It would distort the wage market if what we were doing was actually successful.Originally Posted by Fist of Lehmann
It would distort the wage market if what we were doing was actually successful.
In other words, what's the difference between Man City inflating wages at the upper level, and us inflating wages at a lower one?
The difference is this. Man City are operating an inflated wage bill, we are operating a normalised one. Like most clubs we still have to balance the books, so if we overpay at the the lower end, we have to underpay at the upper ("underpay" that is, relative to the prevailing wage market).
The only way we could possibly distort the wage market would be to normalise it, which would actually be healthy thing.
It's impossible for this to happen however because market forces always reassert themselves, or, to put it another way, underpaid workers who receive a better offer usually leave.
Our wage structure leaves us vulnerable to poachers because our top players know they could earn 3-4 times more elsewhere. And in few other industries are high performing employees so aggressively head-hunted.
So even if we were successful, the uber-rich would be tapping up our players. And we would spend every summer desperately fighting off wolves and trying to replace the players we would inevitably lose.
Sound familiar? It's already the position our wage structure places us in (minus the success).
We're not operating on a 'normal' scale compared to the smaller clubs and the only way they'd be able to keep their best players would be through a sugar daddy takeover like City and Chelsea. It's vicious cycle. This isn't new to football. A bigger fish has no entered the pond and we're now feeling a lot smaller.
Not sure what are you talking about. I mean "normalised" as in the disparity between highest and lowest is smaller than usual.
And I mean "distorted" as in changing the naturally occurring shape of the wage market, (i.e the gradient you get when you plot player wage vs player quality).
Trying to portray City or Chelsea as just another layer on top of the food chain is ignoring the fact that they do not have to observe any kind of prudence or operate under the same business rules as anyone else, due to the sheer scale of their wealth. City could buy van Persie, dip him in platinum and drop him off a pier, just to remove him from a rival* team. It wouldn't make the slightest dent in their wealth.
Spending money to most clubs is a risk because it is a finite resource, when you effectively remove the limits you remove the risk. Where is the sport in that?
*Rival in that we took points off them, not rival for the league obv.
There is no natural occurring shape of the wage market. That's determined by whose willing to pay what and the richest clubs set the bar. Real Madrid set the bar a long time ago during their 'Galactico' phase. From then on it got silly and the gap between the rich clubs and poor widened. City and Chelsea are a symptom of the problem. There is no way for the smaller clubs to compete with the elites because the bigger clubs have always been able to poach their players and set wage fees and transfers way above what they can afford. Where is the sport in that? The system has been unfair for years but we're more vocal now because it feels like we're in a hopeless situation where we can't compete.
You say this has 'always' been the case. To an extent, but the differences between the haves and have nots has grown exponentially. Especially since the advent of the Premier League and the rise and rise of the Champions League.
1965 and 1967, Utd were champions. They won the European Cup in 1968. In 1974 they were relegated.
Utd's final positions in the years from 67 to 74 were:
1st, 2nd, 11th, 8th, 8th, 8th, 18th, 21st.
The champions each year were
67 Utd
68 City
69 Leeds
70 Everton
71 Arsenal
72 Derby County
73 Liverpool
74 Leeds
Note that only Leeds won it twice, every other year there was a different champion. There have always been haves and have nots but the gaps between them were such that it was far easier to better oneself as a club, and possible to fall from grace pretty quickly. These days the only way to do it is to do what Chelsea and now City have done. That isn't those clubs' fault but it's a pretty sorry state of affairs. It makes football all too predictable. In the era I'm talking about you didn't know what was going to happen at the start of the season. Now the top 3 for next year is pretty much certain to be the two Manchester clubs and Chelsea. I don't know the order of course but it's a bit sad that before a ball is kicked the top 3 is all but known.
Obviously not always, Letters. But if we have to go that far back to see so many different title holders, then it's obvious this didn't just happen over night with the emergence of Chelsea and City. Let's just say the Premier League era then. Around the mid 90s. It is a sad state of affairs, but then again it isn't. If it wasn't for City and Chelsea, we'd only ever see two teams compete for the title each season.
A few things.
The financial gap between the top 36 teams that are not in the champions league places has shrunk considerably.
- The championship is awash with cash
- Within the EPL, and unlike la ligua, revenue is distributed pretty evenly, due to balanced TV rights and parachute payments to relegated EPL clubs.
- The champions league spaces however, distort the balance not just in TV revenue, but in sponsorship deals, prize money and (more games @ class A) ticket revenue.
- People complain about Real and Barca, but they still have dept, and have vastly reduced there yearly spending over the last year or so.
Really, this all began with Chelsea, now we have random teams like Malaga offering £200k per week contracts like candy. EVEN if players choose clubs for footballing reasons, this massive wage inflation will persist and influence clubs at all levels in the EPL and below.
it's interesting that you choose that specific period as a counterpoint example to today's situation. From what I can see 4 teams won in the 80's, 4 in the 90's, 3 in the 00's and 3 so far in this decade - will that mean 8 years of man u, chelsea and city winning the league, before only two win it from 2020 onwards?
there seems to be a trend in those figures but club domination is symptomatic of the competitive nature of sport when given the opportunity to use whatever available legal tools exist. like you said, there have always been haves and have nots and there will always be a cycle where the gap grows to an unsustainable level before it has to regroup and start all over again. the journey on the road to the citys and chelseas started when the leagues were first formed and only when the bubble bursts will there be any degree of across the field parity again.
By "naturally occurring" I mean the way in which players tend to get paid what they're worth. Considering the correlation between wage bill and final league position the natural conclusion is that overall wage bill is a very good indicator of squad quality, and that squad quality is the deciding factor in where you finish.
This is possible because the conditions for an efficient wage market are all there.
Transparency, i.e. football players conduct their business in full view of millions, everyone can see how good a player you are, and players and agents pretty much know how much their peers earn.
Transferability, i.e. their are lots of buyers and sellers, and players are able to move freely between clubs.
Therefore if a player performs above his wages he will either agitate for a wage increase or agitate for a transfer (on higher wages).
If a player performs at a level below where his wages suggest, he will tend to fall out of the team, be sold or agitate for a move elsewhere.
In this way players "naturally" will tend to gravitate to their proper wage and, we know this happens because otherwise the correlation could not exist.
A distortion then would if you overpaid players relative to their abilities.
Oh what is the point.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote