Whelan (Wigan) wants salary cap

por

From the BBC

Whelan wants football salary cap

Whelan has experience of a salary cap in rugby league
Wigan chairman Dave Whelan has urged the Premiership authorities to bring in a salary cap.
"There's only one way to guarantee healthy competition in the Premiership, and that's why I'm calling for a salary cap to be enforced," he said.

"I'm not knocking Chelsea, but if they continue dominating for another three or four years, then the entire league runs the risk of being ruined.

"Too many clubs would be left making up the numbers by a one-club monopoly."

Whelan has first-hand experience of the benefits of a salary cap in rugby league, where he runs Wigan Warriors, and has previously called for a similar set-up in football.

This season in rugby league's Super League clubs have been restricted to an annual player budget of £1.7m.

"Soccer should take note," he added.

"It makes sense to see a £25m or £30m limit on Premiership wages per club in order to guarantee healthy competition.

We are open-minded on this issue but very sceptical that a workable system can be found

Premier League spokesman

"I know for a fact that the chairmen of Blackburn Rovers, West Bromwich Albion, Sunderland and Charlton Athletic - along with many more - support my views, so let's see it happen sooner rather than later."

A Premier League spokesman told The Independent: "We are open-minded on this issue but very sceptical that a workable system can be found or implemented."

Football already runs a voluntary salary cap in League One and League Two where clubs cannot spend more than 60% of their income on players' salaries.

"The philosophy behind this was 'Don't spend more than you earn," a Football League spokesman said.

"It's been incredibly successful so far. The clubs actually seem comfortable with the idea that they're being encouraged to be prudent."

I believe something has to be done to restrict a teams ability to buy all around them, sometimes for the sake of preventing a rival from getting a player, but by the time Chelsea are finished they will have no rivals.

However I am very concerned by the statment from the Permisership

A Premier League spokesman told The Independent: "We are open-minded on this issue but very sceptical that a workable system can be found or implemented."

He is basically saying if our league is going down the tubes (which it is IMO) they we don't have a solution for it !!!

What sort of a statment is that

SCULLY

Classic....

Man Utd for over a decade has had resources far greater than its nearest rivals and won 8 premiership titles over 11 or 12 seasons, but nobody seemed to minid.

Chelsea, after winning 1 title, are now 'dominating' the premiership and something must be done to curb their spending power and create a level playing field? There has always been a gulf in spending between the top tier and botom tiers, but now thats its Chelsea and not Man Utd, something must be done?

county

this that legal?

por

SCULLY wrote:

Classic....

Man Utd for over a decade has had resources far greater than its nearest rivals and won 8 premiership titles over 11 or 12 seasons, but nobody seemed to minid.

Chelsea, after winning 1 title, are now 'dominating' the premiership and something must be done to curb their spending power and create a level playing field? There has always been a gulf in spending between the top tier and botom tiers, but now thats its Chelsea and not Man Utd, something must be done?

I am not a Utd fan, never was, never will be, but they 'grew' many of their players or got them when they were young, Giggs, Scholes, Butt, Beckham, Nevills etc. Alex Fergsun and Utd ownership had a plan and workd on it since 1986, Chelsea on the other had werte a team massively in debt in 2003 that were bailed out by a Russia that is just throwing moeny at them.
That's not to say that Utd did not spend, sure they did but the backbone was homegrown players, how many home grown players do Chelsea have , John terry is the only 1 I can think of ?

The Clown Man

Chelsea have always had terrible youth facilities. It was only in the last few years that their facilities even started trying. They had new facilities instated this year afaik and are now trying to lure the young talent as much as Man Utd and offer a football schooling to the standard of the Man Utd facilities.

The only reason that Chelsea have Terry is because Man Utd youth academy turned him down and Chelsea took him in. (He was a Man Utd fan from an early age.)

Of course, the type of facilities needed to draw the young talent directly to you are, of course, very expensive. Man Utd could afford the best.

Chelsea are now working big time on signing youth players and taking them through the home ranks. In 2010 maybe they will have 5 home grown players on their first team.

Kingp35

A salary cap does make a lot of sense and I would be all for seeing it introduced. Being a Leeds fan I know what can happen if you spend too much money on wages. The salary will also make the league allot more competitive and perhaps save the league from this serious slump it is in at the moment. That said I cant see any of the top clubs agreeing to this and if a Salary cap is forced upon them you may see a split from the league although this would be very unlikely.

The premiership is in trouble. As for Man Utd winning the league so often yes they did but as a previous poster pointed out they won it mostly with players that came through their youth system and not by spending over 200m on new players. Also for most of those seasons they had a close challenger who made the league remotely interesting. Chelsea ran away with the league last season and are in danger of doing the same thing this season judging from their start. A salary cap would not stop chelsea being able to spend the 200m on players but it would limit the amount of top class players they could bring in, unless of course they were willing to take a pay cut.

The idea makes perfect sense and would be very beneficial for the league but I don’t see it happening simply because the bigger clubs wont let it happen and lets be honest they are the clubs who have the power within the league and not the Wigans of the league

vorbis

agreed, tbh UEFA would need to take the lead on this. A European wide salary cap would increase competitiveness tenfold. Look even at the premiership, I'd say the top ten teams are easily able to pay average wages of 20,000 a week.

If a salary cap meant that a player's wages went from 60,0000 a week to 30,000 a week, its not exactly gonna put them on the breadline. Teams coming up from the Championship would then have a real chance of making an impression.

BKtje

Unless its Europe wide it would make the EPL uncompetitive with them as players would simply earn more elsewhere. Unless your a life long supporter of a club or really like the manager/setup your hardly gonna leave sunny spain and take the pay cut just so you can play in the rain of england.

Kingp35

B-K-DzR wrote:

Unless its Europe wide it would make the EPL uncompetitive with them as players would simply earn more elsewhere. Unless your a life long supporter of a club or really like the manager/setup your hardly gonna leave sunny spain and take the pay cut just so you can play in the rain of england.

I 100% agree that it would have to be a European based Salary Cap

Washout

Well it works very well in other sports so why not soccer. If they introduce this as well as a minumum home grown players rule then its only good for the sport.

One of the major problems with foreigners coming into england is that clubs are now scouting less and less for young players out there. This is affecting the future of all the uk nations as well as Irelands future.

So if salary caps can be enforcedit would only serve to encourage clubs to go talent hunting again.

applehunter

Washout wrote:

One of the major problems with foreigners coming into england is that clubs are now scouting less and less for young players out there. This is affecting the future of all the uk nations as well as Irelands future.

The less Irish young fellas going over to England to be treated like crap the better.

FatherTed

Over here in the US, MLS has a salary cap. It is about $3mil for each team which is nothing in European League terms. Plus there is about a $300K max for a player. It has it benefits and problems. It has been in existance since the league started in 1996 and every now and then it gets tweeked.

There are also limits to the number of foreign players each team can have e.g. a team has a max of 4 senior internationals (over 24 years old) and I think 5 TIs (transitional internationals under 24 years). Plus there is a max 24 players in a squad, a player can be added to a squad during the season but then another must be dropped. There are also rules regarding young players that are salary cap exempt, these are called Project-40 which is a scheme where Nike sponsors 40 young players (under 21 I think) and there is a limit to how many P-40 players a team can have. The salary minimum is $30K and indeed there are some players who play week in week out who only $40K. And thats per year, not per week.

Thats it in a nutshell.

The positives are that there isnt much between the number 1 team and the number 12 team in the league. There isnt any big gulf in resources as there are in the Premiership and at the start of each season, EVERY team has a decent chance of winning the championship. It has also led to the successful development of the American player, it forces the teams to develop the young americans and this has borne fruit for the international team. It also makes sure that everyone keeps their finances in order - although the league doesnt have great attendances (average about 15K per game), the league has a pretty good foundation and each team is in good shape financially.

It does have some down side, a lot of fans complain about not being able to sign Ronaldo or whomever, plus some of the teams that have high attendances such as LA where they would get 25K a game versus say Colorado who get about 8K a game are equal in the eyes of the league. Some bargins do some up such as the Metros signed Youri Djorkaef for $170K last year and was a real bargin.

I don't know if it would work in the Premiership but this is how it basically works here.

Benedict XVI

FatherTed wrote:

Over here in the US, MLS has a salary cap. It is about $3mil for each team which is nothing in European League terms. Plus there is about a $300K max for a player. It has it benefits and problems. It has been in existance since the league started in 1996 and every now and then it gets tweeked.

There are also limits to the number of foreign players each team can have e.g. a team has a max of 4 senior internationals (over 24 years old) and I think 5 TIs (transitional internationals under 24 years). Plus there is a max 24 players in a squad, a player can be added to a squad during the season but then another must be dropped. There are also rules regarding young players that are salary cap exempt, these are called Project-40 which is a scheme where Nike sponsors 40 young players (under 21 I think) and there is a limit to how many P-40 players a team can have. The salary minimum is $30K and indeed there are some players who play week in week out who only $40K. And thats per year, not per week.

Thats it in a nutshell.

The positives are that there isnt much between the number 1 team and the number 12 team in the league. There isnt any big gulf in resources as there are in the Premiership and at the start of each season, EVERY team has a decent chance of winning the championship. It has also led to the successful development of the American player, it forces the teams to develop the young americans and this has borne fruit for the international team. It also makes sure that everyone keeps their finances in order - although the league doesnt have great attendances (average about 15K per game), the league has a pretty good foundation and each team is in good shape financially.

It does have some down side, a lot of fans complain about not being able to sign Ronaldo or whomever, plus some of the teams that have high attendances such as LA where they would get 25K a game versus say Colorado who get about 8K a game are equal in the eyes of the league. Some bargins do some up such as the Metros signed Youri Djorkaef for $170K last year and was a real bargin.

I don't know if it would work in the Premiership but this is how it basically works here.

The NFL may be a better comparison to the Premiership as both leagues are the most popular in their markets.
The NFL has salary cap and revenue sharing abd at the begining of the season any one of 20 + team out of 30 can have a relastic chance of winning the lot.
But as others have mentioned here a tran European approach would have to take place rather than the EPL making such drastic decision is isolation.

Lemlin

I'd definitely back a European or worldwide salary cap. Just look at the example from the other night. Jermaine Defoe isn't up for the Grimsby game at all but gets 90,000 for his week's work.

The fella who played his heart out and scored the Grimsby goal gets a bonus of 118 euros!

Pigman II

Nonsense! You might as well put a 20,000 capasity limit on all attendances or propose that Chelsea must now start every league game 0-1 down.

Lemlin

Nonsense! You might as well put a 20,000 capasity limit on all attendances or propose that Chelsea must now start every league game 0-1 down.

So you think its fair that superstars get paid more in a week than some ordinary people would earn in five years? And then when you figure in the fact that they are doing something they're supposed to love.

Some footballers are on £120,000 a week. That's about €180,000 a week. Then they can't even be bothered to try against so-called lesser teams like Grimsby.

I know if I was Tottenham chairman, I'd fine any player that had played in Tuesday night's debacle their week's wages. Jermain Defoe probably gets paid more a year than it cost to put together the entire Grimsby team.

SteM

There is a salary cap on French clubs IIRC and they seem to do pretty well in Europe.

Pigman II

Lemlin wrote:

So you think its fair that superstars get paid more in a week than some ordinary people would earn in five years?

Oh and is that supposed to make me outraged at their high earnings? Do you think it's fair that an average Irish or British person can earn more on the dole in one week than a working man in Malawi earns in two months? Money is relative. It's supply and demand with a dash of good fortune , so get over it!

And then when you figure in the fact that they are doing something they're supposed to love.

Who's to say you can't love your job and make a mint of it too? You'll often find that the richest and most successful people in all walks of life have got to their position precisely because they loved what they do. Should they similarily have their earnings capped?

I say fair play to players for their mercenary attiude. If club boards and esp fans choose to tolerate it and won't make a stand against them by not buying the clubs branded tat or voting with their feet then the players deserve all the cash they can get their hands on.

Lemlin

Who's to say you can't love your job and make a mint of it too? You'll often find that the richest and most successful people in all walks of life have got to their position precisely because they loved what they do. Should they similarily have their earnings capped?

I say fair play to players for their mercenary attiude. If club boards and esp fans choose to tolerate it and won't make a stand against them by not buying the clubs branded tat or voting with their feet then the players deserve all the cash they can get their hands on.

Fans have already begun to vote with their feet. Attendances are at an all-time low.

As for rich and successful people, they always give their best. The Tottenham players Tuesday night did not, yet they are still paid.

Winston Bogarde sat on the Chelsea bench for two years and pocked about 45,000 a week maybe you'd say fair play to him but I think that's a travesty.

Pigman II

Lemlin wrote:

Fans have already begun to vote with their feet. Attendances are at an all-time low.

Yes but its taken a decade of exploitation for the rot to finally start to kick in.

As for rich and successful people, they always give their best. The Tottenham players Tuesday night did not, yet they are still paid.

Don't whisper it too loudly but I think you'll find there are teams out there with other priorities and other targets to focus their efforts on ie not the league cup. Busting a gut against Grimsby just to please the fans , only to then lose your prem match the following saturday due to fatigue isn't going to make you popular with anyone. I'm sure there wasn't too many Liverpool supporters in Istanbul last May that had their night ruined because their thoughts still dwelled on their FA Cup defeat by burnley several months earlier! Judge a team by their performances over a season, not in one meaningless match.

Winston Bogarde sat on the Chelsea bench for two years and pocked about 45,000 a week maybe you'd say fair play to him but I think that's a travesty.

I'm sure you'll find he is one of the exceptions rather than the rule. I do agree that players on these wages do owe a great service to their clubs but by and large they do do what could reasonalby expected of them for their money. If you don't think what they do is worth their take home pay then stop contributing to the pot.

Lemlin

Don't whisper it too loudly but I think you'll find there are teams out there with other priorities and other targets to focus their efforts on ie not the league cup. Busting a gut against Grimsby just to please the fans , only to then lose your prem match the following saturday due to fatigue isn't going to make you popular with anyone. I'm sure there wasn't too many Liverpool supporters in Istanbul last May that had their night ruined because their thoughts still dwelled on their FA Cup defeat by burnley several months earlier! Judge a team by their performances over a season, not in one meaningless match.

"Meaningless", do you not read the papers or websites? Jol has came out several times this week and stated that what pisses him off the most is that he put out a near full strength team because he felt that the Carling Cup was the one competition Tottenham had a chance of winning.

I'm sure you'll find he is one of the exceptions rather than the rule. I do agree that players on these wages do owe a great service to their clubs but by and large they do do what could reasonalby expected of them for their money. If you don't think what they do is worth their take home pay then stop contributing to the pot.

I don't get your point at all, why should I stop giving my opinion? Because you don't agree with it? Fact is that endless managers, pundits and others have said that footballers today are vastly overpaid. Even footballers themselves often say it.

They reasonably do what is expected of them!? Jesus, if I was paid £120,000 a week to turn up at training for a few hours a day and then play a game or two a week, I know I would.

Fact is that Whelan is right. If a salary cap was put on players, it would stop the rot that is coming into the game because the big clubs would not have such an advantage. At the moment they can not only afford to offer huge transfer fees, but can also offer players extorinate wages.

Even players on free transfers are offered huge wages to ensure they sign. Meaning that smaller clubs are always had a disadvantage.

Pigman II

First off I never said anything about you not giving your opinion. If you interpreted that from the 'contibuting to the pot' comment The 'pot' I was refering to was the pool of money contributed towards by average working stiffs that go to pay these players.

//

I'm not going to break it down point by point. All I am saying it is ironic that a man who has ammassed a personal fortune estimated at €400million is now trying to set a system in place that blocks footballers from earning the maximum amount of money they can.

Also ironic is that he is effectively trying to control how much private individuals such as Abramovich can invest in their teams considering he himself poured has an estimated €100m euro of his own money into Wigan over the past five years or so. Where exactly would Wigan be right now if he had been prevented from doing so one might ask? Was he also conserned about 'healthy competition' back when Wigan were tearing up Division2+1 due to the infracstructures he'd set in place with his chequebook?

Whelan to me just comes off as a guy who isn't adverse to fixing a hole by sticking 20 pound notes in it but now that he finds himself as the little fish in the big pond he wants to change the rules.

Lemlin

Yep but I guarantee you he worked alot harder than any Premiership footballer to amass his 400 million. He's a very successful businessman.

He's not trying to stop the amount of money Roman invests, you don't hear him saying anything about transfer fees. He's basically saying that soccer should try to adopt a system that has worked very well in Rugby League.

I don't remember Wigan exactly tearing up Division 1 + 2. They didn't even win Division One last year after all.

He's hardly a little fish in a big pond when it comes to money either. Wigan matched Newcastle's 17 million for Owen and the wages but Owen wasn't interested in going to them.

Pigman II

Who cares how how hard Whelan worked for his money? Whos to say anyone should deserve 400m for a lifetimes work!?! Likewise who cares how relatively easy footballers have it for the amount they earn?

My point is that there is individuals and clubs out there willing to pay 'x amount' for the services of professional footballers (whether they or YOU personally deem it value for money or not is not the issue) and that these pro's should be allowed to earn the amount that their employers are willing to pay.

BTW you ARE trying to stop the amount that Roman can invest. Transfer fees are fairly meaningless in the post Bosman era. It's all about wage these days and if RA can't buy the league and is onl allowed to pay players as much wages as Wigan can then whats the point of him even being there?

Lemlin

BTW you ARE trying to stop the amount that Roman can invest. Transfer fees are fairly meaningless in the post Bosman era. It's all about wage these days and if RA can't buy the league and is onl allowed to pay players as much wages as Wigan can then whats the point of him even being there?

So Sunderland could afford 32 million for Michael Essien? Or 28 million for Rooney?

Pigman II

Lemlin wrote:

So Sunderland could afford 32 million for Michael Essien? Or 28 million for Rooney?

My point being even if there was no transfer fee they probably couldn't afford their wages.

Lemlin

Yes, but they couldn't afford the transfer fee in the first place so a salary cap would not affect Chelsea getting the player.

If there was a cap, Sunderland would of been able to afford his wages but not the 32 million. Therefore, Chelsea still have an advantage from Roman's millions but Essien would not be overpaid.

That's my point.

Pigman II

When I talked about Sunderland there I was making the point that they coundn't afford the UNCAPPED wages of Rooney or Essien anyway so talk of transfer fees was irrelevant.

Anyway before this gets further sidetracked I'm just going to state my pov clearly which is that I feel there should be nothing to stop a player earning the maximum that a club is willing to pay for his services.

To see where I'm coming from how would Whelan like it if the British Government passed a law tommorow that said "in the interests of finanaical competitiveness no businessman shall be allowed to have net worth of more than £20 million and that the net balance is being confiscated for use by the exchequer". Somehow I don't think he'd be so happy with the shoe on the other foot.

Lemlin

Wages are spiralling out of control though. The same was happening with transfer fees a few years ago, then suddenly it all ended when clubs started to lose money and suddenly hundreds of players were released.

The same could happen soon with the wage structure that is in place.

Pigman II

Then so be it. If a club wants to bet the farm every season instead of budgeting responsibly then they deserve every subsequent problem they get.

Lemlin

Wasn't very fair though on alot of the players who were on smaller wages and suddenly found themselves without a club.

Pigman II

You keep going on about what's 'fair'. If you're interested in whats fair then football really isn't the game or industry for you imho.

Lemlin

You keep going on about what's 'fair'. If you're interested in whats fair then football really isn't the game or industry for you imho.

Nope, football isn't the game for me. It isn't even my favourite sport, GAA is. I enjoy watching it though and, as they say, opinions are like assholes, everyone has one.

It isn't the industry for me either. I'm never going to be a footballer, physio, manager, agent etc. Doesn't mean that I don't enjoy watching it.

It still amazes me though that for all the money soccer players are paid, you get amateur sportsmen who aren't paid anything who will go out any weekend and give twice as much as any professional soccer player.

Fact is that neither of us have a clue what we're talking about. Neither of us are professional footballers or work in the industry. I at least have the backing of endless managers, former players and pundits. As for your opinion, I've never ever heard anyone from the industry come out and say top-level players aren't paid enough, have you?

IMO, there's far too much money in football. You'll never get me paying €1000 or so to go to one of the biggest ****holes in the world to watch 120 mins of football and spend a few hours there. No matter how exciting that game may be.

People may say an experience like that changes their lives but, for me, its the simple fact that I'm not playing, so I don't see how it can be life changing.