Sports are a bit different. NBA has a salary cap and I'm fairly sure the better players get paid more, not to mention huge sponsorship deals. Michael Jordan isnt a poor man.Quote:
Originally Posted by fakeyank
Printable View
Sports are a bit different. NBA has a salary cap and I'm fairly sure the better players get paid more, not to mention huge sponsorship deals. Michael Jordan isnt a poor man.Quote:
Originally Posted by fakeyank
A salary cap is simple, in principle. Say the rules are set that player wages can be no more than 75% of club earnings. Teams must have minimum number of players. That doesn't mean you can't pay one or more players very high amounts, and these amounts would naturally be higher and clubs with greater football revenues, but it does mean that A) there is at least a cap which will mean clubs can operate with some level of certainty and knowledge that all other teams have to work within the same rules, B) greater assurance that clubs won't go under and C) a more level playing field.
I'm sick and tired of these oligarch's toy clubs (Chelsea, Man City, PSG, Anzi, Malaga, etc). Let teams build success through hard work and intelligent development, not just dump in £500m of transfers over a year or two from somebody's backpocket - inflating wages and creating unfair competitive advantages.
True, but then Man city have just sponsored themselves to the tune of £400m.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jam Persie
Makes a mockery of the whole thing.
Exactly. Any cap would have to be a defined value. But even then there are so many crooks involved in football, administering the game and running fiefdom clubs that any regulatory intention is pretty much meaningless
But that would also mean players not wanting to go to a club which makes less earnings, like Wigan, Swansea etc. They do not have the brand value that a Utd, Liverpool, Madrid have and they will not be reaching that level unless they have a sustained period of success. Which brings us back to square one really!Quote:
Originally Posted by Jam Persie
Like Dennis mentioned, you can have salary caps like NBA but then it'll depend on which teams give out better bonuses or are likely to win the championship, like the Lakers, Heat, Dallas etc
Yeah - they'd probably increase their pay by putting money in Swiss bank accounts for them. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by GB.
adegoat27, etc.
Of course the better players will want to play for the top clubs, not only for brand strength and bigger stage but also increased pay. Unless you make the salary cap so low that it plays to the lowest common denominator. That would be a bit too far.Quote:
Originally Posted by fakeyank
There are a number of ways to effect regulation and not all very simple. If there were actually a will to make it work than it would work. There are certainly areas to look at which could be manipulated. I suspect UEFA doesn't have the balls to tell Man City they can't effectively sponsor themselves to increase their revenues in order to maintain their unfair economic advantages. But you could make a salary cap based on anything really - 100% of gate fees, 75% of gate fees/25% sponsorship, average of attendance over 3 years X avg league ticket prices, etc.
There will always be clubs who try to break the rules. Those used to 'travelling by petrol' won't be keen on walking. But that's where majority buy-in and UEFA establishing a proper regulatory regime would help.
FY, your point makes sense the way football clubs operate and how the League is governed. North American sport is somewhat different because where there are caps they are based on League revenues. A key feature of the caps that doesn't get appreciated here is that in addition to there being a ceiling to the cap, there also is a floor. Teams cannot pay less than the minimum (floor) of the cap.
These controls are only good however if you don't have viable competing Leagues, and the owners of the Clubs, particularly those funded by oligarchs/oil barons would never go for it.
I 100% agree with OP.
Salary cap fixes one of the biggest problems.... although I would prefer for financial fair play to just be enforced better (as I would worry with a cap the players would slowly get a less and less fair share).
I see a lot of issues that Wenger (and respectively Arsenal) suffer in the transfer market (that we don't get to see) revolve around salary since the big spenders have totally skewed the market in that respect.
talking of fixing football
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17220640
Ha. That's incredible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flavs
Overturning a 9 goal deficit - it should be quite easy to spot if it was fixed. Indonesia playing rush-goalie would be the first clue.
Maybe we have a chance against Milan after all.
Not sure if anyone has said this but Champions League should just be for Champions.
And get rid of the seeding and group stages.
Keep the seedings and the group stages
No one wants to see an FA Cupesque type of Pub Team final with teams the calibre of Millwall, Portsmouth, Cardiff, Southampton, Arsenal etc in it.
Should be for champions though, i agree
If only champions enter, itl last about a fortnight.
The main thing which is wrong football is the level of money and the way the whole system is intended to keep the top teams rich which makes it more likely that they stay up there and sod the rest. Seeding and Group stages promote this. Football was a lot better when teams like Coventry and Wimbledon could win the FA Cup against the odds. that was the very essence of the 'magic of the cup' which is sadly lacking now as it's overshadowed by the CL and the top teams usually steamroller the rest and most years one of a small group of teams wins it.
You understand that that's how it used to be and it lasted all season?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dog Toffee
Like it did in the 70s, 80s and early 90s?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dog Toffee
How? Do they play each other ten times or something?
:haha:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dog Toffee
Newcomers :rolleyes:
No, it was 2 leg knock-outs. They just didn't play every 5 sodding minutes. Do we really need a bazillion games every week? Most of them aren't even very good games.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dog Toffee
This is just a guess, but I think they might have had numerous champions from all over Europe and not just the big nations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dog Toffee
I just dont remember the old european cup and how it functioned.
On reflection Id say it would be better that way too.
We'd never be in it though.
Some would say we are hardly in these ones as wellQuote:
Originally Posted by Dog Toffee
We'd have been in it 3 times under Wenger. But, and here's the point, that would make it more exciting if and when we are in it. Teams being in it year on year make it less exciting and special as it becomes routine. Plus it gives them such a big financial advantage that it makes it easier for them to stay in the top few and it can all become self perpetuating. City and Chelsea bought their way in, it's pretty hard to do it otherwise (which, grudgingly, makes Spurs achievement this season quite impressive although they've not exactly been thrifty themselves).Quote:
Originally Posted by Dog Toffee
Only for the last 15 years thanks to Wenger.
Yep and also we not be able to settle for 2nd/3rd/4th, we'd actully have to spend money and compete to get in it, it be much better for our league tbh.Quote:
Originally Posted by Letters
No thanks to Uefa chaning the rules.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dog Toffee
There are so many great teams in Europe that arent necessarily champions though. In spain every year one of Barca or Madrid wouldnt be in it. I think the way the CL is a.t.m isnt exactly boring and in some countries it is only the top one or two isnt it?
My old man told me that back in the day, because only champions were in the European Cup, it arguably made the Uefa Cup harder to win and it carried more prestige than it does now, because the teams who finished 2nd and 3rd were involved.
I said shit fuck boll.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Overmars
oh.
Pretty much.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Overmars
Also bring the CWC back. That and the UEFA Cup in the 90s were great trophies.
Thats just more way to make Uefa money tbh, they rather have madrid or barca in it even if they don't win their league their some rubbish russian or greek team who wins their league no one has heard of and its wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dog Toffee
We should be no where near the Cl just seems to be a safety blaket for us and its dangerous. We benefit from it being just champs or top 2 tbh.
If you're happy with a system where a little group of clubs at the top of each club can qualify year on year and qualifying gives them the prestige and money to stay up there (or, at least, makes it easier to) then yeah, it's fine. If you're OK with knowing from the start of a season that only one of 2 or 3 clubs can win the league. I personally think that makes things less interesting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dog Toffee
Should be the champions, for the champs league / european cup.
Then winners of the FA cup and maybe Carling Cup for the Cup Winners Cup
Then two / three for the europa.
5 places for Europe.
Seems good to me.
Get rid of Plantini and Blatter that will be a start to fixing football.
I wouldnt say the CL is 100% responsible for the fact only a few teams have the chance to win the PL each year. In fact when we won the double, wasnt it a 2 horse race between us and united? And now Id say its a race between 4/5 clubs (United, City, Spurs, Us, Chelsea) and maybe Liverpool. Clearly only either Manchester team will win it this year, but next season you could hardly say any of those teams dont stand a chance. And you cant say its only the CL that creates an 'elite' at the top. Its down to the fact rich people like having football clubs to flaunt as their own property, CL or no CL there will always we rich successful teams and poorer less successful one IMO.Quote:
Originally Posted by Letters
It's not only the CL, no. But it's a factor.
You stayed in it until you lost 6 games or had a goal difference of -12 or greater, whichever came first.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dog Toffee
Tell me more about this 'financial advantage' you speak of.Quote:
Originally Posted by Letters
It means the board has a financial advantage over the supporters.Quote:
Originally Posted by GB.