Quote Originally Posted by Fist of Lehmann View Post
When considering how money has distorted the player transfer market it's important to bear in mind the one other major contributory factor - the 1995 Bosman Ruling.

Prior to this the movement of players was restricted by owning clubs. Forcing a transfer was impossible, because the owning club could refuse to release a players registration even if the contract had expired.

The Bosman Ruling placed the power, and the money, firmly back in the players hands. So after this, with nothing to limit movement, the most sought after players naturally began ending up at the richest clubs. The super rich clubs of the late 90's and noughties are really the first to capitalise on this unrestricted polarisation.

With players now controlling the market, and money now controlling the players, the significance of being able to pay higher wages than anyone else has only been exaggerated.

We're now in something of a vicious circle. The greed of players and their parasitic agents drive up wages, and 'ambitious' clubs willing to pay the premium drive up greed.
I wouldn't isolate it to only players and agents, as they are more opportunists making the most of an affluent industry. bankers were doing the same not too long ago, so the greed is a reflection of society at large, not something born and breed within the game.

you are right about bosman as it 'freed' up transfer money that didn't need to spent on fees, to be put onto wages. by the late 90s the top players were probably on 40/50k a week, which is what a squad player in the prem may earn now. its hard to find a middle ground for clubs and players to feel they have a level of control, the nature of the business almost makes that impossible, thus we get these swings between the two.

whether hazard (as an example) is on 100k after tax or 20k, the amount doesn't really matter. big clubs will always be able to pay more than anyone else and he would always have ended up at one of the biggest payers.