MLS/SUM: European free agency market for star players

Discussion in 'MLS: General' started by pc4th, Aug 31, 2007.

  1. Rommul

    Rommul Member

    Aug 26, 2003
    NYC
    It is not in their best interest to throw away something that people are willing to pay tens of millions of dollars for.


    They all get benched for their greed and then watch their value plummet?
     
  2. The_Drizzle

    The_Drizzle New Member

    May 17, 2006
    Kwassa Kwassa
    Club:
    --other--
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    The players would get a very similar deal to the ones they'd get if they were transferred.

    The clubs would use the transfer money saved on that one player and spend it on bringing in even more recruits.

    You would probably need the 200 best in the world to make a dent. It's not happening.
     
  3. pc4th

    pc4th New Member

    Jun 14, 2003
    North Poll
    Club:
    Los Angeles Galaxy
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I disagree. If Cristiano Ronaldo or Messi or Kaka or Ronaldinho are free agents, they will not get a similar deals to the ones they'd get if they were transferred. Why?

    Elite teams (the top 8 richest in the world) will all try and get them. If Man U offers $60 million for 5 years, Chelsea might offer $70 million for 5 years, Real Madrid might offers $80 million for 5 years.

    The transfer fee for players like C. Ronaldo, Rooney, Messi, Kaka, Ronaldinho would cost up to $60 million.
     
  4. pc4th

    pc4th New Member

    Jun 14, 2003
    North Poll
    Club:
    Los Angeles Galaxy
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    What would happen if the top 30 soccer players in the world all play out their contract and become free agents?

    That's possible. But how likely is it?

    If the top 30 players in the world are all benched for a season, TV rating, merchandise and attendance would plummet. Clubs lose.

    Players will win. They just 'sit out' their contract while earning their wages. A new world order is formed.
     
  5. pc4th

    pc4th New Member

    Jun 14, 2003
    North Poll
    Club:
    Los Angeles Galaxy
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Are you saying the top 1-2 players at Manchester United, Barcelona do not have a big influence on the success or failure of the team? A game in the UEFA CL matters a lot. Especially in the knock-off round. Star player in football have the same influence on the outcome of the game as star player in baseball. Yankees without Alex Rodriquez is like Man U without Cristiano Ronaldo.

    Imagine Manchester United without Cristiano Ronaldo and Rooney.
    Imagine Barcelona without Ronaldinho and Messi.

    So you think European fans will support their clubs for benching their favorite players for not signing a contract extension? If Cristiano Ronaldo, Rooney and Nani all refuse to sign contract extension, Manchester United fans will support their team decision to bench them for a whole season?

    It will seem greedy and it is greedy. But the top 30 players are not earning their maximum wages. In a free market, they will earn a lot more like their baseball free agents counterparts. The $40 million net loss from transfer fee screw it up.

    Without transfer fees, the top 8 richest clubs will have about $30-40 million more each year to spend on players. That's a FACT.
     
  6. pc4th

    pc4th New Member

    Jun 14, 2003
    North Poll
    Club:
    Los Angeles Galaxy
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Hey Rommul, can you answer this simple question? I asked this question on the first post and nobody has answered.

    If the like of Yankees, RedSox, Dodgers, Mets, Braves, Giants have -$30 mil in net transfer spending each year, would these star players be getting the same salary?

    $30 million less a year is equivalent to 6 players earning $5 million less a year.
     
  7. Placid Casual

    Placid Casual Member+

    Apr 2, 2004
    Bentley's Roof
    Please do us all a favour and shoot yourself.
     
  8. Rommul

    Rommul Member

    Aug 26, 2003
    NYC
    You seem to have a problem with abstract concepts.

    United can win league titles the same season they jettison their best goal scorer because they don't like his attitude.

    Arsenal can still be a top team even after getting rid of their best goal scorer.

    Why because accumulation is not as important in football as it is in American sports. You rarely see teams win without the 90-100 RBI men, 20 point scorers or 1000 yard rushers those players are far more important to their teams because what they do is so much more important as it relates to success in their sport.



    Nobody would get benched for a season since no one would be dumb enough to follow your advice.

    And just so I answer your question yes. As soon as those players announce that they have joined the latest pan-european superagency with the express purpose of wringing as much money from the clubs (and indirectly the fans as the clubs will claim) the fans will turn on them like a pack of dogs much like the way Everton fans turned on rooney when he left (and he actually accepted a transfer deal).

    Yet you haven't proven they will spend it on elite players.

    That's a FACT.
     
  9. Rommul

    Rommul Member

    Aug 26, 2003
    NYC
    This right here is your problem.

    You are another ignorant American who knows nothing about the sport who assumes the mechanics and dynamics that exist in American sports must exist in Football.

    Whatever the answer to your question is it doesn't matter when it comes to soccer.
     
  10. pc4th

    pc4th New Member

    Jun 14, 2003
    North Poll
    Club:
    Los Angeles Galaxy
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Way to ignore the question. I knew you would dodge it.

    All that make Football be the same as American sports is:

    PLAYERS become FREE AGENTS (instead of signing contract extension and tranfer fees). Bosman Ruling paved the way for this. For well-known star players, only Ballack, Beckham and a very few others became free agents.
     
  11. pc4th

    pc4th New Member

    Jun 14, 2003
    North Poll
    Club:
    Los Angeles Galaxy
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I disagree. Players like CRonaldo and Ronaldinho are just important to Man U and Barcelona as Alex Rodriquez is to the Yankees.

    Fair enough. But wouldn't Everton fans also like it if Rooney stay an extra 2-3 years instead of going to Man U early?

    You haven't proven that they will spend it on average players.

    That's a FACT.

    Seriously, who would they spend it on? Last time I check, clubs like Man U, Chelsea, Liverpool, Barcelona, Real Madrid, Milan don't get average or above-average players. They get great players.

    If they have $40-50 million extra due to free transfers. They will spend a large portion of that on the elite players.
     
  12. pc4th

    pc4th New Member

    Jun 14, 2003
    North Poll
    Club:
    Los Angeles Galaxy
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    You're very passionate. My advice, if you mind the heat, get out of the kitchen. Just ignore this thread. Block my screen name or whatever. LOL.

    I guess it is expected. I'm argueing for a system in which the greedy, stinking rich footballers could get even stinkingly richer. It's like argueing for a way in which Microsoft and Walmart could get 40% richer at the expense of the 'little guys.'
     
  13. Rommul

    Rommul Member

    Aug 26, 2003
    NYC
    How can I DODGE a question that I don't know the answer to.

    Even more importantly its a question that YOU don't know the answer to as much as you think you do.

    At any rate it doesn't matter the dynamics in baseball and football are different but you wouldn't know that because you simply don't understand football at a deep enough level.

    That is clear to any smart football person who reads your musings. Your are the typical arrogant American who thinks the football world is full of stupid people who need the smart Americans to come show them the way.
     
  14. Rommul

    Rommul Member

    Aug 26, 2003
    NYC
    So was Ruud. So was Thierry Henry.

    This difference is accumulation is not as important in football as it is in baseball. Therefore its effect is more easily replaced (no one on United scored 20 goals last year). Take away Ruud and United still challenges for the title. Take away Rodriguez and the Yankees are nowhere near as competitive. You just don't know enough about the topics at hand to make the conclusions you do.

    What does that have to do with anything? Isn't that obvious.



    No. Thats not how it works. Everything you write is an inference and you are trying to passs them off as facts. That is one of you major problems you seemingly lack the intelligence to differentiate between the two.

    Inferences are not facts.

    You don't have any facts. You know what facts look like? When the new TV money starts getting spread around the Prem and teams only spend that money on top players then and only then can you claim facts.

    I think we will be waiting a long time until you have any facts.
     
  15. Rommul

    Rommul Member

    Aug 26, 2003
    NYC
    You are arguing for something that can't come to pass while being delusional enough to be completely unaware or your own high level of stupidity.

    Thats comedy.
     
  16. superdave

    superdave Member+

    Jul 14, 1999
    VB, VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    That's really the key right there. What pc fails to understand is that European club soccer has an entirely different sociology from our baseball, football, basketball. Maybe when the Bosman ruling is 30 years old, the sociology will change enough that his suggestion might work. Maybe. (And that doesn't even account for the pretty substantial difference between the Euromodel of a team getting a huge pile of money, and the US money of late-contract players being traded for cheap prospects.)

    But now, in 2007, he's nuts. It's fine that he's thinking outside the box. What makes it so obnoxious is that having spawned a nice discussion, he won't synthesize the antithesis, so to speak. He keeps plowing the same field long after he's been told the ground is leached of nutrients, and he needs to rotate to another field.
     
  17. superdave

    superdave Member+

    Jul 14, 1999
    VB, VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Repped. Great point. Just like I used the real world example of Dice K to blow up pc's theory, you're using the real world example of the massive cash infusion into the Prem from TV money. And what was the effect? Like you point out, and contradicting pc's thesis, the money was spread around. It wasn't concentrated on the big players. In fact, the most notable aspect of the last offseason was the insane money, in both wages and transfer fees, spent on run of the mill Prem players.
     
  18. Placid Casual

    Placid Casual Member+

    Apr 2, 2004
    Bentley's Roof
    And yet you fail to see the few small flaws in your plan.


    Spot on.
     
  19. RichardL

    RichardL BigSoccer Supporter

    May 2, 2001
    Berkshire
    Club:
    Reading FC
    Nat'l Team:
    England
    ...except that history has shown that even when clubs get players on free transfers, they don't pay them the money that they'd have had to pay for a transfer fee. It just doesn't happen. There's no evidence at all in soccer which shows that being signed for a high fee will cause a player's salary to be lower than it would have been if on a free. If it was, you be able to point to players signed for high fees who were being paid less as a result compared to players of equal stature in the team.

    Torres, for example, should be on £83,000 a week less than he could have been on thanks to his £26 million six-year deal, according to your logic, yet he's on par with Steve Gerrard, who cost nothing.

    You'd also be able to point to top players signed on free transfers who were on salaries equivalent to the sum of the salaries of their equals in the team, plus what any transfer fee would likely to have been.
     
  20. superdave

    superdave Member+

    Jul 14, 1999
    VB, VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Richard's post brings up yet another obvious flaw in pc's master plan. If Chelsea paid Ballack more just because he was a free transfer, then what message does that send to their own players? The message is, play out your contract and make more money. The Chelsea-Ballack negotiation didn't happen in a vacuum. Not only would overpaying for Ballack have caused the guys already on the team to compare their pay to Ballack's, but it also would have been a signal that their own players, like, say, Arjen Robben, shouldn't agree to a contract with RM, they should just go on a free. So if Chelsea gave Ballack more money because he was free, they would not only be slitting their own throat when it comes to re-signing John Terry. They would also be slitting their own throat when it comes to selling Arjen Robben.
     
  21. pc4th

    pc4th New Member

    Jun 14, 2003
    North Poll
    Club:
    Los Angeles Galaxy
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Here's what the Premiership did with a good portion of that new TV money.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6976231.stm

    I never claimed that the vast majority of the 'saved' money would go toward the elite players. Just a good portion of it.

    I never claimed if Man U got all their players on a free, they would use all their $40 million 'saving' on ELITE PLAYERS ONLY. It would spread around the whole team, but a good portion of it will go to the elite players.

    You're trying to put words into my mouth.
     
  22. pc4th

    pc4th New Member

    Jun 14, 2003
    North Poll
    Club:
    Los Angeles Galaxy
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Very classy. Insulting someone intelligence because you don't agree with him. Have I ever called you stupid because you don't agree with me? No.

    Back to topic:

    I don't deny that there are numerous obstacles before my theory could happen. I even provided evidence. For example, Clubs benched players for refusing to sign contract extension. It's much easier for star baseball, basketball players to become free agents than soccer stars.

    All I claimed is that if the European sporting landscape switches to an American one where the elite players all want to become free agents, my theory would come true. Free agency is the holy grail for elite MLB, NBA, NFL players. Alex Rodriquez might turn down $29 mil a year for 2 years option just to become a free agent.
     
  23. pc4th

    pc4th New Member

    Jun 14, 2003
    North Poll
    Club:
    Los Angeles Galaxy
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    It is not a flaw in my master plan.

    Elite teams like Chelsea LOVES the transfer system. They would hate the American free agency system. Why?

    One simple reason: They would get the players whenever they want instead of waiting for that player's contract to end. For example, Real Madrid would get Robben in 2007 instead of 2009. So you are right that Chelsea, Man U, etc....do not want to mess up with the current system. It is the 'perfect' system for them. It is also the 'perfect' system for selling teams like Lyon, Porto, Ajax, PSV. In fact, the transfer fee system is the 'perfect' system for all soccer teams.

    However, it is not the perfect system for most elite soccer players because money transfered out of elite 'buying' teams and into elite 'selling' teams. For example, Real Madrid's outflow in summer 2007 was around $120 million.

    There is a reason why the MLB Player Union want to lower of the "6-years before you can be a free agent" restriction.

    As for Ballack and his salary, he was the highest paid Chelsea player and the highest paid Premiership player when he signed. His teammates were not pleased.

    I also suggested a solution for it.

    $10 mil salary + 5 mil signing-on fee a year. But this would not fool anybody. And like you said, this would motivate other top players from doing the same thing (become free agents).
    Chelsea, Man U...etc...do not want this.

    That's why I suggested this in the first post:

    SIGN ALL 30 STAR PLAYERS. HAVE THEM ALL BECOME FREE AGENTS.
     
  24. pc4th

    pc4th New Member

    Jun 14, 2003
    North Poll
    Club:
    Los Angeles Galaxy
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Like I stated, I never claimed that 100% of it will be spent on elite players. Only a good portion of it. The money will be spread around. For example, elite players comprise about 30% of the player budget, I expect the elite players will get the same spread.

    And the Premiership did spent a good portion of the new TV money on elite player.

    Torres: $60 million transfer fee
    Tevez: $50 million transfer fee
    Nani: $40 million transfer fee
    Anderson: $40 million transfer fee
    Darren Bent: $30 million transfer fee
    Yakubu: $23 million transfer fee
    Bianchi: $18 million transfer fee

    etc....


    -----Also, you didn't use Dice K's salary to prove anything. Instead, it proves my argument. As a free agent, many expect Dice K would get at least $12 mil a year. Instead he got $8.67 mil a year because he come with a $51 million transfer fee.

    Even the RedSox GM stated that he was worth $100 million over 6 years. Otherwise, they wouldn't have paid $103 million to get him for 6 years.
     
  25. pc4th

    pc4th New Member

    Jun 14, 2003
    North Poll
    Club:
    Los Angeles Galaxy
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Where are your facts then? All you have are your beliefs and opinions.

    I, on the other hands, provided several facts.


    Fact #1. Elite teams would have $30-40 million more each year if they get all their players on a free. (Real Madrid would have $120 million more if they get all their players during the 2007 summer for free).

    Go here to see the calculation I did:
    https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?t=268786

    Fact # 2. Teams benched players for refusing to sign a contract extension. They don't want their $30 million 'transfer value' player to become a free agent. No team would. I provided the news links to several examples on this thread.


    Fact # 3. Soccer elite teams earn more revenue than baseball elite teams. Yet, elite baseball players make a lot more than elite soccer players. Could the $40-50 million transfer fee have something to do with it? (I'm not saying transfer fee is the sole reason, just a big reason. An example of a small reason is the cost of academy).

    http://www.forbes.com/lists/results...ory1=category&category2=category&passKeyword=
    If the like of Yankees, RedSox, Dodgers, Mets, Braves, Giants have -$30 mil in net transfer spending each year, would these star players be getting the same salary?

    Fact #4. The average Premiership club spent $42 million in net transfer fee in 2007 (January and Summer 2007 windows). This number took the sales of players into account.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6976231.stm

    420/ 20 teams = 21 million pounds. About $42 million.

    What would the salary of MLB players be like if each MLB team have $42 million less each year?

    Hypothetical: What would the salary of EPL players be like if each EPL team have $42 million more each year (all the players are on free)?
     

Share This Page