The Premier League's complicated new transfer rules explained
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 7 авг 2024
- Try The Athletic for FREE for 30 days: theathletic.com/tifofootball
📗 Tifo's new book, "How to Watch Football" is now available internationally: linktr.ee/tifobook
In the 2023/24 season, several Premier League teams found themselves oddly restricted. This was the result of the league’s Profit and Sustainability Rules.
The league announced some controversial changes that will greatly impact what clubs can spend in the transfer market.
So, what are the changes and why will some clubs be impacted more than others?
Abhishek Raj explains. Craig Silcock illustrates.
Follow Tifo Football:
Twitter: / tifofootball_
Facebook: / tifofootball
Instagram: / tifofootball_
Listen to the Tifo Football podcast:
The Athletic UK: bit.ly/TifoPodChannel
Apple Podcasts: bit.ly/TifoFootPod
Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/06QIGhq...
Watch more Tifo Football: Tactics Explained: • Tactics Explained | Ti...
Finances & Laws: • Finances & Laws | Tifo...
Tifo Football Podcast: • Tifo Football Podcast
Most Recent Videos: • Most Recent Videos | T...
1 Popular Videos: • Popular Videos | Tifo ...
About Tifo Football:
Tifo loves football. We create In-depth tactical, historical and geopolitical breakdowns of the beautiful game.
We know there’s an appetite for thoughtful, intelligent content. For stuff that makes the complicated simple.
We provide analysis on the Premier League, Champions League, La Liga, Serie A, Bundesliga, World Cup and more.
Our podcasts interview some of the game’s leading figures. And our editorial covers football with depth and insight.
Founded in 2017 and became a part of The Athletic in 2020. For business inquiries, reach out to tifo@theathletic.com.
Additional footage sourced from freestockfootagearchive.com
#PremierLeague #EPL #transfers 
Спорт
Chelsea abstaining is pretty funny when they are a huge driving factor of the rule changes
When you constantly change rules because others are benefiting from previous rules, you'll always have problems. Rules are meant to prevent mismanagement not to inhibit.
when chelsea didnt played for ucl, uel, uecl,
chelsea played with the laws.
Perhaps make better rules then? Everything done by Chelsea was within bounds. Abstaining is not for or against, it's neutral. There's no guarantee the new rules can't be exploited either.
They have oil money, they know how many votes need to pass, so they always obtain from voting.
PSR was not made cause of Chelsea but Newcastle - as they are owned by a “country” with almost unlimited money to use.
Ever since Todd Boehly found a loophole in FFP, the PSR decided to crackdown on clubs handling their finances. Everton and Nottingham Forest were made examples of violating PSR, docked points and could have been relegated if not for the 3 promoted clubs that were absolutely abysmal. Now Premier League clubs are wary of how to balance the books and transfers are becoming more conservative than it was 2 years ago.
But my Chelsea is still singing like crazy!
@@mustolourien5823 Because they're desperate to get back to the Champions League because UCL money won't bail them out, but will still give them a massive relief in the FFP department.
They keep trying desperately to speedrun a total cultural rebuild like Arsenal did, except Arsenal took the time and swallowed the bitter results needed to instill a more sustainable cultural overhaul, which you absolutely cannot cheat time on. Now they're reaping the benefits (and would have won the league twice by now if it weren't for City). But Manchester United and Chelsea are desperate to return to the top so they're splashing the cash on youngsters and trying oh so desperately to overhaul their squads, and they're falling on their face, which is top comedy for everyone else in the league.
Chelsea in particular have had one signing that's lived up to the billing, Cole Palmer. After spending over a billion pounds in a handful of windows, they *finally* got one to work, and that's a hysterically bad ratio, and Palmer lived up to the billing so much that the team is shambolic without him, and would be fighting relegation without his goals. I say let them keep signing. They sold their souls to the devil when they let a Putin supporter into the club and let him bankroll them to success. Now the devil's come to collect.
yeah what was the point? spent a billion to be a joke
The "loophole" would have only been a short term loophole. Rules didn't really need to be changed. Chelsea have put themselves into poor long-term contracts.
@@lwandomadikizela2213 a loophole? People knew you could give players super long contracts to spread the cost on the books it’s happened with every club ever
It’s just most clubs aren’t dumb and so don’t sign someone for an 8 year contract just for them to leave the club after 2 years
The only teams that really suffer are that group of teams that are actively trying to break into the top 6 because it becomes too difficult to bridge that quality gap without being able to spend a little more. Think Newcastle, West Ham, Villa and potentially Palace and Everton.
thank god newcastle cant, most unethical club in the world
Everton ? How did you decide tonight include them? They mismanaged and under performed over the last 5 years massively and before that
@@LordSeth-hf8ewYou're right about the mismanagement but I included them because they're one of the few teams who've tried to enter the big 6. Agreed, their attempt was terrible but it shows that they have enough of a fan base to try and compete
@@madsnn4222 Brother AC Milan's most successful period was bank rolled by Italian Donald Trump who was a Mafia member. I don't wanna hear you talk about morality lmao.
Brighton too. Our goal is to become a top 10 premier league club that occasionally makes forays into Europe.
And then there's Chelsea...
And then there’s Chelsea… following the rules…
@@absolutespoon2074following how?
@@absolutespoon2074bending the rules, it's their fualt rules had to be changed
@@Randomaccount9470 Not really. It's not Chelsea's fault that the old rules were poorly written.
No one cares about Chelsea 😂
Good overview, but missed some of the nuances around the 85%/70% limits. As always the 4 Champions League teams wouldn't have agreed to it without a benefit to them and we'll no doubt be talking about that part in a few years.
The nuance is that clubs that are challenging the regular champions league teams with a much lower revenue base, suddenly become subject to the lower 70% cap when they finish in the 6th spot even though their revenue hasn't yet increased to match the regular qualifiers. That puts you in a position where Villa or Newcastle have to sell at the time when they most want to spend (sound familiar?) meanwhile in a bad year when a Liverpool or a Man Utd fail to qualify, they find that they're suddenly able to spend 15% more of their already much higher revenue to get back in.
This was intended to work that way and that's why some of them agreed to it.
Won't it create a very real situation where a club actively tries to lose a match or two to avoid qualifying for the Conference or Europa league to avoid the 70%?
@@cheifwhat Quite possibly! As many have said before, from some points of view the Conference League (and Europa league to a less extent) are already a nuisance and this will compound that.
He said only champions league teams will be experience that type of 70% considering that UEFA recently have been putting efforts to enforce that rule while europa and conference leagues don't make enough as the champions league to even qualify for that 70% rule
City are probably the only team you can say are guaranteed cl footbal.
So teams will not rely on cl money when planning their budget.
@@jesterbeats2898yeah, none of that is true.
All the European qualifiers will be subject to the 70% threshold rather than 85%, and the reason behind it is very simple: the limit UEFA has already set is 70%! Even if the Premier League didn’t set the limit at 70%, the clubs will still have to be at that 70% threshold for UEFA compliance purposes anyway.
What was mentioned in the video, and you misunderstood, is that clubs participating in the Champions League get so much extra income that the drop from 85% to 70% is not a competitive disadvantage. For clubs qualifying for Europa or Conference Leagues, it’s a challenge but it’s one clubs will have to navigate because neither the Premier League nor UEFA are going to give them any leeway on the 70% threshold. The good news is that clubs advancing far into the knockout rounds still make a ton of money in both competitions, and winning Europa comes with automatic Champions League qualification. Winning those competitions is pretty close to what clubs make from the group stage of Champions League.
I'm in favour of tighter spending rules, as the goal should be to give the teams coming up from the Championship a fairer chance to compete and attempt to get a foothold in the Premier League. My issue is how immediate these rule changes have been. It doesn't give clubs a lot of time to reorganise to stay within the new spending rules, and it's also why we've been seeing a handful of clubs cheating with "player laundering" (which I guess is the new "35 year old player sold to Saudi for £50mil"), as they haven't had enough time to complete organic player sales.
They are on trial next season and won't come in till the season after if voted for.
Every team that competes in europe already have to abide by uefas spending rules (which these are based on). So won't really be effected.
I’m a Man United fan and we had (and have) an earnings benefit. But without equitable competition, none of that matters. We need to make the game more equal. I want to see an Ipswich genuinely able to compete when they come up. Meritocracy on the pitch shouldn’t be ruined by bias off it.
Ipswich can beat you so your wishes could become true
💯 But the rules aren't intended to do that.
If the financial protection of clubs was really the goal and not the financial protection of owners and the hierarchy of clubs, much simpler, less restrictive rules would be in play.
Above a fresh hold, Owners should be able to spend as they please but have to put bonds in with the PL that would protect against the ramifications of it not working out.
So if a club wants to spend £300m it can, but that money must be matched by the owners as an insurance with the PL that they get back after 5 years or whatever period it takes to pay off thr amortised cost of the player.
If the club gets into financial difficulty in that time the funds can be used to "save" the club.
There should also be no leveraged buyouts of football clubs.
This way only serious owners would even buy clubs. It would guarantee safe investment without stifflling it or would see owners decide to run the club within its means.
If a club did get into trouble (like Everton) the owner would have the option to spend a bit more to get them out of trouble rather than giving up and leaving the club in limbo.
As it stands We are protecting a status quo that will eventually ruin everything including those that benifit from it now.
@@outofthetrash5925 6 months ago the concept of owners putting in money would’ve been so remarkably foreign to me you’d have to excuse my whiplash. That said, I’m not a major fan of owners just being able to pile money into clubs. Then it’s just an arms race for the richest owners.
@@cfents8660 Owners find clubs not the other way around. There are not many people around who both can and would try to compete.
Look at what's happening instead. City were forced into using other companies owned by the owners to artificially inflate sponsorship revenues when they were previously investing personally. Those inflated figures are no longer inflated and the club is self sustainable mening that investing paid off, but it should have been the owners themselves being allowed to continue to invest - preferably with an insurance for the club.
Wolves and Crystal Palace are now mysteriously sponsored by Two foreign betting clubs set up on the exact same day, with no business history and the exact same website layout as One another. In Palaces instance the company was apparently set up by an already deceased RUclipsr.
The owners clearly want to fund the clubs but are now doing so in unsavoury ways.
Newcastle and Villa are selling off their best young players and they along with many others are selling players in "swap" deals that they otherwise wouldn't do.
Wealthy owners is not a new phenomenon. The numbers stager but yesterday's millionaires paved a route that means only Billionaires can get involved today. Blackburn won a league splashing the cash. When Shearer was signed for £15m all them years ago it probably seemed expensive but not that bad. However adjusted for football specific inflation, that fee represents a £220m signing today. No one is making £220m signings.
We shouldn't be sacred of money coming into the game. We should simply seek to ensure clubs are safe during and post that investment.
Not sure what kind of United fan you are but their and Chelsea’s performance over the last few years has been a pretty good advertisement for the fact that massive spending doesn’t equal success.
If you have any familiarity with American sports, these rules are taking English football closer to the American system, where winning and financial success are completely decoupled.
Clubs like United and Arsenal who haven't won a Premier League title for over 10 and 20 years respectively, are what Americans call 'big market franchises' - it's no surprise that Arsenal, Liverpool, Chelsea and United are owned by Americans.
The Americas don't fear City winning trophies... They fear City competing with them to become a big market franchise.
A salary cap is a must, but the PFA are gonna need to wind their neck in.
@@12thMandalorian Any form of salary cap is going to reduce PL's appeal for top players, unless it's an extremely relaxed one which would be pointless anyway. They have by far the best league in the world, this is too easy of a situation to screw it up.
@@glimpsepandey3174 then they are welcome to go elsewhere, this should be a UEFA wide thing, what are they gonna do? all go to Saudi Arabia? LOL
@@12thMandalorianwhy do you think a salary cap is a good thing? All it does is make more revenue for billionaires.
@@12thMandalorian why should there be any salary caps ? It’s the players who Are playing week in week out . Football is a big money mapping industry why should More money generated from football go to billionaires who haven’t kicked a ball
Did anyone else not understand one second of this but still enjoy it 😂
I understood it since I finished high school 😃
I hate so much that being a PL supporter nowadays is more like being a financial analyst... I miss the days when it used to just be about what happens ON the pitch
Same here but we must also remember the EPL was formed on a greedy premise
The EPL was never about what happened on the pitch. Many Football analysts predicted that the EPL would be bad for the game in the long term. By long term they meant 25-50 years and they're now being proved right. The belief was that the then big five would dominate the game to the detriment of the rest who wouldn't be able to compete. Four of those five have retained that status, one fell away due to terrible mismanagement, and even then have still stayed in the top ten more often than not, while two others have bought their way to the table.
Practicing my bot impression:
Your channel is a place where every video is a journey of knowledge and discovery. Keep inspiring us with your creativity! ❤🍿🎉
Yeah those typical bot comment are annoying and uncreative
@@JakeStevyson Your comment is a celebration of bots' achievements towards our society. They are invaluable members of our internet. ❤️😘
Just missing an arse for a profile pic.
Bots are becoming self aware nowadays
@@MichaelH3948 That's a problem. I do not have a magnetic behind. May I use yours? Much appreciated
What’s happens if TV revenue falls?
Could you let us know how chelsea is affected in all this?
A big part of their transfer dealings the last couple years has been selling players (or not renewing in the case of expiring contracts) players on massive wages. They have dramatically reduced their wage bill even as they’re spending a fortune on transfer fees.
All you care about is how a club that have played as per the rules is affected? Sad lot.
@@yash4296 or he's just interested because their situation is totally different compared to every other club in the league and this video made a point of ommitting them. Calm down bud
@@yash4296found the chelshit supporter
The pacing of the video is off. There is no need to change it to fit with the Beastification model where the video is sped up
Especially covering new terminology and industry related knowledge
Crazy how I never heard the term amortisation in my life until Todd Boehly landed
It's been in use since the 1600s. It just means depreciation of an asset.
@@lilbaz8073 I think he just means within football. Every transfer now amortization is mentioned, but prior to the Boehly loopholes, nobody was discussing it in depth after transfers, even big money deals.
the thing is: ar eplayers wages reliably reported? are players transfer value real (specially between multi-club ownership groups)? are sponsoring values real or can a sponsor owned by the same royal family who owns the club pay as much as they want to make the numbers fit?
If Serie A and Ligue 1 implement the kind of PSR-rule this could impacts domestically
French ligue 1 rule are far worst than anything in other league, every team have the send their season account from previous season and full budget new season every year
Every year club get banned from buying or have to sell,get relegated or worst get their pro licence revoked
Under this rule most spanish team would have gone bankrut
Great explainer
Saudis are definitely happy about the proposed changes, no doubt
Right. Put a hard cap on player salary and see how quick talent leaves the league
@@studentloandebt7598 Not like anyone can afford to pay saudi wages anyway. Wages in the Prem aren't exactly low, and if worn out people want to go play lower league football in a sandbox because of over the top pay, such as Henderson, then I don't see how that really hurts the Prem.
Good riddance @@studentloandebt7598
@@studentloandebt7598the cap is a multiple of the lowest clubs earnings🤦 it just means if the big clubs want to increase the cap the way you do it us increase the bottom clubs revenue. Actually quite a good idea. One that help the bottom club stay in touch with other clubs in the bottom half.
@@studentloandebt7598 have fun being further robbed of all your money through exploding streaming fees, overpriced T-Shirts and constant, constant advertising.
Football is unsustainable right now. Let's dial the clock back 25 years.
Useless having rules and not enforcing them, or not being able to enforce them for one reason or another. Need to grant the powers that be greater access to financial records to ensure no gerrymandering.
Gerrymandering? That word doesn’t mean what you think it means…
@@benjaminlynch9958 feel free to correct me. I was referring to clubs putting costs into the following season to appear as though they were compliant with PSR/FFP.
@@benjaminlynch9958 its a repurposing of the word but it makes sense. if you understand the concept you understand his usage
Thank you for this video
Excellent explanation, thank you.
An in depth analysis which was insightful and interesting
Club owners have two motivations both related to profit margins: (1) don't relegated while (2) spending as little on players as possible.
5:39 less clubs will be competitive when the bigger clubs are allowed by the rules to spend more.
Standardize agent fees would not solve the problems, but would probably reveal and stabilize a lot.
The start of the end of Premier League dominance as lower ranked clubs can’t compete
Interesting developments!
well well, tbh, premier league NEEDs to do something, otherwise, new teams going to the premier league after the relegated ones will cease to exist in 5 years or so, the amount of disparity between the clubs relegated to the ones in the championship is absurd.
Please make a video on agent commissions
i think you guys should explore the American salary cap model. whats interesting about them is some are hard caps meaning you cant go into the season above the cap limit, and others are soft caps, meaning any team above the salary cap going in can still do so without any penalties in terms of their overall record (points deductions) but they are forced to pay a "luxury tax" instead. personally I think the idea of deducting points is stupid, just go the financial punishment route, or a roster penalty or something else. I feel as though a soft cap would work best for the premiere league and the sport in general. you would be enforcing a salary cap while allowing the big clubs to still go out and purchase players that will allow them to compete domestically and in Europe.
Salary caps work in American sports only because the players are unionized and the unions have agreed to it via a collective bargaining agreement. Legally, it would be impossible to implement in Europe as it would require cooperation from players and owners across a number of different leagues and across a number of different legal jurisdictions each with their own rules. Navigating all that successfully is neigh impossible even if there was a broad consensus agreement that such a thing should be done.
@@benjaminlynch9958 not saying it should be a perfect 1 to 1 copy and paste of our salary cap model, but i think it would be an interesting idea. and more in the sense of a transfer budget cap. sorry if i didnt clarify that well enough. but the players salaries arent necessarily what im talking about.
@@philaunitebirdgangtakeflig5453the existing rules cover transfer budgets, salary spending too. The issue is they're not progressive, i.e. it doesn't affect the big clubs enough, instead it does more to handcuff up-and-coming ones and keep the big ones on top.
@@FaustoTheBoozehound personally i think the clubs that make more money should be allowed to spend more of it if they want TO AN EXTENT. i cant stress that enough, because at a certain point ur right, it only keeps big clubs on top. that's why I think you should put a hard cap on spending and underneath that it would be based on overall revenue. that way clubs with more money get to enjoy their advantage while stopping them from making it uncompetitive. it would be more about how clubs spent their money instead of who they buy.
You see how players get cut in American sports right?
Imagine not having the same job security football contracts used to guarantee
This is gunna sound crazy but I think they should add a cost cap like f1 where ur allotted lets say 180 mil to spend on everything from players to facilities to charter flights etc that way each team could realistically climb into league winning contention and just like in f1 if u go over that cap u get a hefty fine but in football u can also add points sections where applicable and then instead of it being yearly making the points deductions useless they could do it a check after every transfer window closes to ensure each club is following the cap so actually instead of one giant cost cap it could be split into two so for example if the whole cost cap amounts to 180 mil that would mean ur only allowed to spend 90 mil per window and again that would include all expenses and the profits would go towards the next windows cap ofc player transfers will still allow u to use the whatever money u get from that transfer so realistically each team would be able to spend around 60-70 mil each window because the only profits they could use towards transfers would be the selling of their own players that way it u want to revamp ur whole squad like Nottingham did a year or two ago u would have to sell the same amount as u spend
Always a good day when there's a new tifo football vid
please make a video about the history of the Welsh premier league and it's current state. it's a very interesting story that not many people know about
Please do a video on Gareth southgate managerial career and next potential England manager candidates please.
This would be really interesting to see with uefa europa and conference league while still having the 70% limit. The money coming from champions league is significantly more than the Europa or conference league to offset the 70%. This seems like for some teams the conference league spot becomes a huge financial strain rather than a moment of celebration for qualification in Europe.
70% is the new UEFA rule. It is actually 90% next season and declining to 70% over 3 years. Violating that has no consequense in the PL. The club would just be banned from UEFA comp for a year or 2
honestly though this sounds like its going to impact a clubs a lot it will probably be a lot less heavy than expected. The main thing this is going to impact is the newly growing clubs like Newcastle, AV etc. And it is going to really portray poorly managed clubs.
City are known to not report their wages correctly. Even chelsea did as per the football leakes. Kante was the only player who refused dodgy payments.
Do you have proof of that claim?
@@russellward4624 of the chelsea thing? Was part of the football leaks. As for city, same above. Even manchini was paid under the table as well as his "correct wage"
Yes and the previous 'Big 4' were perfect little saints during their multi decades reign. As a long suffering Aston Villa man I've long decided that City are my second team.
@@cim888 City are your second team? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@cim888 "second team".. absolute plastic
Expand it to discuss more than just an equitable premier league. What will it do to the Premier League's global reputation and brand strength. Will the best players still go to England? Is the golden era of the premier league coming to an end with more and more regulations being placed on it. Lots of interesting potential implications
Say bye bye to signing overpriced and overrated players like Mbappe and Jude. Only Madrid and PSG will have the ability to sign global superstars.
Does this mean that Ownership’s money can’t be used on the squad costs and can only be invested in infrastructure etc? Or does this mean that ownership money is counted into the revenue?
I used to love waking up every three days to a tifo video. Now its a miracle if they upload once a month…
These rules probably not affecting top flight teams 😂
What's the point !!! And where is the fairness?
Clubs like Chelsea and M City can spend freely and everyone else's hands are tied
We should have a fairer system like that in USA, where Gridiron ad Baseball teams have something which gives 'lesser' clubs a chance
Can you guys make a video of the french league problem. They cant get a tv deal and looks like teams can go bankrupt becouse of it
Anyone who can remember what English Football was like 50 years ago would want a level playing field. Literally every team felt they had at least a semi realistic chance to dream they could mount a title challenge or a good cup run. Six different sides won the title, six others won the cup. In thirty two Premier League seasons, we've had just seven champions and now have a small cabal of teams trying to rig the system to ensure they remain elite and unchallenged forever. Do we really want a league where one team wins the title four years in a row?...And counting because the challengers don't look any more likely to stop them making it five next year.
Well the hard cap is absolutely ridiculous you can’t punish big teams for playing with Ipswich town
I like how all punishments are in some way financial in some way. But as the whole idea is to make them financially viable it makes no sense to in any way affect their finances otherwise your whole point seems pointless
I saw the thumbnail and thought the video would have a completely different subject
Interesting to see various sports all doing a similar thing to promote parity in their respective competitions. I haven't followed soccer in 20 years but can see parallels to the NBA's new first and second apron rules for spending. Sincerely hope these measures level the playing field in every sport, success has been concentrated to a handful of teams for far too long
This isn't like the NBA, because there's already a leagues with on par and sometimes teams and players than the PL, and the Saudi league where mediocre players literally make generational wealth in a month. This will just drain the talent out of the PL, not just on field talent but managers too and you'll see them move to other leagues.
@@indcredible7839 that's a good point. The NBA benefits from having almost no other competitors for the top talent within their respective sport. I suppose what I said was only about the idea of creating parity within individual leagues and didn't encompass the fact that EPL football is also competing with other leagues for top talent
@@clumeroo Yup, also NBA has a salary and spending cap in the 100s of millions because they too can't get away with lowering player wages , which would then cause an outflow of talent to the Asian and European basketball leagues. They strike the ideal balance between being higher paying than the competition but establishing parity among themselves. But they're a closed league so they can do that easily, it's even more difficult for PL being a Merit based participation league
And Chelsea is still buying like crazy and they offer insane contracts without any problems. That contract for Marc Guiu is insane...
This rule is holding the clubs back need revamping
This is all just effecting the clubs below the top 6, making it a stranghold on em. Unless clubs below wanting to join in sell, they'll never make it. Which oh. Who to sell too? Only the top 6 clubs of course!
The squad cost ratio rule is protecting the status quo. Less wealthy clubs are no longer allowed to invest and take a risk to drive future revenue. Now, first the money needs to come in before investments can be made. That makes it much more difficult to challenge the top teams
EPL needs to implement salary and expenditure caps
This will lead to more top end talents going to Saudi BUT I like the new model overall. Spreading the salary cap la liga style is a great move.
Unlikely. Also the LaLiga Salary cap is a joke. If not implemented properly, it just furthers the divide between the elite and the not so elite
Let teams win because they performed well on the pitch, not because they performed well in the bank.
I'm all for an anchoring spending cap and a small portion of continental winnings (like the Champions League and Fifa Club World cup) are distributed to the winning team's domestic league.
the amount of jumping around these owners are doing to be able to stay at the top by spending more money that the rest of the league whilst at the same time being able to turn a profit that they can take out from their clubs is leading to some crazy complicated ffp rules 😂😂😂
So the only people I can see this benefiting are the American owners and specifically FSG. As a LFC supporter we are constantly being told the club has to be run sustainably and we won’t pay for things we can’t afford. Both these plans add more power to the owners to say, oh we can’t risk getting anywhere near these levels and the owners spending less.
this is prob so the owners can keep the money
A reality-check for all sports - NOT just association football - is badly needed.
Still waiting for hearing in October for 115 charges
Fa introduces ppf for prem exception to mancity
Ending this video with “ and this will make the clubs more equitable” when they are proposing to give the top for places a whole 15% more wiggle room while they also get more revenue? That is an INSANE assertion.
The use of a gold and white jersey for Arsenal in this video was oddly distracting. Where does this choice come from?
Very interesting video
Not mentioning that rules, to this point, have never applied to Man City misses a big part the story.
I think they should reduce the league to 18 teams and reduce the amount of fixtures, because it’s already so competitive that the best players have to play every game. Long gone are the days a top team would rest their best players for an upcoming Champions League game
The upper cap could stop top teams competing with European giants
I love Man City. It’s just so well run and the players work so hard. 🎉
I am all in favour of a salary cap tbh
I was in favour of a flexible salary cap that REWARDED GOOD BEHAVIOUR, as well as punishing bad.
But devious minds throughout sport will still only manipulate legal text.
I think the hard cap could be replaced by a soft cap, like the NBA.
➡️ Make it 5x of the 50% equitable amount distributed to the 20 clubs (for example, in 2022-23, all Prem clubs were guaranteed £88.6M from all broadcast revenues, so the cap will be 5x that: £443M)
➡️Now if we implement a soft cap, I'd go with a luxury tax similar to the NBA. For every £1 a club goes over the cap, they pay a £1 penalty to the EPL. The money is then redistributed to the other clubs that did not go over the cap that season, registered as football operations income, and will then be included in their squad ratio calculations (If we take the Man City example in the video, they would pay a £30M penalty. And if say 10 clubs were under the limit, that is an extra £3M income for them. That may not sound much, but if you pool together the penalties of the 10 clubs over the limit, that would equate to a potentially hefty extra income for the bottom 10 spending clubs)
➡️I think this is a way to not hamstring the top wealthy clubs ability to compete in Europe, but at the same time it helps the other clubs catch-up. They can choose to go over the cap and remain competitive, but it will incur penalties that will strain their finances (especially if that penalty is included in the squad ratio calculations) and help their domestic rivals catch up to them. It also allows all clubs to invest in scouting and their academies, in order to find cheap young talent and smart player deals that would make them competitive while spending less.
P.S.
➡️I think the idea of a repeater's tax could also be implemented. They incur a penalty of 0.75p for every £1 they spent over the cap divided by 3 years of the reporting period.
For example, we can use the 3 year reporting period currently used. If we use the video example, and say Man City was £30M over the cap for year 1 of the reporting period, £20M in year 2, and £50M in year 3, they pay an additional £25M in year 4 to the EPL (0.75 x (30M+20M+50M)/3)).And the 3-year counting period resets. Again, this extra penalty counts in their year 4 squad ratio calculations, but this time, the amount is given evenly to every other EPL club with a lower average than them (including over cap clubs), and any club that played in the EPL but got relegated during that 3 year period)
So its sort of a tax on clubs depending on their behavior that would benefit the clubs that behave good
I honestly like the idea, yes my club would be affected and maybe top 3 affected clubs by that but i wouldn't mind if money would be taken from us and other top 6 clubs to be given to lesser clubs at least now owners are paying other clubs not just their own
@@Ananas-280 It is not a perfect system, especially with owners who don't give a damn about how much tax they pay in order to assemble a dream squad.
But using it in tandem with the mentioned Squad Ratio, UEFA's rules, and all other possible measures will make it very painful to spend excessively and may give a chance for these owners to think about their spending
How are english teams going to perform in European competitions now is the real question
UK is limiting themselves is good. Other big leagues don't get that much interest, Bundes is limiting themselves, even Bayern, Serie A got limited by the government, La Liga is a duopol led by Tebas unwilling to make more competition. Worst thing is that MLS and Saudi league could be growing much soon. Chinese league project died. Maybe there is hope for leagues like Portugal or Eredivisie, but they still would need a lot to compete in TOP5.
Isnt the Saudi league already mostly dead? You can't buy your way to a successful league. China failed, and the US failed with that in the past too. But it seems like MLS has turned a corner, focussing on the idea that growing the sport will grow interest in MLS, and it has been paying out dividends over the past few years.
MLS has a salary cap nowhere near European top leagues and that’s not going away any time soon
Why are people even subscribed to this chanel anymore?
Content is RARE!
Qualities Over Quantities.
I though manC had a hard cap of 115
I’d rather a wage cap across the top 5 leagues, and anchored by some kind of average tv money across the top 5 leagues.
I have no idea why, in football, the rules put in place are there to create dominance. It’s just boring.
PL only apply their rules on clubs that are out of big 6.
Not gonna mention why cities revenues are so big?
The funny thing is, whatever rules are, City is going to bend it.
And all you'll do is cry about it
The more things change, the more they remain the same.
115 charges... what has happened to Man City
Let’s go TIFFOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!
Complex rules being explained by Tifo? ohh I'm definiteky watching.
they punish everton and forest, but don't punish city and chelsea. wonder why.
Because Chelsea has made sales and more money than they spent 😂
@@dimitryanyanwu7681 ah yes, the hotel.
Because Chelsea didn't actually break any rules?
@@wobbly_doo they conceded as much to UEFA and were punished accordingly. And yet the the PL has yet to take action.
the Chelsea and especially City cases are more complicated. Everton and Forest admitted going over the limits so it was straightforward. Not saying the EPL isn't corrupt in many ways but because they are under pressure from the government to get their house in order they do have an incentive not to let Chelsea and City get away with it. we'll see if they do or not but it's not just a conspiracy against 'the smaller clubs'
Aye its good for the balance of the teams in the league but at the same time you have Madrid who can spend like a billion on players competing for the championships league...😅
And yet Chelsea move like a streaker on the pitch…
FFP is and has always been a crock to protect the corrupt big 6 cartel and hamstring anyone challenging them. These potential changes are a small step in the right direction but still leave much to be desired.
so its a salary cap in spirit?
Mmm i love over bearing league system's designed to squeeze clubs.
And agai except chelsea, how many times did i hear that
Jokes aside how chelsea still.manages to check all the boxes is amazing 👏🏼
Anything:
Anything at all:
Minus Chelsea 😂
Didn't I also read somewhere that they where changing the rules regarding Amortization? Mainly because of the Chelsea non sense?
The change from a 3-year period to yearly period is exactly to combat the (completely valid) strategy of amortisation. I don't know why people are so upset about this strategy given that pretty much every single business in the world uses it, but that might just be due to lack of knowledge about accounting principles.
@@brzt4256 Oh I get the accounting principles in business. It's more the uniqueness of the football business that make it a bit different. Also 1 year period wouldn't really combat that at all if you can still spread out the expenditure book keeping wise over multiple years even if spent it all in one.
Uefa now limits amortisation to 5 years.
Oh no; now they get too much money and don't have a reason anymore to constantly raise the ticket prices.... oh no!
Anyway.
Just create an American draft type system.
I don't think people realize that smaller clubs don't want bigger clubs to stop spending, that's literally one of their primary sources of Income😂 I really don't think Brighton minds Chelsea spending money💀
City went from one of the most sustainable clubs to one of the most unsustainable clubs overnight… 🤔
The fact city generated that much money is ungodly they have to be breaking some rules sirely
sensible transfers?
Can we not just kick city out and everyone’s happy?