would performance related pay improve football?

[Dark Savante]

Player wages are now so high that if you are half-way decent and play in any league with a bit of financial clout, you will be a millionaire half-way through your 2nd contract, maybe first one if you are 'special' . I've heard it said a few times that a lot of players are lazy now because they are spoilt and financially stable for the rest of their lives before they hit 21.

Did money, or the lack of, inspire players before the tele-contractual boom of the 90's ? Would incentive and performance based contracts make any difference at all?

I read today that in 2006 Italian clubs will be allowed to create harsher, flexinle performance related contractual agreements. Will we see an improvement in performances then or nay?

What are your thoughts on harsher performance based payment structure for the modern professional? If you want £150k a week, then perform like you're worth £150k a week? Is that fair on the players or, will it force many to potentially injure themselves as they try to reach the incentive target?

[Excape Goat]

In American football, they used performance related pay very often, but I thought that was an accounting lophole designed to beat the salary cap.

[sidefootsitter]

I read today that in 2006 Italian clubs will be allowed to create harsher, flexinle performance related contractual agreements. I can see the 2,006 Blackburn line-up: Frey, Gilardhino, Perotta, et al.

The point being is that, given that Italy/Serie A is part of the EU, those who don't want the non-guaranteed contracts will just walk away to the EPL, La Liga, League 1 and Bundesliga.

As a side note, League 1 has already got a tremendous deal with Canal+ that will bring ~ $40M per team annually and Bundesliga is trying to rearrange its schedule a little in order to have a similar TV package. This means that, aside of the Serie A's top 3 clubs, the pay scale will probably be greater in Germany and somewhat even in France and that's where many players will begin to move.

[Perchik]

I would actually support the idea of salary cup for European clubs. Just make it flexible, so that teams would be allowed to go over it, but would be forced to pay certain penalty. For example, make the teams that go over the salary cup pay the amount that they went over by to all the clubs in their division.

As far as performance-related play... Well, I'm against it. There's gonna be too many on- and off-the-field conflicts regarding this issue if it was ever implemented.

[king_saladin]

In the NFL, teams sometimes intentionally keep a certain player from playing, or scoring, so they don't have to pay them extra.

[Teso Dos Bichos]

I agree DS. Performance related pay would be a great idea.

[nicephoras]

I think there are a couple of somewhat subtle points being missed here.
1. Incentive contracts aren't 100% incentive contracts. They would almost certainly have a guaranteed 50% base and the other 50% depends on your performance. This does not, as some have suggested, mean that salaries would go down. With clever drafting, the average would stay about the same. Because, of course, if you play better than expected, you'd earn more. The ceilings would rise as the floors drop. If Gilardino thought he could score 18 goals next season too, he'd stay at Parma. If he wanted the financial security, yes, he might leave.
2. The NFL is an awful corollary. Its salary cap structure eliminates most incentive contracts, due to the inability to fully control them. If everyone plays well, you'd be over the cap. They're rare.
Baseball is a far better example. Incentive contracts abound. One player, this season, is nominally on a 5 mil per year contract. In fact, unless he plays more than a certain amount of games, he'd only get 2 mil. The reason? He's a risk. And therefore, teams want to protect themselves.
In football, this would translate to players like Sheva and Ronaldinho signing huge guaranteed non/incentive deals. Why? Because they'll find dozens of takers for a demand that their salary be non-incentivized. The players who will likely feel these affects are journeymen who've been hit by injuries, players who've lost form at new clubs (think of de la Pena's return from Lazio to Espanyol) and young players who think they deserve more than they get by virtue of being young.
My real concern with this, however, is injury. If you're well on your way to meeting your incentive goal, and then Roy Keane ends your career - why should you be responsible for that?
EDIT: Lawyers would make a bundle suing the Roy Keanes of this world for tortious interference with contract. :)

[TheYank]

I think that performance based incentives might keep players from getting lazy but who decides what is a good performance. I guess it would work with things like amount of games played per season or if they win the league, goals scored sort of thing. I think players hurting themselves also might be an issue as well. It would be interesting to see though.

[nicephoras]

I think that performance based incentives might keep players from getting lazy but who decides what is a good performance. I guess it would work with things like amount of games played per season or if they win the league, goals scored sort of thing. I think players hurting themselves also might be an issue as well. It would be interesting to see though.

Huh. I didn't know I had someone doing Cliffs Notes of my posts here.

[Teso Dos Bichos]

My real concern with this, however, is injury. If you're well on your way to meeting your incentive goal, and then Roy Keane ends your career - why should you be responsible for that?

He hasn't ended any careers nice. Plus injuries are part of the game. If you start trying to sue for that, then you open a huge can of worms. What about Liverpool suing Lampard for the injury to Alonso. That injury could potentially cost them 4th place and therefore the CL place. Where would the boundaries be?

[When Hell Unfreezes]

For a start they already have PRP, in the form of (EPL):

Win bonuses

Goal bonuses

Not conceding bonuses

Fair play bonuses

Appearance pay

Television fees

Avoiding relegation

Reaching Europe

Winning the Cup

Et al et al et al.................

The problem is, the base salaries are too high for the top players, to find any incentive to play (Sol Campbell).

Then, how can you apply any equitable parameters and will they distract from results?

For example, if you offer Reyes £50k for every goal he scores, he'll never make another telling pass in his life and if you offer him £10k for every assist, he'd be permanantly looking for Terry Henry in the box - in short -it just ain't possible unless all teams and players are equal in ability!!!!!!!

You'd then have to weight it, so a goal/result against Liverpoo, is only worth half what it would be against Everton, as they aren't as good - too complicated by half!!!!!!!!!!! :rolleyes:

[The Rising Suun]

The use of incentives in contracts in American sports is being overblown here. It is not that common. Attainable incentives are rare and are only used to decrease base salary, which isn't garaunteed in the NFL anyway. There are also lots of Cheeky incentive clauses, like a David Wells Cy Young clause.

Team performance based incentives aso would not go over well with players. Reforms like this would have to be made in most leagues at the same time to go over, and that is not happening.

In the NFL, teams sometimes intentionally keep a certain player from playing, or scoring, so they don't have to pay them extra.

I don't believe you. Please, give us an example. Not that you could ever prove this was being done. Don't say Shaun Alexander last season, cause that's crap if you do.