salary cap

[si2008]

i think a salary cap is needed in the premier league transfer fees and salaries are out of control. the big 5 seem to be able to buy nearly anybody. isay big 5 man utd arsenal liverpool chelsea man city

[Toon³]

Not a salary cap but a wage cap. A club can pay whatever they want to a player but they must keep within a set wage limit, say £75 million per year. Of course this would have to be through out UEFA for it to work but it won't happen so there is no point in even discussing it.

[Teso Dos Bichos]

Teams competing in Europe need bigger squads than those who are only involved in domestic competition. They also need better players overall. Why should they be punished for their success?

[RichardL]

Teams competing in Europe need bigger squads than those who are only involved in domestic competition. They also need better players overall. Why should they be punished for their success?
You're so right. I think the tv money should all be given to the big 4, and the other clubs should probably subsidise them too, as it's unfair that it costs so much more to put together a champions league side than just a UEFA Cup place chasing one.

[Matt Clark]

i think a salary cap is needed in the premier league transfer fees and salaries are out of control. the big 5 seem to be able to buy nearly anybody. isay big 5 man utd arsenal liverpool chelsea man city

Shouldn't this tired old topic be a sticky somewhere?

Any restrictions of this kind would need to be across UEFA, for a start. And then they'd have to be rigorously enforced by the authorities in every member state.

Nice idea, but we need a workable plan first.

[Harry Boulton]

i think a salary cap is needed in the premier league transfer fees and salaries are out of control. the big 5 seem to be able to buy nearly anybody. isay big 5 man utd arsenal liverpool chelsea man city


The EPL is not alone here. Every league has a set of teams who have more money than the rest. Every structured sport will have a hierachy of sorts. It's inevitable that a natural order establishes itself, not that I agree with it.

You wouldn't get a salary cap past the human rights convention in Europe. There's no salary cap in accountancy, law or engineering. There's no salary cap in boxing, golf or tennis. Footballers aren't going to allow someone to limit their earning potential on a whim when everyone else is aloud to earn as much as they like.

[chrizzah]

You wouldn't get a salary cap past the human rights convention in Europe. There's no salary cap in accountancy, law or engineering. There's no salary cap in boxing, golf or tennis. Footballers aren't going to allow someone to limit their earning potential on a whim when everyone else is aloud to earn as much as they like.

Governmental organizations have pay scales and you cannot exceed the highest rate. Collective bargaining agreements also exist in Europe and sometimes set the pay and raises for certain professions. Collective bargaining agreements are sort of the opposite of a salary cap as their aim is to protect the worker from poor pay/work conditions. The point is that organizations and employees are able to negotiate agreements that are not in violation of the human rights convention. As long as the salary cap agreement is approved by owners and players' unions, I don't think there would be a problem. Owners unilaterally imposing a salary cap would be a problem. If you look at the US, the various strikes over the years in American football, baseball and hockey had to do with the players' union being unsatisfied with the proposed agreement on offer.

[Toon³]

You wouldn't get a salary cap past the human rights convention in Europe. There's no salary cap in accountancy, law or engineering. There's no salary cap in boxing, golf or tennis. Footballers aren't going to allow someone to limit their earning potential on a whim when everyone else is aloud to earn as much as they like.

Which is exactly why a wage cap is needed. Pay whatever you like to a player but restrict the total amount a club can use on wages a season.

[Matt Clark]

You wouldn't get a salary cap past the human rights convention in Europe.
The Employments Rights Tribunal, but we get your point.

There's no salary cap in accountancy, law or engineering.
Not the most apt comparison. Sign an employment contract with a law firm and then try and leave within a year for somewhere else that offers more money. Oh - and ask for a "loyalty bonus" before you leave because, actually, you never asked to leave. Not officially.

Footballers aren't going to allow someone to limit their earning potential on a whim when everyone else is aloud to earn as much as they like.
That's not how a salary cap works. You don't cap individual player's salaries, you cap the total amount a club can spend on salaries. So Manchester City could still pay Robinho £160,000 a week if they really wanted to, but there wouldn't be enought left in the pot to pay Craig Bellamy £100,000 a week.

Tell me that's a bad thing.

[Harry Boulton]

Governmental organizations have pay scales and you cannot exceed the highest rate.

First and foremost, governmental organisations are paid for by taxes. The peoples taxes which they have no choice in paying. These regulatoins are applied to protect where peoples money is spent.

Footballers are paid by the income generated from fans who voluntarily hand over their money every time they buy a shirt, go to a game, pay their TV subscription etc. There is a difference in how both are funded.



Which is exactly why a wage cap is needed. Pay whatever you like to a player but restrict the total amount a club can use on wages a season.


A certain amount, or a certain percentage of income?

You see, by setting the marker based on a certain percentage of income, you're still favouring the bigger clubs because they make more money than the rest anyway which gives them more to spend. They'll just strive to increase profits year on year so that their potential percentage increases, simply handing them a more focused advantage.

By setting it at a certain amount, it's a restriction of trade and therefore would not see the light of day, in my opinion. If a club/business makes money through fair means (ie, not breaking the law) it's their right to spend that money how they like.


I think a better way to do this would be to find ways of helping the smaller clubs compete, rather than trying to find a way to restrict the bigger clubs. If you think that Real Madrid, AC Milan and Manchester United are going to allow people to impose restrictions on how they do their business then you;rre all mistaken. A break away super league would be drawn up quicker than you can say "it's not fair" and then football wopuld truly suffer at the lower levels. I personally believe that, anyway.

[chrizzah]

First and foremost, governmental organisations are paid for by taxes. The peoples taxes which they have no choice in paying. These regulatoins are applied to protect where peoples money is spent.

Footballers are paid by the income generated from fans who voluntarily hand over their money every time they buy a shirt, go to a game, pay their TV subscription etc. There is a difference in how both are funded.

That's not the point. Some government rates are the result of negotiations between a union and the government. The government has to follow fair labor practices whether or not there is a greater good. An agreement between the government and a union is as valid as a salary cap agreement between an FA and a players union.

If you look at US salary caps, I wouldn't say they impede teams from competing. If you look at the average yearly salaries of teams they vary quite significantly. They are also not as simple as taking all of the players on the team and summing their salaries. Most salaries apply, however others partially apply and there are exceptions for singing certain players outside of the cap. As they are agreements, they are generally pretty complicated with a lot of nuances. As these agreements are negotiated by a players' union, the players' have as much of an input as the owners. If a salary cap were implemented, you wouldn't see players' salaries decreased. You just wouldn't see these one-upmanship signings by new billionaire owners that increasingly make the playing field less competitive,

[51BLU]

I can't see how a salary cap could be legally imposed on Premier league teams!

At the moment given the lower personal tax rates for most other competing European leagues and the weakness of the pound against the Euro. English clubs would be at a serious competitive disadvantage when trying to attract foreign players. This would lead to a poorer standard Premier League and make it nigh on impossible for any club to compete effectively in European club competitions.

[Matt Clark]

I love it when people don't read through a thread before contributing to it. Does wonders for the quality of debate.

No one advocates a salary cap for just the Premier League. This thread was about three posts old and that had been settled.

[Harry Boulton]

If UEFA, FIFA, the government, FA or Premier League try and restrict the game biggest clubs from trading to their maximum potential, which is no doubt how these clubs will see it, then we'll see a break away league form almost straight away and the consequences of that would reach far and wide.

The games biggest clubs are already itching for an excuse to break away and form some sort of European Super-League, and any sort of perceived restriction on potential income, or reduction in profits is going to give them a real business incentive to go ahead and apply this.

If anyone believes for a second that the withdrawal of the games biggest clubs from the football hierachy will not have a detrimental affect on income lower down the leagues then they're only kidding themselves. The game has allowed itself to become almost dependant on the income it produces and unfortunately a large proportion of this income is generated by the games bigger clubs. Take away this interest and income will ground-rocket which will see clubs in even more financial trouble. Whilst the likes of Wigan, Portsmouth and Everton stand little chance of actually winning the league, they're almost entirely dependant on the money generated by the Premier League TV rights deal, money which is largely generated by world wide interest and support in clubs like Arsenal, Chelsea and Man Utd. It's dependancy on something not entirely generated by themselves.

That's why I think that the games other clubs (I hesitate to use the term "smaller" for fear of being branded disprespectful) have to look at ways of increasing their income, rather than restricting the income potential of the games bigger clubs. You have to retain the interest these clubs generate because without it the money isn't going to be there anymore.

For example, a lot of people are not entirely happy with they way Rangers and Celtic are routinely involved in a two horse race season on season because they make far more money than the rest of the SPL. However, withdraw the interest that those two clubs generate and Scottish football would die. Already we're seeing clubs fighting financial trouble because of the money denied them by Setanta going under. Take the Old Firm interest away from that league as well and it would collapse.

I had a discussion with a mate about this last night and he thinks that sooner or later the football bubble will burst and then, and only then, can we make a decent fist of starting again but the same thing will only happen again with a handful capitalising on what is available and the rest struggling to catch up again.

I'd love to see a more open game. The fact that I support a club like Man Utd does not see me acting in some kind of self-preservationist manner, but making the game more open is not simply a case of taking all the money and handing it out fairly. There's too much potential for these bigger clubs to spit their dummies out and walk away with the finance they create. Maybe most people will happily wave goodbye to these clubs, and it wouldn't surpirse me if they did, but that would have severe consequences for the rest of the gae, whether people want to recognise that or not.

[51BLU]

I love it when people don't read through a thread before contributing to it. Does wonders for the quality of debate.

No one advocates a salary cap for just the Premier League. This thread was about three posts old and that had been settled.

I wasn't talking about a salary cap just for Premier League, just wanted to highlight the different playing field each individual country's teams would face.

Players in England pay 50% tax where as in Spain the personal taxation rate is much lower something like 30%. Say a player demanded £ 50,000 net per week.

English club would have to pay him £100,000
Spanish club would pay him the equivalent of £71,428

Sorry if i did not make myself clear to you.

[RichardL]

If a salary cap were implemented, you wouldn't see players' salaries decreased.,
If there was a salary cap, and Man Utd etc could still pay the same total salaries as now, it'd be rather pointless having the cap.

Caps don't drive down the top salaries. They drive down the salaries of everyone else, who have to be paid less so that the clubs can afford to pay the star players, and stay under the cap.

Some might suggest that would be a good thing, as it would free up talent that otherwise just sits in the stand watching along with most of the other 40 man squad that doesn't even make the bench. If they were paid less, they might go elsewhere and actually play rather than having their development stunted by playing reserve team football until they are i their early 20s.


If anyone believes for a second that the withdrawal of the games biggest clubs from the football hierachy will not have a detrimental affect on income lower down the leagues then they're only kidding themselves. The game has allowed itself to become almost dependant on the income it produces and unfortunately a large proportion of this income is generated by the games bigger clubs. Take away this interest and income will ground-rocket which will see clubs in even more financial trouble. Whilst the likes of Wigan, Portsmouth and Everton stand little chance of actually winning the league, they're almost entirely dependant on the money generated by the Premier League TV rights deal, money which is largely generated by world wide interest and support in clubs like Arsenal, Chelsea and Man Utd. It's dependancy on something not entirely generated by themselves.

On the other hand, they are only dependent on tv income, because tv income has driven up wages so much.

If there were no big 4 clubs in the top division, the top division would still have a tv deal. It wouldn't be the size of today's deal, obviously, but the football league has a £264 million tv deal for 3 years, and you'd expect it to be considerably higher than that.

It would probably see spending fall to levels more in line with the German league. It would just depend how much warning they had. Clubs could probably cope with a £20 million a year drop in income if it was starting in 2 years, but not if it was in 6 months.

[chrizzah]

If there was a salary cap, and Man Utd etc could still pay the same total salaries as now, it'd be rather pointless having the cap.


I would imagine that any salary cap would be phased in meaning Man Utd would be able to pay the same current salaries, but you wouldn't see any massive spikes and further down the road they would come in to line with the cap. If the US agreements were used as a model, you would still have a league minimum salary which is generally pretty high in normal-everyday-salary terms. Your description sounds a bit like the MLs where you can can have one player (like Beckham) making millions while the rest of the team does not make over $270,000. That is not the norm for other professional US leagues with a salary cap, however.

This is the NBA (which has a salary cap) team payrolls for 2008-2009:

http://content.usatoday.com/sports/basketball/nba/salaries/totalpayroll.aspx?year=2008-09

and the NFL:

http://content.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/totalpayroll.aspx?year=2008-09

I add this because (and perhaps I am wrong) it seems as though some people think every team will have the same total payroll if there were a salary cap.

[RichardL]

I would imagine that any salary cap would be phased in meaning Man Utd would be able to pay the same current salaries, but you wouldn't see any massive spikes and further down the road they would come in to line with the cap. If the US agreements were used as a model, you would still have a league minimum salary which is generally pretty high in normal-everyday-salary terms. Your description sounds a bit like the MLs where you can can have one player (like Beckham) making millions while the rest of the team does not make over $270,000. That is not the norm for other professional US leagues with a salary cap, however.

This is the NBA (which has a salary cap) team payrolls for 2008-2009:

http://content.usatoday.com/sports/basketball/nba/salaries/totalpayroll.aspx?year=2008-09

and the NFL:

http://content.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/totalpayroll.aspx?year=2008-09

I add this because (and perhaps I am wrong) it seems as though some people think every team will have the same total payroll if there were a salary cap.

My point was more that currently there is much more parity among salaries in a 1st team squad.

Looking at a Chicago Cubs salary list from a few years back, for example, of the 31 players with salaries listed, 11 appear to be on something which looks like a minimum salary. 10 are on at least 10 times that minimum salary, and one player earns double the salary of any other player (around 50 times the minimum salary, and around 10 times the middle-range salaries for that squad).

You just don't get that salary range over here in a squad the same size.

The only way a club like Man Utd could stay under a cap, if they wanted to keep their better players, would be to crush wages for the rest of the squad.

[chrizzah]

My point was more that currently there is much more parity among salaries in a 1st team squad.

Looking at a Chicago Cubs salary list from a few years back, for example, of the 31 players with salaries listed, 11 appear to be on something which looks like a minimum salary. 10 are on at least 10 times that minimum salary, and one player earns double the salary of any other player (around 50 times the minimum salary, and around 10 times the middle-range salaries for that squad).

You just don't get that salary range over here in a squad the same size.

I'm not disagreeing with anything you said, but baseball actually has a wage restriction device that is different from the other US leagues. It's not a straight-up salary cap. They have a luxury tax which is a little bit like the baggage limit on planes. You can go over the limit, but there is a fee. In baseball, a team salary limit exists; however you are allowed to exceed the limit. Above the limit, teams begin paying a luxury tax (to the league). The higher you go over the limit, the higher the percentage of tax you pay (it's graduated). I don't actually follow baseball, but I know the Yankees who are essentially the ManUtd of baseball (for financial purposes) always go over the limit.

[Teso Dos Bichos]

You're so right. I think the tv money should all be given to the big 4, and the other clubs should probably subsidise them too, as it's unfair that it costs so much more to put together a champions league side than just a UEFA Cup place chasing one.

Yet again I ask why punish clubs for their success?


Plus let's be perfectly honest here in admitting that the Premier League is one of the better leagues around in terms of shared revenue because of the collective TV deal.