A few yrs ago, I had the privilege of meeting a gent that had played half back for Crystal Palace in the 60's. he and I were debating the status of American sports and how the financial conditions abroad were different. We digressed into the merrits of a Salary Cap in professonal sports. He said, "a cap just won't work in Europe." At the time, MLS was new and had different ideas about single entity, revenue sharing and salary caps. All of which, IMHO, has contributed to the stability of the league versus the now defunct NASL. Salary caps were 1st introduced in the NBA and then followed by the NFL to combat escalating salaries in the 80's. I firmly believe that the NBA's survival is owed, @ least in part, to the cap on earnings. The NBA's popularity had dipped in the late 70's for a variety of reasons: violence & rampant drug use by the players( 1 player was rumored to have flashed a gun to his coach when he wouldnt put him in the game), salaries rose far above the avg fans income, TV games were shown in reruns @ late night, and inflation & a slow economy priced many fans out of attending the games (stadiums were 1/2 empty). All of these are parallels to our current state in futbol. The economy sucks & it's cheaper to watch @ hm than go to the matches. Big TV contract money isn't what it used to be and major clubs are haggling over the spoils. Nanderlone & that ugliness w/ liverpool players last yr, enough said. Rather then having major clubs, like barca, juve & metz, dump salaries to keep the doors open, why not place limits on transfers, loans, & earnings. All the while, Man U drops 45 mil on Rio and prices the other clubs out of level competition. I think having asymmetric leagues in talent level hurts the interest level in footy. Just like in MLB now, you know 1/2 of the league has no chance of winning b4 the season starts & you can say the same about the EPL. Why would I waste my Saturday or hard earned duckets on a predetermined outcome? I say cap the earings and restore a competative balance in Europe.