News: European Super League Or Bust - The OTT [R]

Indeed. Both are top quality people in person, btw.

 

Then let them.

With a salary cap, if they're willing to pay players so much more because of tax laws, then that uses up more space of their cap - which means they can't afford many more players like that. The rest would go to other teams in other leagues where they could afford to spend the money.

Currently transfer budgets and salary budgets are separate correct? If you don't increase the salary budget, but have an option to increase the transfer budget, then you still have to get that player in with the same salary. You just have more money available to complete a transfer.

 

A salary cap would also have the added benefit of making academies even more important. Bringing players up through the academy is cheaper than bringing in someone else on a transfer.

 

Maybe they are different, but salary budget would take up the majority of a transfer budget, wouldn't it? I truly don't know so I'm not trying to stake a claim at an expert.

I'm just thinking that if everybody got 25 million then the relevant prices would go up to match. Well in theory of course.

 

That's why you include any sort of compensation in the cap. Bonuses, signing incentives, etc. Any money paid to a player has to come from the cap and only from the cap. The transfer budget is where the agent fees would come from.

 

Why should depressing player earnings be the way to solve these issues?

 

No, you have a salary budget and a transfer budget. Salary budget is solely used to fund player compensation. Bonuses, incentives, solidarity payments, etc. All of that comes from the salary budget.

Transfer budgets are solely used to pay transfer fees to get new players. Agent fees would come from this transfer budget as well.

What I'm saying is that you have a set salary cap/transfer budget but give the option to teams that want to, to invest a novel amount into the transfer budgets. That way they can splurge on a better player, but still have to find a way to make them fit in the salary cap. This way everyone still has the same salary cap to work within, but clubs have an option of having a modest amount of money to invest to get transfers in.

 

Why do you assume it would depress player earnings? With all the leagues in the world, especially in UEFA, it spreads players better among the various leagues. It makes the leagues more competitive against each other because now, players aren't concentrated in a few leagues anymore.

So United uses up their budget, but if players are truly about maximizing their earnings, they could go play for West Ham or Aston Villa because they have the cap space to use. Hell, they could go play for Fiorantina and make more. As said, spreading the player quality out amongst the leagues makes them more competitive against each other and would have a minimal effect on player earnings.

 

The two main challenges I see with a salary cap are.

1. It's impossible to implement and more importantly, adjust over a period of years, when it's being done across multiple leagues with different governing bodies and league structures. It's impossible to maintain a parity of sorts, because at the end of the day, those leagues are competing against each other for sponsorship and broadcast revenues.

2. In football, a salary cap doesn't address transfer fee's.

 

Seriously? That's the whole point of a cap, otherwise there wouldn't be a need for one. If United is up to the cap, that doesn't mean West Ham or Aston Villa have more money to spend on players. It just means the money that would have gone to the players is now in the Glazers pocket.

 

1. I thought that's what UEFA, CONCACAF and all those other governing bodies are for? They're the ones that would implement it and coordinate with FIFA. But as said, it will never happen because the people in these organizations don't care about maximizing competition, but maximizing their own personal profits.

2. It can to an extent. It'll either have an effect of making them smaller because while you can spend $150m on the transfer, there's still a finite amount of space in the salary cap to fit the player with all the others. So won't see teams spending hundreds of millions ever year on transfers or it'll concentrate those transfer fees into 1-2 player transfers every year. Easy answer is that you can combine the salary/transfer budgets into a single cap, or you have two separate caps for salaries and transfers.

 

I'm confused. Are you saying you'd implement a transfer cap, like a salary cap?

Because in reality, transfers and wages aren't some set budget line item in a team's budget. They tend to be malleable items that change depending on circumstances.

 

You're not hearing what I'm saying.

You have a finite number of top-tier players on which to spend your money because you have a roster to fill out. If United uses up their cap space, but there are still lots of top-tier players out there, then those other top-tier players they couldn't sign then go to other teams who haven't used all their cap space up if maximizing their personal compensation is their true goal, not playing for a specific team for whatever reason (better quality, like the city, etc).

What a cap does is water down the talent at the top and redistribute it down.

 

And you're not hearing what I'm saying. A salary cap, by definition, reduces overall player wages. You are taking money that would have been spent on salaries out of the market, and it isn't being replaced. Just because those lower tier teams have salary cap space doesn't mean they magically have more money to pay higher wages.

 

Fine, then you combine the two and have a single cap for both. I'm trying to give you an option that would still allow teams that make more money to have an option to utilize that money to get better players without making it a wholly unbalanced system.

 

Ok? I'm fine with that. Call it a market correction. Honestly, if it means the top-tier players are making $5m/year less than before, then that's fine with me.

It doesn't magically mean the Glazers get more money in their pockets, a larger share of the profits would be used by the solidarity payments to other leagues.

 

I'm just fundamentally against artificially limiting player salaries since they are the ones that generate the revenue.

This is a different point altogether. Real FFP and increased revenue sharing is a much better way than salary caps.

 

🚨 JUST IN: Super League clubs have signed up to a potentially historic wage cap which would force clubs to dramatically bring down salary-to-revenue levels by next season — they are committing only 55% of revenues on salaries, agent fees & transfers #mufc #mujournal

[Telegraph]

— United Journal (@theutdjournal) April 20, 2021

🚨 This move of introducing salary cap in the Super League, which will be cited by lobbyists attempting to ease the storm of anger from governments, will ultimately lead to the club owners guaranteeing themselves more profit #mufc #mujournal

[Telegraph] https://t.co/pcrLCPUSEJ

— United Journal (@theutdjournal) April 20, 2021

🚨 The Super clubs have also signed up to a “tax equalisation” clause besides the salary cap, so that income tax on salaries is averaged out at a rate of 45 per cent to ensure all clubs across the group face the same fees #mufc #mujournal

[Telegraph]

— United Journal (@theutdjournal) April 20, 2021

🚨 20% of future revenues in ESL will be allocated on “merit” or be dependent on performance in Super League. The final 15% would be shared based on broadcast audience size & clubs will be allowed to retain revenues from gate receipts & sponsorship #mufc #mujournal

[Telegraph]

— United Journal (@theutdjournal) April 20, 2021

 

And Old Trafford doesn't generate revenue? The money spent on upgrading player academies don't? Etc. Top quality facilities have a knock-on effect of increasing revenue. Better medical facilities rehabilitate players quicker and get them back on the pitch faster. That indirectly generates revenue by increasing the quality of the team on the pitch. Etc.

Sure, they may be the ones on the field, but there are a ton of other areas that money is spent to develop and get those players there and provide top-tier facilities in which they perform that also generate revenue.

 

So then what percentage of total revenue are players entitled to? What would be "fair"?

 

Not without the players. They could do that now, so why assume they would spend whatever they saved on salaries?

Market value

 

How do you decide that? Cap owner revenue at a certain percentage after expenses and give the rest to the players?

 

An excellent (and 100% true) take.

Our boy @lozcast explaining how between the Premier League vs The ESL there are NO good guys... pic.twitter.com/yNFDC0kBXd

— The Kick Off (@thekickofftg) April 20, 2021