

The fact that the top teams have less cash to spend gives the smaller teams the opportunity to challenge for competitions more.

How do you figure top teams have less money to spend ?, and even if there has been a drop they are still streets ahead of the other teams.

There is no way a team like Stoke could get near the revenue generated by Utd.

According to the Football Money League the top teams are doing quiet well revenue wise.

leggo

Read the rest of the post mate, take the point as a whole, understand the issues involved THEN get back to me...

Jazzy

PHB wrote: »

I think wages should be strongly linked to your annual turnover, clubs need to be financially viable.

easy to say when u support the most finacially viable and most famous club in the world.

i dunno, i can see this becomming like formula 1 with the amount of rules and stuff

Jazzy

Des wrote: »

Your point is ridiculous.

WRONG DES! YOUR WRONG!

what about Real Madrid? they had no problems when real madrid where dominating everything and buying every dream player they could. figo, zidane, beckham, ronaldo... 'los galacticos'.

have a think

stovelid

Jazzy wrote: »

what about Real Madrid? they had no problems when real madrid where dominating everything and buying every dream player they could. figo, zidane, beckham, ronaldo... 'los galacticos'.

They didn't have MP at the helm then.

bigstar

i dont think its a viable idea, as already pointed out the bigger teams gain from bigger revenues. while things arent perfect right now i think this would turn things even more in favour of the big clubs which is not what i want to see anyway. if there was a better solution that was more equitable id be in favour but helping the bigger clubs no thanks

bigstar

Trippie wrote: »

But it wasnt as if the likes of Man city where by they tried to buy a whole team. They had invested in youth and had a mixture of both home grown talent and outside players bought. The same basic principle applies to Madrid and their "galactico" which I think the president called it a team of "Zidane's and Guti's". The fact is he only wanted to bring one superstar in each year and still bring through the home grown players for the "boring" positions.

also calling bullsh1t on this. havent you noticed our best player is stephen ireland, a homegrown player, just like richards, wright-phillips, onuoha, sturridge with hart being bought from shrewsbury and given his chance. we have one of the best youth set ups in england and have brought through a lot of players. can the same be said of most other prem teams? not most

dreamers75

Des wrote: »

Milan won back to back European Cups in 1989 and 1990. They won it again in 94, 03 and 07.

The last time a club won back to back European Cups before that was Liverpool in 1977 and 1978.

The last time clubs from the same country won back to back European Cups was that Milan team 1989 and 1990.

Previous to that, English clubs won the European Cup every year from 1977 to 1982, then again in 1984.

Your point is ridiculous.

Ac had 8 italians and 3 dutch players AS PER THE RULES when they did that.

des is correct about the point.

Benedict XVI

bigstar wrote: »

i dont think its a viable idea, as already pointed out the bigger teams gain from bigger revenues. while things arent perfect right now i think this would turn things even more in favour of the big clubs which is not what i want to see anyway. if there was a better solution that was more equitable id be in favour but helping the bigger clubs no thanks

the only way to make the playing field truly level is to introduce a NFL type revenue sharing and salary cap system.

Now don't worry I am not talking about franchising here.

In the NFL there are 32 teams, and all revenue in the league is shard between them, so a portion of the revenue from a shirt sold in the club shop in Atlanta will go to Buffalo and vice versa.

There is a set salary cap that all teams must abide by. There are no 'transfer fees' in NFL as players are traded rather than sold. There are no individual TV contracts

As a result of this there had been huge parity in the league with a big variety of teams being competitive each year.

It would be far more difficult to introduce such a system in Europe, in the NFL the teams are franchises so the league itself has a bigger say in how it is run.

I could not see it working in Europe without radical movement form all involved.

iregk

I have to say I love a lot of premier league fans opinions on this. "The others were allowed to do it so we should get away with it for a few more years yet before they bring in any rules!"

The fact is somewhere a line in the sand needs to be drawn. Football has gone ridiculous and honestly I really fear for the game. Its not even league versus league anymore its a handful of clubs and no more. Pretty soon there will be no "top 4" in england. It will be top 4 in europe that everyone will be talking about. Anyone who sees no harm in this has no interest in football and is only concerned about their winning band wagon rolling on.

It is time for something to happen and I fully agree with Platini on this. Some things are more important than your own team.

SectionF

Tom65 wrote: »

Has anyone with a better grasp on economics than me considered this? Surely capped transfer frees would disrupt the market?

That's the idea. The market has been disrupting the game for some decades now.

Mitch Connor

Tom65 wrote: »

Has anyone with a better grasp on economics than me considered this? Surely capped transfer frees would disrupt the market? Not even getting into the issue of EU market competition law, football transfers is a free market, but surely a transfer fee cap would disrupt that as much as foreign owners do? There aren't that many transfers that go over £30m - my (admittedly brief) research tells me there's been 9 (Zidane, Figo, Crespo, Buffon, Robinho, Vieri, Berbatov, Shevchenko). So what would the cap be at £30m or £40m? Because that would drive any transfer fee up to to the cap. Even £60m would inflate prices. £100m wouldn't make a difference. Only City can pay that money, other clubs know they can pay that money, know where the cap is and will demand that much.

Now, this is just my analysis, so please feel free to pick holes or completely destroy my argument...

The cap would be, as far as i know, a percentage of turnover, not a set high fee. For instance, at a 50% cap, a club turning over 300million a season (united/real) could spend 150million on transfers and player wages in a season. So, clubs with a higher turnover (still the big, powerfull and successful clubs) can spend more. However, it would also mean clubs couldn't go spending 200million in one transfer window.

D.S.

Lads, caps for me protect the big clubs and victimise the smaller clubs. It would immediately become a huge barrier and obstacle to smaller clubs becoming big. This is because clubs with smaller fan bases could still never afford the high fees, on a revenue basis, for big players.

Something needs to be done. I'm not sure what though. I like the American NFL draft system. I think it's extremely fair and forces teams in the NFL to focus more on the professional aspects of the sport from training, management, physios etc etc.

If the FA are serious about balancing the game, they need to be thinking more along these lines.

Salary caps and Transfer caps don't help football. If anything, it's Blatter's ways of restricting the EPL from benefitting from rich benefactors. He simply doesn't want these rich benefactors to discriminate in favour of the EPL..

Trippie

bigstar wrote: »

also calling bullsh1t on this. havent you noticed our best player is stephen ireland, a homegrown player, just like richards, wright-phillips, onuoha, sturridge with hart being bought from shrewsbury and given his chance. we have one of the best youth set ups in england and have brought through a lot of players. can the same be said of most other prem teams? not most

If you read the whole thing then you'll realise I said when the guy who i can't remember the name of came out and said City were going to buy a whole new team with 30 30 million players and then I said which we know to not be true now

bigstar

Trippie wrote: »

If you read the whole thing then you'll realise I said when the guy who i can't remember the name of came out and said City were going to buy a whole new team with 30 30 million players and then I said which we know to not be true now

i read your whole post and i was thinking why bring it up in the first place if you know its not true now.

i think a lot of people on this forum support a big four club so spending caps are for their benefit. atm the only way for any club to break into the top four is with money, im not talking €100m for kaka, but money is needed to advance to the next level. if you restrict spending to a percentage of turnover small clubs suffer. im not saying that the current system is the best way forward, but this turnover proposal wont help football. i dont think NFL system will work either but apart from complete regulation of football by uefa or the country associations agreeing something similar i dont think there is a fair way to do it.

SectionF

Jesus1222 wrote: »

An environment exists where serious punishment is given to clubs which get into financial difficulties. Platini is a whingebag. Remember him giving out about Wenger for being too "business like"? Now he's giving out about just the opposite. His irrational, contrary, anti-English brainwaves should be ignored.

Looks like English fans don't see them as anti-English... http://www.fsf.org.uk/news/Uefa-meeting-a-step-in-the-right-direction.php

“This has been a positive few days and we’re very pleased that Uefa have acknowledged the importance of fan representation. In particular it’s been interesting to see that they share a similar outlook when it comes to governance, and specific issues such curbing irresponsible spending on wages or transfers,” said Malcolm Clarke, chair of the FSF.

D.S.

Jesus1222 wrote: »

An environment exists where serious punishment is given to clubs which get into financial difficulties. Platini is a whingebag. Remember him giving out about Wenger for being too "business like"? Now he's giving out about just the opposite. His irrational, contrary, anti-English brainwaves should be ignored.

Hold on a minute. There is two aspects to this proposaL:

1) Is Platini using this approach as a stick to curb the progress of the EPL?
2) Does the widening gap between big clubs and lesser clubs need to be addressed?

On the first one, I think he is. And i don't think this proposal works.

On the second, as a United fan, there is no doubt that there is a big issue. With the money that the bigs clubs are pulling in, do you really think the United's, Real Madrid's, Barcelona's, AC Milan's won't dominate and monnopolize the game for the next 10-15 years?

There is v little hope for the smaller clubs to break the grip the European elite have. It's a monopoly. Big clubs spend as much as it takes. If you don't have the fan base/revenue, you have no hope. Your great players will continue to be snatched away from you.

So some form of system needs to be introduced. Salary caps and transfer caps don't really work for me as Platini says. Unless, you do it the other way and limit every European teams spending on transfers/salaries to a European benchmark for both. The problem is. The bigs teams still have massive revenue streams and can look to other avenues.

anonymous_joe

UEFA would be fools to limit salaries/fees/etc.

As soon as that happens, they surrender their position as the dominant force in football. Why? Money, of course.

Let's say there's a maximum wage of €50k p/w (made that figure up, no basis on anything) all you need is for someone in Asia or America to begin offering €51k. It's that simple. You'll either totally corrupt football as teams begin to find sneaky ways to play players (and that's happened before, don;t doubt that) or you'll lose players to other countries.

event

PHB wrote: »

I agree with these laws. I think wages should be strongly linked to your annual turnover, clubs need to be financially viable. That said, I do think people should be allowed invest, just not quite as much as the Man City owners do.

with the first point, that just means the rich clubs get richer

and with the second point, why is that?
they are spending more than others so it isnt fair?
that sounds very childish

bigstar

event wrote: »

with the first point, that just means the rich clubs get richer

and with the second point, why is that?
they are spending more than others so it isnt fair?
that sounds very childish

but it is fair when the big clubs do it, didnt you know that

anonymous_joe

bigstar wrote: »

but it is fair when the big clubs do it, didnt you know that

Actually I don't think external investment is fair at all.

I hate Aston Villa, Man City and Chelsea.

What all of those clubs have done is spend someone else's money, Manchester United, Liverpool and Arsenal have all spent money they earned through on field success and expert use of that success off the pitch. Were it not for the Glazers, and the idiotic decision to float the shares and then leave them unprotected, Manchester United would be a business triumph, even now they still break even (with some help from creative accountancy ).

Artificial liquidity investment doesn't do much but cause price inflation, wage inflation and as a result the fan's jerseys, tickets and tv subscriptions all cost more.

Jesus1222

D.S. wrote: »

Hold on a minute. There is two aspects to this proposaL:

1) Is Platini using this approach as a stick to curb the progress of the EPL?

That's his objective imo. That's where it's directed imo.

2) Does the widening gap between big clubs and lesser clubs need to be addressed?

On the first one, I think he is. And i don't think this proposal works.

On the second, as a United fan, there is no doubt that there is a big issue. With the money that the bigs clubs are pulling in, do you really think the United's, Real Madrid's, Barcelona's, AC Milan's won't dominate and monnopolize the game for the next 10-15 years?

There is v little hope for the smaller clubs to break the grip the European elite have. It's a monopoly. Big clubs spend as much as it takes. If you don't have the fan base/revenue, you have no hope. Your great players will continue to be snatched away from you.

So some form of system needs to be introduced. Salary caps and transfer caps don't really work for me as Platini says. Unless, you do it the other way and limit every European teams spending on transfers/salaries to a European benchmark for both. The problem is. The bigs teams still have massive revenue streams and can look to other avenues.

My problem with Platini is his inconsistency. Just look at what he said about Ronaldo moving to Madrid (and Real are probably the worst example of unfairness in football when it comes to money, which says alot about Platini's motives), then when an English club is at it it suddenly becomes a big problem which demands action. It's hugely inconsistent. We have another example with his attack on Wenger. You cannot deal with a man like that.

I think spending on transfers and wages should be a function of income generally. Maybe a bigger fraction of the billions generated at the top should find it's way down to the bottom to encourage development of smaller clubs and more home-grown talent. That's the best anybody can do but yet will that not discourage investment in a club?

I'm not sure what to do about so called unfairness in football when it comes to revenue but I'm certain Platini's whims don't come into the equation in solving it. If it even needs to be solved, Abramovich's billions didn't put Chelsea perpetually in a position of dominance and no other club will remain at the top simply because of money, if they do it's down to the manager and organisation. Aston Villa & Everton have and are competing for a Champions League place and they have a sound business model, there is Hoffenheim in Germany, Porto won a Champions League 4 years ago, Liverpool had a squad barely better than a quality provincial city club when they won in 2005, Gerrard aside. My point is clubs rise and fall, some clubs are bigger than other clubs. Smaller clubs or big clubs with sound business models can and do make breakthroughs. A small club with a small fanbase will not become a dynasty. The fact they have less money than Real is not an issue. That's just life. Manchester United have been winning titles for 15 years, yet they were turned over by Walker's Blackburn, why are they still a massive club and why are Blackburn not? Is it down to unfairness in football? Or are they just a bigger club, with bigger revenue streams and a better manager? What's unfair about that?

Hardly any club will spend themselves into oblivion and if they do there are massive punishments waiting for them.

SectionF

anonymous_joe wrote: »

Actually I don't think external investment is fair at all.

I hate Aston Villa, Man City and Chelsea.

What all of those clubs have done is spend someone else's money, Manchester United, Liverpool and Arsenal have all spent money they earned through on field success and expert use of that success off the pitch. Were it not for the Glazers, and the idiotic decision to float the shares and then leave them unprotected, Manchester United would be a business triumph, even now they still break even (with some help from creative accountancy ).

Artificial liquidity investment doesn't do much but cause price inflation, wage inflation and as a result the fan's jerseys, tickets and tv subscriptions all cost more.

I've read this a few times, and I'm still trying to figure out how you can exclude ManU and Liverpool from your detested 'spend someone else's money' category.