Is there any talk about setting spending limits for EPL teams? How serious is it?

[Steve Dave]

Is there any serious talk about put a limit on the amount of money each team can spend? I don't know what the over feeling is about this or if it is even discussed. It seems to me it is something that Arsenal, Chelsea, and Man United fans might not be thrilled with but fans of Manchester City, Crystal Palace, and others might have an interest in.

-Just wondering.

[king_saladin]

Even if the majority wanted it, seems near impossible to implement (without a lot of corruption)

I haven't really heard of that talk. Seems like it would go against the whole relegation/promotion system ladder containing dozens of leagues.
And of course, "they earned it, they can spend it".

For it to work, all fairly big European leagues would have to implement it... cant happen.

[Steve Dave]

Yeah the biggest issue would be the top talent would just go to other leagues but I didn't know if the middle EPL teams were talking about it in any way.

[GriffinGunner]

UEFA has considered the idea but how to mandate it across leagues is the biggest issue. If the EPL creates a salary cap or other limit, then as suggested a number of players will go elsewhere and the likes of ManU, Chelsea, etc will cry fowl in that they can't compete with other European powers.

The best appraoch, for starters anyway, appears to be a mandate that salaries be paid for by direct soccer revenue and could not incur debt. This would at least limit the prospects of a Chelsea/Abromovich situation and place minor limits on how ManU could spend their interest revenue and other general income. But again this would be challenged by the players and their agents as stifling the game or downright immoral. They'd be wrong, but they'd likely win.

UEFA has established principles for fiscal viability among clubs wishing to participate in UEFA competitions, but that is years from being fully implemented due to the phase in schedule. Otherwise we're stuck in a classic power struggle where leagues would benefit from balanced distribution of resources but the ones who must make that decision are the ones who stand to lose.

Wiser still to ask Congress to accept paycuts and become Social Security dependent.

[Alan_V]

For my money, it's have to be world wide. Imagine Europe with a salary cap, and many of the best players going for the gold and playing in Dubai or some other such place with a milder climate and gobs of cash to pass around. Admittedly, it wouldn't be an immediate exodus, but I could see more players moving out over time.

[goonsquad]

It seems to me it is something that Arsenal, Chelsea, and Man United fans might not be thrilled with but fans of Manchester City, Crystal Palace, and others might have an interest in.

-Just wondering.

Actually, Arsenal has spent far less money than Man United, certainly far less than Chelsea, and even less than Liverpool and Tottenham.

[denver_mugwamp]

This idea had come up several times in the last few years. But nobody's ever taken it seriously. Speaking as someone from a country where a lot of the sports leagues have salary caps, I can tell you that the only way something like this is adopted is when both owners and players realize that they're on the edge of a financial apocalypse. Obviously, Europe is nowhere close to this yet.

[sinner78]

salary cap/parity == mediocrity

[Steve Dave]

salary cap/parity == mediocrity

???

[Matt Clark]

Well it stands to reason. If you articially limit the amount teams can spend on top talent, you artificially limit the presence of top talent in any given league. Other leagues, meanwhile, progress apace, rendering your own position one of mediocrity.

[sinner78]

???

If you put a salary cap in place then you could well get a league of 20 mediocre teams rather than having maybe 5 or 6 top sides .You're just spreading the talent out and creating more mediocrity rather than creating quality.
All the top players would also jump ship to a league where there isnt any wage cap.

[superdave]

Spending limits might be "X per team," or it might be "X percentage of team revenue." The latter might be a good idea, to prevent clubs going bust.

The former makes no sense in non-socialist leagues like the NHL, or every non-MLS soccer league. The latter make sense if there are too many unstable clubs.

[GriffinGunner]

A total wage cap doesn't have to be arbitrary provided it's linked directly to the overall revenue and health of the league. For instance, advocating that a certain percentage of league revenues from TV, merchandising etc, must go to the wage pool. (Where there's a cap there should also be a floor to prevent certain owners from pocketing excessively)

What is arbitrary is when a club incorporates funds from outside sources, such as personal wealth, to leverage the finances of the soccer/football club. (Another proper term is welfare.) This can artificially inflate the value of players by adding $ that did not come as a result of the product, plus it can also unduly influence the distribution of talent from otherwise normal market conditions. This would not be a problem if everyone could do it, but everyone can't.

Would resolving this increase parity? Undoubtedly. Does that make it bad? That's a matter of perspective and I for one don't think it does. On the contrary, parity invites more overall investment by offering improved odds for success. This is what's allowed the American NFL to become the financial powerhouse it is today, yet remarkably enough that same league is debating whether or not the current champions, who are in the midst of a 3 titles in four year run, are possibly the best team ever. You could say there's another word for parity when it comes to sports - competition, and I thought increased competition was generally good?

And saying that parity would lead to "20 mediocre teams as opposed to 5-6 top sides" is to suggest that only a handful of clubs are capable of producing entertaining and quality ball, something I consider a slap to all those clubs mired in the middle of the table for so many years. I venture to say that many of them, if not most, would be able to rise up quite well if there was less pressure on individual talents to consistently flow to those clubs able to pay the inflated wages.

I don't blame people or programs for seeking to win and spend the way they do now, and I fully realize that employing any such system absent global support would be folly. That being said we must also realize the special conditions that are at work within the economies of pro sports leagues and their individual franchises. Players must work as a team to succeed, and the same relationship is true for franchises within a league.

[Steve Dave]

If you put a salary cap in place then you could well get a league of 20 mediocre teams rather than having maybe 5 or 6 top sides .You're just spreading the talent out and creating more mediocrity rather than creating quality.
All the top players would also jump ship to a league where there isnt any wage cap.

I agree that players leaving creates mediocrity but a spending cap doesn't. Yes all the players would leave the EPL and in international competion they would get wacked but if it was implemented across the board(Which it won't and not saying it should or will) then that wouldn't create mediocre teams.

To be honest it is a lot more fun and interesting having 20 teams all with a shot then 4 or 5 teams and everyone else playing for 6th place IMO. I sure if you are a fan of one of the top 4-5 team you like it though.

[RichardL]

parity invites more overall investment by offering improved odds for success. This is what's allowed the American NFL to become the financial powerhouse it is today,

You don't take into account that the NFL is like a "one company town" in that it can pay what it likes, and make as much profit as it likes, as the players don't have the option of going any earning money elsewhere.
if there was another country with an equally big TV deal, that didn't have a salary cap, the top players would quit the NFL and play there instead. That is the problem in Europe where there are options.


And saying that parity would lead to "20 mediocre teams as opposed to 5-6 top sides" is to suggest that only a handful of clubs are capable of producing entertaining and quality ball, something I consider a slap to all those clubs mired in the middle of the table for so many years.

Not really. If clubs are limited to being able to spend the equivalent of as much as Spurs for example, then you are you to get a league where you may have several teams challenging for the title, but none of them will be any better than spurs. That might make a better contest, but the difference in quality will be there for all to see. And those teams wouldn't be much good in europe.


I venture to say that many of them, if not most, would be able to rise up quite well if there was less pressure on individual talents to consistently flow to those clubs able to pay the inflated wages.

there's no pressure on players to move to the bigger clubs - they do it because they are offered more money.

[GriffinGunner]

You don't take into account that the NFL is like a "one company town" in that it can pay what it likes, and make as much profit as it likes, as the players don't have the option of going any earning money elsewhere.
if there was another country with an equally big TV deal, that didn't have a salary cap, the top players would quit the NFL and play there instead. That is the problem in Europe where there are options.
As I said at the end of the post "I fully realize that employing any such system absent global support would be folly." No way would I advocate such a system without concurrency from other leagues.

Not really. If clubs are limited to being able to spend the equivalent of as much as Spurs for example, then you are you to get a league where you may have several teams challenging for the title, but none of them will be any better than spurs. That might make a better contest, but the difference in quality will be there for all to see. And those teams wouldn't be much good in europe.
I doubt the limit would be where Tottenham is at. As I said, the idea would be less to equalize the clubs but to prevent the influence of funds from outside sources. That's what artificially inflates the costs associated with the game, and ultimately our tickets!

there's no pressure on players to move to the bigger clubs - they do it because they are offered more money.Fine. Instead of pressure how about the term influence? Lure? Temptation? Call it what you will but there's a reason why Rooney went to United instead of staying at Everton: A wage rate the local club could not afford to match.