In the NFL, the salary cap is $255.4 million so they all spend pretty much the same, roughly £200 million. Imagine that in the Premier League and owners could only spend £200 million on the squad but the club has £600 million revenue. This means two things, football becomes extremely profitable for owners like NFL 'franchises' whilst if the club ends up mid-table, out comes the excuse, sorry guys, we can only spend the same as the others (whilst spending their dividends). This is the objective of the owners, it may start as a multiple of the bottom club but eventually it will move to NFL style.
The only problem with this is that it damages PL ability to attract the best players, which damages the product, which damages the bottom line. So I don't think what you're suggesting is particularly likely.
As an outsider to both English/European and American sports (I'm from Australia, home of the 'hard' salary cap), I think it is poor justification to use culture as the primary reason not to do something. It is apparent to me that the English football has a superior system to US sports (obviously my opinion). At the same time, I do think the EPL would benefit from a soft salary cap/luxury tax system like the NBA has. This way, the big clubs will continue to outspend smaller clubs but will have to pay a 'tax' which can go towards revenue share. This solution will overcome a lot of the issues Matt raised in this pod.
The American systems are objectively just better without a doubt. The problem is the relegation system like he mentioned. The poorest team in the NFL makes over $400m a year and there isn’t a single NFL team in the red. So objectively speaking the American way is just better and to say it’s not would be intellectually dishonest. It’s better for business and it’s better for competitiveness. It’s literally a factual statement. Just like he said the leagues are built the same so it wouldn’t be easy to apply it to the EPL
@@badmuzer_6796 I disagree completely that it is a factual statement. You say it is better for competitiveness, but the system encourages tanking, and many regular season games are completely inconsequential. In the premier league, every single game and point is important. So that just leaves your points about money, which is the only part you actually back up in your comment. Apart from sustainability of the league, money should not really be an important part of this debate, as it only impacts the ~20-30 owners in the league vs 10s of millions of fans.
Two things: 1. Doesn't this mean City can exploit their advanced multi-club model even more i.e. getting Savio on the cheap versus another prem club getting Nico Williams. 2. Encourage alternative remuneration i.e. paying pep through girona since his brother owns a percentage or how iniesta was paid in japan
Because they're the ones cheating the financial rules all the time, there's a reason everyone thinks of City as soon as financial rules are mentioned, the club is built on dodging the rules. @@pullmanguard2316
The financial gap has to be tightened for sure. Utd were the richest club for decades but never won the league because they only had about 30-40% more than others. Then Abramovich came and Chelsea spent 500% more than Arsenal across 6 years, 350% more than Liverpool, 200% more than Utd etc, then City have done the same. The problem is the damage this does to the PL. How long will the game survive if the winners are constantly just whichever club has the richest owners at that time? The Roman Empire was at its most powerful just before it fell- thats why the PL has to act. I remember when Serie A was the best league, then La Liga for a short time....but greed at the top clubs destroyed their leagues as the PL got more and more global......because the overall standard in depth has been higher making the competitive more entertaining. It was the equality of the PL prize money that kept it closer. So anchoring is a good idea as it can't be cheated upon. Things to consider as well are- making sure it doesn't push clubs to a European Super League, that it isn't just a license for owners to profit to a ridiculously high level, and to make sure the PL continues to be No. and atrract the biggest stars.
The bottom club will have every single one of their games televised. Also multi-clubs will "loan" their players from one of their other clubs and pay a fraction of the wages, etc. Ton of ways round it
Man City were NOT a big club before new owners came in and were allowed to invest heavily on the team. NOT allowing other clubs to invest as needed to bridge the squad cost differential cannot be considered anything less than anti-competitive. It is interesting that no channel is interested in discussing a squad value /salary table and how that relates to league position- is this topic off-limits?
@@newcmags3253 They earned success and can reap the rewards. I know American sports have a more communist approach, but here we don't reward failure or punish success like that.
The system should promote efficient, well-run clubs which go about their business in the right way, what you’re arguing for is a setup which values investment above all else and will only encourage backhanded financial manipulation like we’ve seen from City for the past decade, the focus shifts from running the club well to how well you can hide the money you’re pouring into the club
@@newcmags3253 They "got rich" by being successful on the pitch, which is as it should be. You have to earn it. Build up a club by investing in infrastructure as much as you like, there's no cap on that. Clubs do come and go from the top spots. If it's just about the wealthiest taking everything what's the point in competing?
Why don't they just make it easier and have the league approve club spending as they spend it? If a club like Forest want to spend 200 million, they can go to the FA and say 'here are our plans for spending. And here is the money we have to spend. And here are our accounts. Can we spend it?' and the league can either look at the books and the plans and the spending plans and say 'Yep, that's fine, you can afford it and the long-term viability is ok, or they can say no, you're taking too much of a risk,' or they can say 'well, you can spend 150 mill'. Then nobody will get any points deductions because the spending has been pre-approved, and the club spending will be viable and it can be checked BEFORE clubs go mad and bankrupt themselves? That seems eminently more sensible to me. There's a similar system in Spain, where the league tells Barcelona that they can't just go out and spend 500 million because they'll go bankrupt.
@@freescoring I didn't say 'self regulate'. I said 'preapprove spending'. The Spanish league does it and they don't have stupid point deductions over there
@@freescoring Self regulation = no regulation. It's like asking the thieves to decide on their sentences and on what methods the police can use to track and catch them.
Matt Slater, Spot on with the Analysis, however, you missed one big factor aswell. The city in which these NFL/Franchise teams locate to, give the teams enormous tax breaks. You buy the franchise tag, but the city you choose to move to vies for you Franchise and they roll out the red carpet for you. They build the stadium for you, you generate all the revenue. Does the EPL/other leagues in the world have that kind of structure?
f as Matt predicts the PFA will oppose these measures (and I am inclined to think he is correct). It is still an open question whether the PL will decide to pursue arbitration, as the clubs will have to vote again and like the ELF they may vote to not go ahead. Or we may end up with a ridiculous amount like 10 times. Awesome awesome podcast
Can see why they are so scared of the regulator. While everyone was worried about far east money no one seemed to have notice half the league being taken over by Yanks
As soon as half the league was taken over by Americans we should have known this would happen. We’ll have half time shows and national anthem before games next 🤢
Reports of anchoring = relaxing of related party transaction regulations. MLB style “soft” cap is the best fit for the EPL. Hopefully all are brought onside and let the good times roll.
An actual salary cap similar to the NFL will not work in the PL. If any American system would kinda work with some changes, it would be MLB's, which has no salary cap, but instead has a luxury tax.
“An actual salary cap similar to the NFL will not work in the PL” And yet all the data provided by financial experts proves the contrary. Are we expected to take the word of a RUclips no mark over the former? That would be a no. The dimwittery really has no bounds.
The European system is working... is it? Obviously it worked for a very long time but that doesn't mean it's working now. There have always been Big Clubs that dominate, but the differences with and between leagues are growing and have been for some time. Like, I'm sure there's a podcast or twenty in the Athletic's network talking about how aside from Real Madrid and Bayern Munich (and maybe Barcelona), every single club in the world is a selling club in relation to even the newly promoted EPL teams. And that's caused much angst and handwringing and solution generating. I agree that you can't have a proper salary cap and other measures that promote competitive intra and inter league play with promotion and relegation, but the notion that clubs should be financially sustainable never used to be a question with promotion and relegation but they are now. I don't think anchoring really threatens that. And if anchoring does threaten that, then the only solution is to add a post season to determine the champion and crown the league winner the minor premiers a la the NRL in Australia. Playoffs for 1 vs 2, 3 vs 4, ... 17 vs 18, 19 vs 20. You might not be able to beat a financially doping team over a whole season, but you can in a Grand Final.
Anything that's "tied to the income of X" is just pretend play. All that needs to happen in that case if that you grow the "income" part of the calculation through bogus sponsorship deals and selling players at inflated values. If you keep inflating this income you can expand your expenses as well, and the deficits allowed by the Premier League are ridiculous. Which is exactly what the most successful English club of the last 15 years, Man City, are all about.
The draft system is only important in the NFL and the NBA. It's not so important for MLB, NHL, and MLS. La Liga has strict cost controls as well. This isn't a 'North American'' thing.
This literally handicaps the league from outspending all the other top leagues in Europe. The financial clutch the PL have bad on Europe will be significantly reserved. Which will only cause the PL brand damage and benefit the other leagues. In other words… this is idiotic
Contrary to what is said here Man Utd's attitude is problematic itself. They do not exist in a bubble, they exist in a pyramid that they are at the top of. Their wealth is not earned solely on their own assets but on the entirety of the football industry. Without the other teams they have no games to play and no money to make.
But the principle of a pyramid system is that you earn your way to the top by being successful. Why should a team be hamstrung because other teams aren't as successful. In American sport the worst team gets the first pick in the draft, that isn't sporting integrity and in my opinion neither are these rules.
But the difference in earnings between them and every other PL club is down entirely to their brand, club itself, historical fanbase etc, etc. Given they play the same opponents each year as their lower earning peers. So they would see that extra money as their's to spend as they see fit. Also, not to be mean, but United don't owe any of their revenue to any League 2 side for example in any meaningful way; if that entire league was suspended for a year would it impact their balance sheet? I don't think so. If anything this cap is probably what United need to be honest - get them to focus on getting value for money like everyone else
What an absolute nonsense of a rule! No issue with the squad cost rule, but they need to get rid of the related party sponsorship rule, that's the real restriction of trade. What does it matter if an owner sponsors a club as long as its still the clubs money.
Never thought I’d see the day when we celebrate billionaire owners being able to get richer from football. All that extra revenue above the 500m limit will just go straight into their pockets
Yeah “everyone agreeing” that the sustainability of clubs is an issue. . . I mean the clubs certainly aren’t going anywhere, it’s the owners who are at risk. As a fan, even if the owners tank my club, there will always be another to replace them and pick up the pieces, even if the club is relegated. Trying to remove the jeopardy of owning a football club and making them a more sustainable business doesn’t do anything for me as a fan, it’s only a priority for these billionaires who don’t want to risk their fortunes on a football pitch. Other than limiting oil giants like City and Newcastle, I don’t see how this is something the average premier league supporter should be backing
Matt Slater is so good at what he does. And I like the user questions format. This is the kind of content you can't get elsewhere.
In the NFL, the salary cap is $255.4 million so they all spend pretty much the same, roughly £200 million. Imagine that in the Premier League and owners could only spend £200 million on the squad but the club has £600 million revenue. This means two things, football becomes extremely profitable for owners like NFL 'franchises' whilst if the club ends up mid-table, out comes the excuse, sorry guys, we can only spend the same as the others (whilst spending their dividends). This is the objective of the owners, it may start as a multiple of the bottom club but eventually it will move to NFL style.
The only problem with this is that it damages PL ability to attract the best players, which damages the product, which damages the bottom line. So I don't think what you're suggesting is particularly likely.
Is this a bad thing. It will even the playing field. Eventually
That would be awful,
@@acyborgtrickstergropeLa Liga already has salary caps and it's not stopped Madrid from recruiting talent like Bellingham or (most likely) Mbappe
Wrong this will make poorly run teams like Man U drop to the championship cuz they just can’t throw money at problem
Really enjoyed this!
Fantastic reporting from Matt Slater. Succinct and clear.
As an outsider to both English/European and American sports (I'm from Australia, home of the 'hard' salary cap), I think it is poor justification to use culture as the primary reason not to do something. It is apparent to me that the English football has a superior system to US sports (obviously my opinion). At the same time, I do think the EPL would benefit from a soft salary cap/luxury tax system like the NBA has. This way, the big clubs will continue to outspend smaller clubs but will have to pay a 'tax' which can go towards revenue share. This solution will overcome a lot of the issues Matt raised in this pod.
The American systems are objectively just better without a doubt. The problem is the relegation system like he mentioned. The poorest team in the NFL makes over $400m a year and there isn’t a single NFL team in the red. So objectively speaking the American way is just better and to say it’s not would be intellectually dishonest. It’s better for business and it’s better for competitiveness. It’s literally a factual statement. Just like he said the leagues are built the same so it wouldn’t be easy to apply it to the EPL
@@badmuzer_6796 I disagree completely that it is a factual statement. You say it is better for competitiveness, but the system encourages tanking, and many regular season games are completely inconsequential. In the premier league, every single game and point is important. So that just leaves your points about money, which is the only part you actually back up in your comment. Apart from sustainability of the league, money should not really be an important part of this debate, as it only impacts the ~20-30 owners in the league vs 10s of millions of fans.
Two things:
1. Doesn't this mean City can exploit their advanced multi-club model even more i.e. getting Savio on the cheap versus another prem club getting Nico Williams.
2. Encourage alternative remuneration i.e. paying pep through girona since his brother owns a percentage or how iniesta was paid in japan
I love the fact you probably only think about city in your entire life buddy 😂🤣
Because they're the ones cheating the financial rules all the time, there's a reason everyone thinks of City as soon as financial rules are mentioned, the club is built on dodging the rules. @@pullmanguard2316
@@pullmanguard2316 it is true, admiration and hatred but hopefully not for long
The financial gap has to be tightened for sure. Utd were the richest club for decades but never won the league because they only had about 30-40% more than others. Then Abramovich came and Chelsea spent 500% more than Arsenal across 6 years, 350% more than Liverpool, 200% more than Utd etc, then City have done the same. The problem is the damage this does to the PL. How long will the game survive if the winners are constantly just whichever club has the richest owners at that time? The Roman Empire was at its most powerful just before it fell- thats why the PL has to act. I remember when Serie A was the best league, then La Liga for a short time....but greed at the top clubs destroyed their leagues as the PL got more and more global......because the overall standard in depth has been higher making the competitive more entertaining. It was the equality of the PL prize money that kept it closer.
So anchoring is a good idea as it can't be cheated upon. Things to consider as well are- making sure it doesn't push clubs to a European Super League, that it isn't just a license for owners to profit to a ridiculously high level, and to make sure the PL continues to be No. and atrract the biggest stars.
Utd have made 4 200m+ signings
The bottom club will have every single one of their games televised. Also multi-clubs will "loan" their players from one of their other clubs and pay a fraction of the wages, etc. Ton of ways round it
This was excellent. So informative, Matt. Thank you!
Great work, Ayo
Always know "who" to answer "what" question and very consistent.
Love and Respect Brother
I love this podcast, it’s so informative
I could listen to Slater all day long
Man City were NOT a big club before new owners came in and were allowed to invest heavily on the team.
NOT allowing other clubs to invest as needed to bridge the squad cost differential cannot be considered anything less than anti-competitive.
It is interesting that no channel is interested in discussing a squad value /salary table and how that relates to league position- is this topic off-limits?
The game is based on the principle of sporting merit, not which owners have the deepest pockets. Buying the title is cheating, plain and simple.
@@andrewness all that does is let the long established clubs continue to buy the league, just because they got rich first.
@@newcmags3253 They earned success and can reap the rewards.
I know American sports have a more communist approach, but here we don't reward failure or punish success like that.
The system should promote efficient, well-run clubs which go about their business in the right way, what you’re arguing for is a setup which values investment above all else and will only encourage backhanded financial manipulation like we’ve seen from City for the past decade, the focus shifts from running the club well to how well you can hide the money you’re pouring into the club
@@newcmags3253 They "got rich" by being successful on the pitch, which is as it should be. You have to earn it.
Build up a club by investing in infrastructure as much as you like, there's no cap on that. Clubs do come and go from the top spots. If it's just about the wealthiest taking everything what's the point in competing?
Why don't they just make it easier and have the league approve club spending as they spend it?
If a club like Forest want to spend 200 million, they can go to the FA and say 'here are our plans for spending. And here is the money we have to spend. And here are our accounts. Can we spend it?' and the league can either look at the books and the plans and the spending plans and say 'Yep, that's fine, you can afford it and the long-term viability is ok, or they can say no, you're taking too much of a risk,' or they can say 'well, you can spend 150 mill'.
Then nobody will get any points deductions because the spending has been pre-approved, and the club spending will be viable and it can be checked BEFORE clubs go mad and bankrupt themselves?
That seems eminently more sensible to me. There's a similar system in Spain, where the league tells Barcelona that they can't just go out and spend 500 million because they'll go bankrupt.
But Barcelona is currently in an insane amount of debt?
The Premier league self regulates, that's why these need to be voted through by all of the clubs!
@@freescoring I didn't say 'self regulate'. I said 'preapprove spending'.
The Spanish league does it and they don't have stupid point deductions over there
@@freescoring Self regulation = no regulation. It's like asking the thieves to decide on their sentences and on what methods the police can use to track and catch them.
Matt Slater, Spot on with the Analysis, however, you missed one big factor aswell. The city in which these NFL/Franchise teams locate to, give the teams enormous tax breaks. You buy the franchise tag, but the city you choose to move to vies for you Franchise and they roll out the red carpet for you. They build the stadium for you, you generate all the revenue. Does the EPL/other leagues in the world have that kind of structure?
I suppose you could have put more adverts in that, but it would have been tricky.
RUclips does it, not content creators.
Great Video Lads.
f as Matt predicts the PFA will oppose these measures (and I am inclined to think he is correct). It is still an open question whether the PL will decide to pursue arbitration, as the clubs will have to vote again and like the ELF they may vote to not go ahead. Or we may end up with a ridiculous amount like 10 times. Awesome awesome podcast
The Americanization of the premier league creeps along 🤮
Thank God
Can see why they are so scared of the regulator. While everyone was worried about far east money no one seemed to have notice half the league being taken over by Yanks
As soon as half the league was taken over by Americans we should have known this would happen. We’ll have half time shows and national anthem before games next 🤢
The country has been Americansised for years pal. What do you expect
You want runaway spending and diminishing of competitiveness?
Reports of anchoring = relaxing of related party transaction regulations. MLB style “soft” cap is the best fit for the EPL. Hopefully all are brought onside and let the good times roll.
Don't worry, 115 fc will find a way around this
An actual salary cap similar to the NFL will not work in the PL. If any American system would kinda work with some changes, it would be MLB's, which has no salary cap, but instead has a luxury tax.
Luxury tax might be a better choice, it made MLB more balanced. In EPL case, it could retroactively charge City near Billion Pound.
“An actual salary cap similar to the NFL will not work in the PL”
And yet all the data provided by financial experts proves the contrary.
Are we expected to take the word of a RUclips no mark over the former?
That would be a no.
The dimwittery really has no bounds.
The European system is working... is it? Obviously it worked for a very long time but that doesn't mean it's working now. There have always been Big Clubs that dominate, but the differences with and between leagues are growing and have been for some time. Like, I'm sure there's a podcast or twenty in the Athletic's network talking about how aside from Real Madrid and Bayern Munich (and maybe Barcelona), every single club in the world is a selling club in relation to even the newly promoted EPL teams. And that's caused much angst and handwringing and solution generating.
I agree that you can't have a proper salary cap and other measures that promote competitive intra and inter league play with promotion and relegation, but the notion that clubs should be financially sustainable never used to be a question with promotion and relegation but they are now. I don't think anchoring really threatens that.
And if anchoring does threaten that, then the only solution is to add a post season to determine the champion and crown the league winner the minor premiers a la the NRL in Australia. Playoffs for 1 vs 2, 3 vs 4, ... 17 vs 18, 19 vs 20. You might not be able to beat a financially doping team over a whole season, but you can in a Grand Final.
Does anyone else play the game of read the title and guess who’s on the pod and then click on it and see if you’re right? 😂😂
No
“Our system works great too!” Bud the same trajectory has won your league SIX straight times
I’m an American but the Americanaization of English football is getting out of control
Having a salary cap is good for the league. Stopping these greedy players demanding crazy money is destroying the game.
Anything that's "tied to the income of X" is just pretend play. All that needs to happen in that case if that you grow the "income" part of the calculation through bogus sponsorship deals and selling players at inflated values. If you keep inflating this income you can expand your expenses as well, and the deficits allowed by the Premier League are ridiculous.
Which is exactly what the most successful English club of the last 15 years, Man City, are all about.
You'd have got plenty more views if you had on-screen graphics showing this with clear graphics. Someone is probably on that already
The draft system is only important in the NFL and the NBA. It's not so important for MLB, NHL, and MLS. La Liga has strict cost controls as well. This isn't a 'North American'' thing.
Half way through and shocked I haven’t heard any woke/ liberal chat. Keep that up athletic
Do you think that might be because the whole culture war is just another way to manufacture outrage for views?
This literally handicaps the league from outspending all the other top leagues in Europe. The financial clutch the PL have bad on Europe will be significantly reserved. Which will only cause the PL brand damage and benefit the other leagues. In other words… this is idiotic
Maybe it will force Premier League owners to run their clubs better lol
Lol 🤣 PL is already a one or two horse race. Boring ass league it used to be good but now nope
With 4 different UCL finalists in the last five years
@@kitotapgono1467I’m guessing he means the city/Liverpool dominance
Boring, not like the other top 5 leagues who have all already decided their champion and have 3 league losses between them
So Man City will never be charged
🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥
Contrary to what is said here Man Utd's attitude is problematic itself. They do not exist in a bubble, they exist in a pyramid that they are at the top of. Their wealth is not earned solely on their own assets but on the entirety of the football industry. Without the other teams they have no games to play and no money to make.
But the principle of a pyramid system is that you earn your way to the top by being successful. Why should a team be hamstrung because other teams aren't as successful. In American sport the worst team gets the first pick in the draft, that isn't sporting integrity and in my opinion neither are these rules.
But the difference in earnings between them and every other PL club is down entirely to their brand, club itself, historical fanbase etc, etc. Given they play the same opponents each year as their lower earning peers. So they would see that extra money as their's to spend as they see fit.
Also, not to be mean, but United don't owe any of their revenue to any League 2 side for example in any meaningful way; if that entire league was suspended for a year would it impact their balance sheet? I don't think so.
If anything this cap is probably what United need to be honest - get them to focus on getting value for money like everyone else
It is a stupid statement to say Chelsea would have disapproved if they didn't think it would pass, pure speculation and annoying to hear.
Well they dont affect City
What an absolute nonsense of a rule! No issue with the squad cost rule, but they need to get rid of the related party sponsorship rule, that's the real restriction of trade. What does it matter if an owner sponsors a club as long as its still the clubs money.
the disillusion on the bald guy.
Carvival??? Is that a Tik Tok rizz party referrence
39 buss
Those Asians are doing real harm to the sport!!! 😂😂😂
This is stupid and will only harm the prem
3456
England is a good place to live ? Have you been in Spain / Barcelona ? Comparing Milan to Manchester ?! Hahaha
Detra[
S ex xddd
Real madrid bayern munich didnt mention them😊
what a terrible host
“It’s not a 2 horse race we gave a big 6!” You have 1 winner and 5 teams that spend millions to lose to them. Farmers league
Never thought I’d see the day when we celebrate billionaire owners being able to get richer from football. All that extra revenue above the 500m limit will just go straight into their pockets
Yeah “everyone agreeing” that the sustainability of clubs is an issue. . . I mean the clubs certainly aren’t going anywhere, it’s the owners who are at risk. As a fan, even if the owners tank my club, there will always be another to replace them and pick up the pieces, even if the club is relegated. Trying to remove the jeopardy of owning a football club and making them a more sustainable business doesn’t do anything for me as a fan, it’s only a priority for these billionaires who don’t want to risk their fortunes on a football pitch. Other than limiting oil giants like City and Newcastle, I don’t see how this is something the average premier league supporter should be backing