How would you limit rich owner overspending in football?


Thommybhoy (Trusted Member) on March 23rd, 2012, 9:49 am

Teams like Anzi, Chelsea, Malaga, ManCity, PSG have limitless amount of cash and this is slowly ruining football.
I read that Uli Hoeness said that Spanish goverment gives money to Real Madrid and Barcelona for their sport teams, which we all knew. But problem is EU gives money to Spanish goverment to save them from economic crysis, so basically whole EU in a way pays so that Spanish have dominant teams that destroy other European teams who's fans actually unwillingly give money to Barcelona and Real Madrid.
That makes them maybe even worse than clubs with rich owners with "limitless" resources.
Add to that their "holier than thou" stand and we all have every right to dislike them.

I read that in MSL they have salary cap that is good direction how we should implement something similar in football in Europe.
From what I read they have salary cap for all the players in the team except two. So they can have players like Beckham, Henry and Marquez in their league and put them outside salary cap.
They can also buy the right to have more players outside salary cap. They pay the cash "fine" to the FA for each season they have more than two players outside salary cap. For 3rd they pay fine, for 4th they pay fine etc.
And then the FA divides that cash eaqually among other teams.
Lets say something like that was introduced in England, ManCity and Chelsea will actually have to pay money that would end up on Arsenal's, Liverpool's, Tottenham's and ManUtd's accounts, among other teams. Not sure they'd be that comfortable with making thier whole league and opponents financially more stable and stronger, although for league in general this would be great.

I met with my mates and we tried to discuss this and transfer funds problem. As much as this is good start this salary cap idea has flaws.
But we came to idea how to limit transfer spendings.
Basically with coordination with UEFA each country would have different limits, as well as they have let's say different coefficient for Golden Boot.
So let's say in England team finishes 1st, that team could spend amount of money that would be decided by FA and UEFA, let's say 70M until next summer. Runner up would have, let's say 65M etc.
But if a team sells players for more money than that limit, they could spend amount of money they earned. ManUtd gets let's say 70M limit to spend, they sell Rooney for 60M and Hernandez for 20m, so they'd have 80M limit.
Of course this also has flaws, because unlike in US sports we have relegations, too many leagues at the same level etc.
What ideas do you have to solve this problems?
User avatar

clockwork orange (Elite Member) on March 23rd, 2012, 12:48 pm

There's a EU commissioner for competition, who had to make sure all markets are fair. They've made rulings on illegal government support for businesses. That could be used to tackle clubs unfairly supported by governments.
User avatar

Thommybhoy (Trusted Member) on March 23rd, 2012, 12:59 pm

That should be used then to stop this. If it's happening and based on all the things I recently, and in more distant past, read it is happening.
User avatar

kalleTheMan (Trusted Member) on March 23rd, 2012, 1:30 pm

Think the EU commission has kept an eye on clubs like Real Madrid to make sure they don't receieve state aid. Don't think they can do much against sugardaddys though.
User avatar

Wouterus (Forum Member) on March 23rd, 2012, 2:53 pm

I don't think a salary cap or a transfer spending cap is the right solution. Clubs should be able to pay what they want for players, as long as they don't spend more money than they make (in a fair way).

If a player like Ronaldo has a huge salary, I have no problem with that, as long as it is because of the laws of supply and demand, not because of a sugar daddy or government money.

Financial Fair Play is a start, but I am still a bit sceptical about it.
User avatar

Thommybhoy (Trusted Member) on March 23rd, 2012, 2:58 pm

But there is a problem, spend more money than they make.
Lets say we just look at transfers. Barcelona and Real Madrid earn much less with selling than they spend. And it's normal because they are great teams, rich and on top of the "food chain".
Now if you mean by what they earn outside of transfers, City will always be able to transfer owner's money to their account masking it as investment by sponsors, they already did it.
User avatar

DJ_Markstar (Forum Member) on March 23rd, 2012, 3:34 pm

Wouterus wrote:I don't think a salary cap or a transfer spending cap is the right solution. Clubs should be able to pay what they want for players, as long as they don't spend more money than they make (in a fair way).

If a player like Ronaldo has a huge salary, I have no problem with that, as long as it is because of the laws of supply and demand, not because of a sugar daddy or government money.

Financial Fair Play is a start, but I am still a bit sceptical about it.


Salary/transfer cap is a much fairer solution.

The "only spend what they make" argument is just another way of keeping the status quo. Football is much more interesting if there is at least a chance that the rich clubs won't continue to win everything. By saying clubs can only spend what they make, you are effectively saying that no club can challenge the traditional big boys as they are the only ones capable of affording the salaries that Ronaldo et al want to make.

The big clubs already have the advantage that ever young child supports them, and wants to play for them.
User avatar

Proof (Trusted Member) on March 23rd, 2012, 4:26 pm

Salary cap is an excellent idea. The transfers policies from USA are top notch. A salary cap it would not only limit rich owners from overspending but it would also stop certain teams from buying only superstars.
User avatar

Wouterus (Forum Member) on March 23rd, 2012, 5:08 pm

DJ_Markstar wrote:Salary/transfer cap is a much fairer solution.

The "only spend what they make" argument is just another way of keeping the status quo. Football is much more interesting if there is at least a chance that the rich clubs won't continue to win everything. By saying clubs can only spend what they make, you are effectively saying that no club can challenge the traditional big boys as they are the only ones capable of affording the salaries that Ronaldo et al want to make.

The big clubs already have the advantage that ever young child supports them, and wants to play for them.

What exactly is not fair about only spending what you make? The reason why rich clubs continue to win everything is because they spend more than they make. If clubs like man city, chelsea, real madrid etc. wouldn't have a sugar daddy or government money, they wouldn't have won anything.

By stopping the financial practices of the big clubs, other clubs that actually are financially healthy will be able to challenge the big clubs.

A salary cap is only an option in a model where a club may only spend a certain percentage of their income on salaries. A fixed salary cap would be a punishment for healthy big clubs like Arsenal. Fair and good business should be rewarded, not limited by a salary cap.

Another possibility is that only clubs that 'spend more money than they make' will be punished by a salary cap and are banned from buying players.
User avatar

clockwork orange (Elite Member) on March 23rd, 2012, 5:37 pm

A salary cap is far easier to implement in US sports because it's only 2 countries. Club football is about global, very hard to make it far with all different tax regimes. Mind you, don't know if they still have issues about Monaco in the Ligue 1, but all other French clubs (think)/thought - and they're right - Monaco (have)/had an unfair advantage.

I think a transfer cap could have some positive effect. There are various options which can be combined.
- seriously restrict the signing of young (foreign) players. If clubs can hold on to their own talents longer, they have a better chance to compete. The Dutch FA is applying about all the pressure they can on this matter.
- restrict the number of transfers
- restrict the transfer budget (they'ld probably find ways around that)
- etc
User avatar

DJ_Markstar (Forum Member) on March 24th, 2012, 2:21 am

Wouterus wrote:
DJ_Markstar wrote:Salary/transfer cap is a much fairer solution.

The "only spend what they make" argument is just another way of keeping the status quo. Football is much more interesting if there is at least a chance that the rich clubs won't continue to win everything. By saying clubs can only spend what they make, you are effectively saying that no club can challenge the traditional big boys as they are the only ones capable of affording the salaries that Ronaldo et al want to make.

The big clubs already have the advantage that ever young child supports them, and wants to play for them.

What exactly is not fair about only spending what you make? The reason why rich clubs continue to win everything is because they spend more than they make. If clubs like man city, chelsea, real madrid etc. wouldn't have a sugar daddy or government money, they wouldn't have won anything.

By stopping the financial practices of the big clubs, other clubs that actually are financially healthy will be able to challenge the big clubs.

A salary cap is only an option in a model where a club may only spend a certain percentage of their income on salaries. A fixed salary cap would be a punishment for healthy big clubs like Arsenal. Fair and good business should be rewarded, not limited by a salary cap.

Another possibility is that only clubs that 'spend more money than they make' will be punished by a salary cap and are banned from buying players.


I am not arguing against this point, merely arguing with how I perceive that it should be dealt with. Don't confuse the two.

A salary cap absolutely would be of huge benefit to Arsenal, a well run club, because the issue of who can pay the most is removed from the equation. With Arsenal healthy and on an equal footing, we couldn't possibly be outbid as their financial prowess would be more or less the same as ours.

I don't understand why you think a salary cap would be of hinderance? You've mentioned that it would be without actually saying why.
User avatar

Wouterus (Forum Member) on March 24th, 2012, 4:24 am

DJ_Markstar wrote:A salary cap absolutely would be of huge benefit to Arsenal, a well run club, because the issue of who can pay the most is removed from the equation. With Arsenal healthy and on an equal footing, we couldn't possibly be outbid as their financial prowess would be more or less the same as ours.

I don't understand why you think a salary cap would be of hinderance? You've mentioned that it would be without actually saying why.

Well, I didn't mean to say that a salary cap would be of hinderance, but it wouldn't benefit us much either. What I meant to say was that financially healthy clubs (like Arsenal) shouldn't be restricted by a salary cap. That would mean that because of the mismanagement at other clubs, we are 'punished' as well for something that we did not cause.

Arsenal is one of the few big clubs that are healthy, and instead of being restricted be salary cap, the well run clubs should be rewarded by heaving more freedom to spend what we want on salaries and transfers. If we want to pay 200.000 a week to a player, there should be the possibility to do so, if it is financially responsible. (hypothetically speaking, of course.)

The issue of who can pay the most will still exist, but as long as it is legitimate money, I don't see it as a problem. It will only encourage to improve. By taking measures only against the unhealthy clubs, the gap will already be much smaller.
User avatar


Options

tracker