Is it time to cap wages in European football?

[mfw13]

As more than a few journalists have pointed out recently, attendances and television ratings are down in leagues all across Europe.

My hypothesis is that some of this is due to the increasing dominance of financially wealthy clubs. Because most clubs go into the season knowing that they have absolutely no chance of winning anything except perhaps a spot in the UEFA Cup, supporters are decreasing the amount of money that they are willing to spend on match tickets, TV packages, and travel.

In England, Chelsea has basically bought the title, and even financially strong clubs such as Man. United, Arsenal, and Liverpool, can't keep up, let alone mid-level clubs such as Aston Villa, Tottenham, Everton, Newcastle, etc.

In Italy, Serie A is dominated by AC Milan, Juventus, and Inter, with Roma, Lazio, Udinese, and the rejuvenated Fiorentina being the only other vaguely competitve sides. Everyone else is just making up the numbers and cycling back and forth between Serie A and Serie B.

Spain is dominated by Real Madrid and Barcelona, with strong regional sides such as Valencia and Deportivo being the only other clubs seriously capable of competing for the title.

Portugal (Porto, Benfica, Sporting Lisbon), Greece (Panathinaikos, Olympiakos, AEK Athens), Holland (Ajax, PSV, Feyenoord), Turkey (Galatasaray, Fenerbache, Besiktas), Scotland (Celtic and Rangers) have always been dominated by the clubs from their biggest cities, who have always been financially stronger than everyone else.

Of the major leagues, only France and Germany are vaguely competitive, mainly because these two countries do not have any truly financially dominant clubs (Bayern spends more than everyone else in Germany, but not significantly so, and PSG has been laughably mismanaged in France).

The potential solution I would propose would be to impose some sort of club-level wage cap or restriction in order to prevent clubs from spending significantly more money than their competitors, which should theoretically make leagues more competitive again.

Here in the states, where all four major sports have some sort of wage cap, leagues are quite competitive. Major League baseball has seen eight different teams play in its last four World Series (Anaheim, San Francisco, New York Yankees, Florida, Boston, St. Louis, Chicago White Sox, and Houston), with no team appearing twice. The NFL, which has the longest and most established wage cap, has seen twelve different teams play in the last eight Super Bowls (Denver, Green Bay, New England, Atlanta, St. Louis, Tennessee, Baltimore, New York Giants, Tampa Bay, Oakland, Carolina, and Philadelphia). The NHL has seen seven different teams appear in the last four Stanley Cup Finals (New Jersey, Colorado, Detroit, Carolina, Anaheim, Tampa Bay, Calgary), mostly from small market cities. Even the NBA, whose wage cap has by far the most loopholes, has had nine different teams appear in its last eight NBA finals. Why? Because no team is allowed to establish financial dominance over the rest of the league. Even in baseball, where the New York Yankees have become as close to financially dominant as the rules allow, they have rarely finished with the best record in the league, and have now gone 5 consecutive seasons without winning the World Series.

So what does everyone think? Would establishing some sort of wage cap in European football help to make things a bit more competitive and rekindle the interest of supporters?

[RichardL]

As more than a few journalists have pointed out recently, attendances and television ratings are down in leagues all across Europe.

leagues where I can readily find stats for this season

UP
Belgium 2.3%
Bulgaria 26.7%
Croatia 33.9%
Cyprus 18.5%
Czech Rep. 29.1%
Estonia 7.6%
Finland 4.2
France 2.7%
Germany 5.6%
Greece 1.9% (after a 110% rise the previous year)
Hungary 1.8%
Iceland 4.7%
Luxembourg 50.6%
Norway 17.1%
Poland 6.3%
Scotland 3.6%
Serbia 2.5%
Slovakia 54.2%
Slovenia 37%
Spain 5.4%
Switzerland 7.4%
Ukraine 20.7%
Wales 0.7%

Down
Azerbaijan -12%
Denmark -4.8%
England -3.1%
Georgia -0.9%
Holland -5.4%
Italy -16%
Latvia - 7%
Lithuania -16.7%
Romania -5.4%
Sweden -10.5%

To me, with 23 of 33 leagues (with stats for this season) showing a rise, the idea that crowds are down across Europe is something of a myth. It's only due to drops in the high profile leagues of England & Italy that people are asking any questions. Italian football has had problems for years. English football was just living in a little dreamworld where they could continuously raise prices and people would still come. Eventually it hit a point where this stopped being reality, especially with extortionately high away ticket prices.


My hypothesis is that some of this is due to the increasing dominance of financially wealthy clubs. Because most clubs go into the season knowing that they have absolutely no chance of winning anything except perhaps a spot in the UEFA Cup, supporters are decreasing the amount of money that they are willing to spend on match tickets, TV packages, and travel.

I think, without being unkind, that you really don't have much idea about what motivates fans of teams here. They don't on the whole, give up their team because they don't think their team has a shot at winning the title, mainly because winning the title isn't the sole objective of the season. Without understanding why a fan of Charlton could see his team finish 8th, win nothing, qualify for nothing, and still be delighted, you won't understand the opposition to wage capping etc.


So what does everyone think? Would establishing some sort of wage cap in European football help to make things a bit more competitive and rekindle the interest of supporters?
At what level would you set this wage cap? Set it too high, at a level that really would only restrict Chelsea, and you change nothing. Set it lower, to give a fair number of clubs in each division the chance to win, and you'd just end up with mediocre teams.

[mfw13]

Richard...thanks for your detailed response...

Attendances are always higher early in the season when more clubs still have a chance at winning something and the weathe is still relatively nice, so I don't put much value in the attendance stats you have come up with. I would be very suprised if 23 leagues were still showing attendance increases next May.

Actually, I have plenty of idea of what motivates supporters...I've been a Newcastle supporter since the early 80's and a Fiorentina supporter since the mid-70's. What motivates fans, both in football and any other sport, is having a chance to win something, or at the very least to achieve something you have never achieved before (qualification for Europe, a cup final, etc).

It used to be that mid-level clubs were still competitive enough that they could challenge for or even win the title or a cup in a good year, but over the last ten years, the financial gulf has gotten so huge that they have no chance. It true that the smaller clubs can stay motivated by setting intermediate level goals (staying up, making a cup final, qualifying for the UEFA Cup), but nobody could possibly argue that its a good thing when a large majority of teams go into the season knowing that they have absolutely no chance of winning the title, and only the smallest chance of winning the cup.

[king_saladin]

I think it would be a good idea to make a progressive cap... where there isn't a set upper limit, but a different limiter by ratio of income or spending, or something like that. So instead of just Chelsea being capped, or having half of a league capped, rather just sort of compress the financial difference. This would also help control a problem of other leagues grabbing all of the talent, and make the worry of illegal waging lessened.

[RichardL]

Richard...thanks for your detailed response...

Attendances are always higher early in the season when more clubs still have a chance at winning something and the weathe is still relatively nice, so I don't put much value in the attendance stats you have come up with. I would be very suprised if 23 leagues were still showing attendance increases next May.
.
actually, it has be shown, in England at least, that crowds are lower at the start of the season, and increase in the second half when the number critical matches increases. The weather doesn't have much of an impact. Most stadiums are covered here, certainly in northern europe anyway, so people are less likely to be put off by it being wet.


ps
If the stats I've produced, based on actual attendances, don't mean much, then what is your idea that crowds are down based on?



There are also only a tiny number of leagues where the rich have got vastly rich compared to the rest, compared to say 10 or 20 years ago, but even in England, it's only Man Utd who have a significantly larger income (Chelsea are a rather special case). Arsenal aren't were they are (or where they were, this season excepted) because they are far bigger than all the other clubs - they just have a very good manager. Liverpool bring in just as much income as Arsenal, they just don't spend it as well.

You are also missing the factor that the huge amounts of Champions League cash plays in this. That extra cash helps the teams who qualify for the champions league regularly and creates an artificial wealth gap.

But for the majoity of leagues across europe, there has always been a handful of clubs who have dominated. You can't have leagues where teams representing large cities are competing against teams from much more modest towns and not expect that to be the case.

A lot of clubs in Serie A for example, are small clubs who struggle to get more than 15,000 people. That isn't because fans are disillusioned about having no chance of winning the title, it's because that's about as many fans can feasibly go from that town. Per head of population, smaller clubs are far better at attracting support than their big city bretheren, but you can't compete against a population and fan base that may be 10 times the size. It wouldn't matter if they had they best team in the world and the biggest and best stadium, a club like Siena, from a town of 60,000 people, is never going to get much more than 10,000 people going to its games.

That type of scenario just isn't something you get in American sports.

[nicephoras]

Why? If attendances are down and clubs can't pay inflated wages anymore they'll be capped automatically. As if now is a strange time in football. Barcelona and Real Madrid have dominated Spanish football for what, 50 years now? But since Italian fans have stopped watching its time to cap salaries? :confused:

[RichardL]

I think it would be a good idea to make a progressive cap... where there isn't a set upper limit, but a different limiter by ratio of income or spending, or something like that. So instead of just Chelsea being capped, or having half of a league capped, rather just sort of compress the financial difference. This would also help control a problem of other leagues grabbing all of the talent, and make the worry of illegal waging lessened.
I just feel there'd be far too many loopholes, both legal and illegal, to make it feasible.

Also, as income isn't exactly set in stone from year to year, what would you base it on? The previous year? Transfer deals could make that fluctuate wildly. Previous 5 years? A bit harsh on promoted clubs who'd find themselves barred from spending their extra income.


Basing it on a % of turnover would also do nothing to prevent the likes of Man Utd having a big advantage, as they have a much greater turnover than the others.

[nicephoras]

I think it would be a good idea to make a progressive cap... where there isn't a set upper limit, but a different limiter by ratio of income or spending, or something like that. So instead of just Chelsea being capped, or having half of a league capped, rather just sort of compress the financial difference. This would also help control a problem of other leagues grabbing all of the talent, and make the worry of illegal waging lessened.

So you want to institute a giant cartel across Europe? I'm sure the Real Madrids and Liverpols who've risen to where they are now by spending in the past would love that. But how's that fair to Wigan?