Yes. But I’ve only played MLS once. I think it was about 2006, I know it was the last year or two of Moreno. The finances didn’t work great, but that was a really old version of the game. They’ve improved that immensely. My advice is to buy the 23-24 version right before the 24-25 version comes out, unless you’re just dying to play with, for example, Notts’ 24-25 roster. It’ll be half price. Unfortunately I got an email cuz I’m on their list that they had a major setback for 24-25 and it won’t be until February. Usually it comes out in October, to have up to date rosters from the transfer window.
It's such a scam that this game comes out annually - they are all so similar, but I am a sucker so I buy the same game each and every year lol
I don't know about the actual practices but one reason might be that it provides good incentives from the point of view of the team. An older player on a large guaranteed salary can take it easy now - he's got his payday. You have to give him something extra to get him to work. (Of course, from the teams point of view, they don't want the contract to be guaranteed at all, but that's what they have to pay to get the player) A younger player doesn't really need the incentivized contract to play hard since playing for the next contract provides the incentive.
I think they do a revamp every 3 years…the key is don’t buy the first year of a new version cuz it’ll be buggy! I play careers. I’ve had several games where I put in 20 years or more. So it takes me a couple of “real life” years right there.
You can read it with a "just" in there. They're on a basic salary with bonuses and incentives. In other words they get paid more for playing more games.
"Because I wouldn't have signed my contract otherwise. Because if you don't, I'll do a strop and destabilize the club. Because I'm a star and if you don't give me what I want, someone else will. Because things had better go brilliantly once I'm gone or the fans will blame you, personally. Any questions? Thought not."
A lot of it stems from the old English maximum wage rule. According to football league rules, no player could be paid more than 20 pounds a week (reduced to 12 in the off season) no matter which division he played in or what club he played for. The multitude of bonuses - wins, scoring, signing, loyalty, housing, etc. - was a way around that.
I play careers too, but when I get fired from a big club and have to coach 5th division it's not the same lol
Thank you! I wonder if I’d feel the same way if FM codes into the game that players in Britain will push for that, but not in Germany. Since a version I bought in the 2000s, I’ve only ever managed clubs in England and Scotland.
Do you start your save game at a big club? Because I’ve never gotten fired, because I always start with a crap club and so my competition is programmed to not be as smart, so I win. By the time I get Grimsby 22-23 to the Championship, or Notts County 15-16 to the Prem, my “reputation” is high enough that I get a long leash.
I can't speak to continental practices in great detail, but it's worth noting how recent full-time professional football is in many countries. For example, the Eredivisie didn't turn professional until the mid-50s and even the likes of Feyenoord and Ajax fielded part-time players into the 1980s. Naturally, those professionalizing leagues followed the contract patterns of long-established leagues like Ligue Un, Spain, Austria, Italy, etc. Those patterns had been set up with input from the pioneering coaches of the inter-war years, many of whom who came from England and Scotland
The Netherlands turned pro in 1956 and West Germany in 1963. England abolished the £20 a week maximum in 1961.
The standard contract models were already set. Everyone was used to them and once the ceiling was removed, the bonuses rose in parallel. In some countries, informal "contractual payments" to enable clubs and players to evade income and payroll taxes were the norm. They plagued French football in the 70s and 80s - Michel Platini was lucky to leave St. Etienne just before its chairman was exposed and jailed for running one - which is one reason France's financial regulation has become so strict since the 90s
Players don't see an increase in wages when they're asked to play more games - why should they be subject to a wage cut across the board if there are fewer matches? Or, put differently: why do owners get to increase their share of the revenue whenever they want, but players must stay at or below their current share?
BTW don't players in the NFL, NHL, etc. get bonuses for making the post season? For winning playoff rounds, the Superbowl, etc. I have zero idea, but I'd find it strange if they didn't
From Guardian columnist and football historian Jonathan Wilson: With the expanded Champions League and the planned Club World Cup next year causing a big fixture pile-up, how likely is it we will see players take action over the number of games they are being forced to play? – Oliver It’s definitely an issue, and given how many players have talked about workload in public, you can be sure it’s something they’re discussing privately. The problem is how action could be organised. It’s only elite players who are playing too many games; those lower down the pyramid probably wouldn’t mind a few more games for extra cash. Similarly while a lot of fans are concerned about the proliferation of games that seem to mean very little, they’d still be furious if a game for which they’ve bought a ticket and paid travel costs was called off because of an industrial dispute by players who earn hundreds of thousands of pounds a week. That’s one of the reasons football has taken the disappointing path it has; organised opposition is very difficult – the protest against the super league was one of the very few occasions on which enough of football’s different stakeholders were sufficiently in alignment to kick back. That said, the Club World Cup would seem a decent target. The shambolic organisation means few fans are likely to have bought tickets yet and, unlike the Champions League or a World Cup, it’s not a competition players dream of playing in. In terms of the PR war, it would be very easy, at least for players at European clubs, to portray it as a needless addition imposed on the calendar with no consultation – because that’s true. I don’t expect it, but if there were to be serious action, it would make sense for players to target it at the Club World Cup.
They do. NFL players get $46,000 for first round games up to $157,000 for winning the Super Bowl. Their regular salaries are paid each week during the regular season and then they get league set amounts for each game in the post-season. NFL players also have performance bonuses for milestones during the season. That varies by contract and those amounts are included in the salary cap set by their CBA. The other major leagues are pretty much the same except for how they get paid (NBA players get paid every month of the year for example) and exactly how the bonuses are determined. MLB, for instance, has a bonus pool where the teams get a check for each of the minimum number of games in each playoff round. The shares for each player are voted on by the players that were on the team all year. They can give partial shares for guys called up or traded to each team.
<sigh> I feel like you’re aggressively missing the point. If, for example, they go back to the old CL format with fewer matches, clubs’ revenues will go down. So new contracts will happen in an environment where revenue is down, let’s say, 5%, which means player income will go down 5%. I feel like I’m not explaining this correctly, so let me try another tack. The NFL added a 17th game recently. When they did, TV deals went up, and also game revenue went up for the half of the teams that got a 9th home game. As a result, player salaries went up. If for whatever reason the NFL went back to 16 games, player salaries would in time go down, since money doesn’t grow on trees. If Barcelona has 2 fewer CL group stage matches, their well known financial problems get a bit worse.
When I was a kid, and players were making 5 digit salaries (and many, many of them not near 6 figures, albeit in the 1970s when the cost of living was a lot less), articles about the playoffs would talk about how the players benefitted. Those bonuses were meaningful in th context of then-salaries. Anyway, I read an article a couple of years ago that those playoff bonuses are still part of the standard contract, but that the bonuses now are meaningless in the context of today’s salaries. That’s my memory anyway.