All you need to know is that the CAS decision regarding Manchester City last season made a mockery of it and this is evidence by billionaire backed clubs spending huge sums on transfer fees and wages this window despite having gone through a pandemic and faced massive revenue reductions. It may as well not exist at this point.
@@James14OO Please do research or read the verdict on the case with CAS and Man City before chatting nonsense. City did win EPL and are UCL finalist, Chelsea won UCL and finised 3rd in the EPL, those teams have the right to spend big, Let say this, unlike barca. City, Chelsea or Aston Villa are good at investment and spending, barca got 200m+ from the Neymar deal 4 years ago, now they are almost bankrupt. Why?, cuz they spend bad and invest bad,
"as the others play catch up" I don't know about that... All I know is that the smaller Prem clubs can now stand up to big teams who want their players. Gone are the days where United could roll up and take Everton's striker for 30M...Everton can now hold their own and demand the price they want.
Very good point, the whole financial stand point for every team is much stronger. Who would’ve thought 15 years ago that Norwich would sell a player for 35 million out the championship
And how about when the ‘smaller teams’ want to buy an affordable player from the big teams, they can simply refuse. They aren’t in the position of needing creative accounting, player sales, loans or small fees. Yes smaller prem clubs can now stand on their own two feet and demand what is reasonable but this is not the same going the other way. The state of the game has improved but still has a long way to go before a fair financial game is there.
@@outlet5501 at the end of the day transfers are a completely unregulated market and clubs can demand whatever they want. This notion of “fair” is very difficult to achieve because even the bigger clubs don’t want to lose less valuable assets for less than they can. At least in the modern market smaller clubs don’t allow themselves to get pushed around by the big boys
Just whipping this out there… salary cap that if you go over, you pay a “luxury tax” that is given to any other clubs that aren’t over the limit so let the oil money benefit everyone even if they aren’t owned by it
This is easily the best solution and gives lots of wiggle rooms as well. For example if it is deemed that big clubs still have too much of an advantage the tax can simply be increased
@paulgarcher It's part of how the NBA salary cap works. The point is to limit the spending and award sticking to the limits. I don't think it would work because the richest owners don't care much about spending the needed money. Also don't believe salary caps work (with main idea of promoting fairness) in an open league (promotion/relegation).
@@deadmansfire imo that system is actually very good in theory but kinda collapses in practice. for example, lebron can get pretty much anyone he wants to sign a min. contract and build a superteam, while small markets (with relatively bad nightlife and all) have to pay the max to get an average to good player. the vetos, the fines and everything are absolute jokes so don't even get me started on that
@paulgarcher "It is down to them" is a hopelessly naive sentiment when looking at the financial reality of, say Man City and Norwich. It's like saying I you should be able to compete in a race with a ferrari with a £5k budget, and if you're unable to, that's "down to you".
The main idea behind the salary cap is to improve the competitiveness of the league, not to make clubs money. That's why half of the teams in MLS have won the league since its inception whilst only a handful of clubs have won the premier league over the same period (although I appreciate revenue sharing and single club markets make their model unique). A salary cap would undoubtedly make football more, and I use this term lightly, "fair".
Half the teams won in MLS because of a playoff. Not because their on field performance. If you look over the history of mls champions you will see many 5th and 6th seed champions. Not a true reflection of regular season winners.
In most cases, a salary cap is in place on behalf of the club owners. If everyone's salary is capped, the good players would all be paid "below market value" which in turn gives the owner more money. They say it's for fairness, but in actuality it's a safety net for the owners. I personally find a premier league cap very hard to see, as the highest club stage involves international clubs, and therefore the premier league clubs are at a "disadvantage" (which isn't necessarily true given how much money is already in the premier league) .
The proposed super league is similar in model to the MLS in terms of money and competition. And we all know the general sentiment around that. Relative merit is not always as good as absolute merit.
As long as any regulating body remains flexible it could work. Regulation always seems like a good idea, but often takes many revisions and a lot of time to get good and then requires constant updating.
Tifo, Ccould you kindly make a breakdown video on the what happens during a signing process. We hear about contract, agents fee, medicals, sign on clause, image rights etc but an in-depth analysis about the behind the scenes would be really insightful
Hey Tifo will you ever do another Championship video or podcast? I remember you did a great one last season where you highlighted Olise as one to watch, hope you’ll make one for this season.
Happy to hear a sensible comment at 5:15 Really hope people will see that Leicester is such a freak instance that it would never happen again in the near future. Imagine where Man City would be today without the backing from overseas.
If a salary cap doesn’t exist at least FFP should jeez City with their wages and transfers. Only a slap on the wrist for their punishment, didn’t even get banned from UCL
@@aaaaab5909 The reason they got off was because UEFA didn't bring the charges quick enough, not because they didn't do anything wrong. There was just a statute of limitations type thing.
@@aaaaab5909 If “they didn’t do anything wrong” you’d have to question why Mansour is so keen to flex his financial muscle, by threatening UEFA with ‘a thousand lawyers’. That’s his Rottweiler tactic. It IS now time for the U.K. Government to step in as ‘football’ has proven itself unable to safeguard against abuse. The oil money would soon run away when they’re no longer able to bully their way around.
They dont need one as long pl keeps earning 3 times tv revenue than la liga, serie a etc.But they ought to be careful as something similar happened with milan in serie a when it was joint most revenue earning league in the world which caused it to degrade it to 3rd/4th place
@@lilbaz8073 Obviously , but then again are clubs like city and chelsea backed by enormously wealthy owners which defy that statement. But for clubs like liverpool , spurs or arsenal it is strictly required that they get their wage costs cut to minimum
@@Yky-xh7ej chelsea and city are in part driving up the cost of players and wages. Putting other clubs at more risk. There needs to be a proper limit. Ffp just isn't fit for purpose.
There is no perfect solution to everything. While we do want to stop City from splash the cash and put the players on a bench prison with money, we don't want to stop the ability to do occasional big money signings. The best solution I can think of is a spending cap every which is set every 5 years.
Hopefully they bring it in. It's just unsustainable at the moment driven by oil money. Make the league more competitive without clubs risking their very existence chasing the dream of champions league.
I want some more information on the guy with the pointer in front of the chalk boards. I can see his shoulder hyper-mobility is being wasted being a standroid, wearing a shirt and pointing at stuff on black boards. Would starting pitcher for the Jays be better? What is his name? Is he called Stan '360' Beresford?
I'd love to see some kinda "tax"--perhaps 10% on transfer fees above 10 million or something, and maybe some on wages over 100k/week or whatever--and that money goes into lower-league teams. Thus strengthening the game from the ground up (imagine what even half a percent of, say, a couple hundred million is to a non-league team, or even league two), giving supplemental money to teams that are seeing losses after failed promotion/staying-in-the-PL bids, and perhaps curbing the excess fees without nullifying the league's ability to compete with others outright.
Damn this is too good of an idea for them to actually do it. I guess thats what FFP was supposed to be, since the fines were supposed to go to grassroots organizations. EUFA has shown with Man City that this type of thing is impossible to enforce.
@@SamRichardson1990 uhhhh...I said nothing about government or politicians, did I? What I mean is they pay money (that they have) into a fund managed by the FA or something and the entirety of that money is split according to transparent rules into lower league clubs. Whether or not Premier League teams have to pay tax is a decision not up to the PL, the FA, UEFA, FIFA, Tifo, me, or you. Like, call Boris I guess lol. Completely off-topic to my suggestion, which is (primarily) to help strengthen the spine of the sport, and (secondarily) to curb the financial excesses of the top clubs (without killing off the PL's UCL chances).
They aren’t outrageous, if you take the growth of the sport plus inflation into account they’re not that crazy at all, if teams couldn’t afford it they wouldn’t do it
The question logically boils done to: Do you want the quality of the league overall to increase, or just that of a few wealthy clubs? A cap helps spread talent around, preventing rich clubs from picking up players just to ride a bench or be loaned out so they don’t have to face them on an opposing team.
@@vanlandings7466 it happens in premiership rugby already. The problem is relegation, the penalty for fielding a bad team within your means is too severe so teams will just cheat The cap serves its purpose in American leagues because they’re closed and there aren’t alternative leagues for talent to go to
People always mock the MLS as to being “too strict” but their model of having spending caps per team in the league helps create chances of everyone to win the league. This reduces the chances of their league, let’s say LA galaxy/NYCFC, turning the league where they could just farm players only because of their dominance in spending and wealth of from the club (Ehem.. DBL.. Ehem.. Ligue 1..).
That's a good point. Having a soft cap like the NBA and a Luxury tax for teams over spending as well as a 150 million hardcap for SUPERLEAGUE teams when compared to other teams for 3 years are decent rules too. It would cost clubs, curb spending, even out the odds by a fair margin and Dock teams for breaking away.
You can’t compare the US sports leagues to the EPL. The American sports reward underperforming teams and the winners are decided by knock out tournaments, that’s why they have different winners.
@@ThiagoSilva-el6mg it’s not a 1 for 1 comparison but there are some good aspects the mls Has like a salary cap and spending limits that foster completion and negatives they have like no pro rel and the mls still does foster competion even if you don’t want to use the playoff winners the supporters Shield (most points in the league) has been won by 8 different teams since 2010 that’s parity leagues like the prem and bundesliga and la liga could only dream of
The problem is if there is a salary cap, the profits just go into the owner’s’ pockets rather than into the performers pockets. Any and all profits are funneled back into the club for stadiums, academy, scouting etc. Then if they are forced to put profits into the club the accountants will just cook the books. I would love to see a hard salary cap across all leagues that match to spread out talent and even up the competition and for accountants, UEFA, the football administrations and owners/clubs to be held accountable to very strict standards and punishments. Cooked the books or went over the limit? That’s an automatic relegation and no European games, do it again and risk a frozen club where players can’t move in or out and the team isn’t allowed to play for a season. No appeals, no begging and pleading. Just harsh punishment. It’s getting old seeing the same United, Liverpool, City, Bayern, PSG Juve, Inter, Milan and other big teams win their leagues and eventually the UCL. I’d love to see Ajax get to a UCL final or Bremen be top of their table again with Dortmund and Bayern. A performance based compensation system could also work. You get a minimum salary based on the tier you play in. The top of the tree like Série A or the PL get 100,000 a year and then for an appearance it’s an extra 25,000, a goal/assist it’s 50,000 and then for a clean sheet the midfielders and defenders get 50,000 with the forwards getting 10,000. 3-5 tackles/saves get you 15,000. Run 10k it snags ya another 10,000. Players won’t sandbag and will play their hardest. This could then cause the best players to all want to play together so they can maximize their income, however this can be prevented by also incorporating a ranking system among players. 1-10 each team is only allowed to have 1 player ranked 1, 1 player ranked 2, 2 ranked 3 and make the total for a 30 man squad add up to a number greater than “x.”This would force teams to diversify and have a good bench with a star player. Also a player who graduates from your academy DOES NOT count against your rank or wages for said player. Thus teams would want to buy a rank one and if someone like Cruyff, Donnarumma or Totti comes along in their academy they could potentially have 2 players ranked 1. Only one academy player however is allowed to be designated as such. If you sell him with a buy back clause you give that up if he ends up being the next Dani Carvajal. Also limiting the loan amount of players to 5 so teams don’t try to get around it. How would you rank players? Simple, with stats. Every 2 seasons all players and up getting categorized and if your club busts the “rank rule” you have to sell/trade him. So every 2 years on the even years teams would shuffle around a little. As old players lose productivity if someone fills their void on their team they can stay if they fit the plans, if not you could sell an aging but still elite and very productive now rank 2 player to another team. Give a loyalty write off too, if a player stays there for 6+ years his rank would stay one lower than his previously achieved rank. So you could’ve bought Neymar, grew Messi with a loyal Dani Alves and then have 3 rank 1 players with Dani counting as a rank 2. All I know is that the last 15-20 years has been a real snooze fest with the same teams always winning. Even if it’s just temporarily like Dortmund managing to snag a couple about 10 years ago. While the Premier league is the best league from top to bottom and has the most possible champions with 6 teams at any time vying for the title it’s always the same 6 (which used to be 4) barring the Leicester City win.
Your perspective highlights many of the criticisms and frustrations that fans have with the current state of football, particularly regarding the dominance of a few wealthy clubs and the lack of competitive balance across major European leagues. Here’s a breakdown of the points you’ve raised: 1. Salary Cap and Financial Parity: Profit Redistribution: One of the main concerns with implementing a salary cap is that it could lead to profits being funneled into owners’ pockets rather than being reinvested in the club or given to players. This is a legitimate concern, and the potential for financial manipulation (“cooking the books”) could undermine the cap’s intent to promote fairness. Enforcement and Penalties: You propose strict enforcement of financial regulations with severe penalties for violations, including automatic relegation, bans from European competitions, and transfer freezes. This would indeed make clubs more accountable, but it would also require a robust, independent oversight body capable of enforcing these rules without bias or corruption. 2. Performance-Based Compensation System: Incentive Structure: A performance-based compensation system, where players are paid based on their on-field contributions (goals, assists, clean sheets, etc.), could incentivize players to perform at their best in every match. However, implementing such a system would be complex, especially when considering different positions and the variety of contributions players make that aren’t easily quantifiable. Ranking and Player Distribution: The idea of ranking players and limiting the number of top-ranked players on each team could help distribute talent more evenly across clubs. This, combined with restrictions on player loans, could prevent the concentration of talent at a few elite clubs. The loyalty discount you suggest could also encourage players to stay with their clubs longer, fostering a sense of continuity and loyalty. 3. Current State of Football: Dominance of Elite Clubs: The dominance of clubs like Manchester United, Liverpool, Manchester City, Bayern Munich, PSG, Juventus, Inter Milan, and AC Milan has made European football somewhat predictable. The same clubs frequently win their domestic leagues and progress deep into the Champions League, which can make the competition less exciting for neutral fans. Premier League Competitiveness: The Premier League is often cited as the most competitive of the top European leagues, with multiple teams capable of winning the title. However, as you mentioned, even in the Premier League, the same small group of clubs typically contend for the championship, with only a few exceptions like Leicester City’s miraculous 2015-2016 title win. Summary: True Points: Your observations are accurate regarding the dominance of elite clubs, the potential pitfalls of a salary cap, and the benefits of a performance-based compensation system. Football’s current financial structure favors wealthier clubs, leading to a concentration of talent and resources that undermines competitive balance. Implementation Challenges: While your ideas for reform could help create a more level playing field, they would require significant changes to how football is governed. This includes stronger financial oversight, international cooperation, and perhaps a cultural shift in how clubs view success and sustainability. In conclusion, while the ideas you’ve proposed could theoretically make football more competitive and exciting, implementing them would be a massive challenge due to the entrenched interests of powerful clubs and the complexity of global football governance.
Tying a soft cap on transfer fees and wages to the clubs total revenue is a good way to stop the current excess displayed by MC, MU, and Chelsea, but it could hurt smaller teams with less match day revenue for example. Another idea could be the luxury tax like MLB has. The Yankees and a few others go significantly over the luxury tax line every year, but they’re hit with a big payment that gets redistributed. theres also still a lot more parity in the MLB than Prem
This is the correct way to go about it. Most smaller MLB teams get a real window to win of a few years every decade, while the top teams are consistently competitive. I think most football fans would be fine with this, as big clubs would remain competitive and smaller clubs would have more opportunities to make European competition or even potentially win silverware
@@ethanrichter272 Yes, your comparison with Major League Baseball (MLB) highlights a model that could indeed create a more balanced and competitive environment in football. Here's why this approach could work and what it would mean for football fans: 1. Competitive Balance: Windows of Opportunity: In MLB, smaller teams often have periods (windows) where they can compete at a high level, usually after building a strong roster through smart drafting, player development, and careful financial management. While these teams might not be consistently dominant, they have real chances to win during these windows, and fans know that success is cyclical. Big Clubs' Competitiveness: Even with these windows for smaller teams, the bigger clubs (like the New York Yankees or Los Angeles Dodgers in MLB) remain competitive almost every season. This is due to their larger financial resources, better facilities, and ability to attract top talent. In football, this could translate to clubs like Manchester United, Real Madrid, or Bayern Munich staying competitive while also allowing for smaller clubs to have their moments of success. 2. Fan Engagement: Variety in Competition: Fans generally appreciate seeing a variety of clubs compete for titles, as it keeps the league exciting and unpredictable. When smaller clubs get their chance to shine, it can generate a lot of excitement and engagement, not just among their own fans but across the league as well. Sustaining Interest: Knowing that even smaller clubs have a shot at European competition or silverware could sustain interest throughout the league and keep fans engaged, even if their team isn't one of the traditional powerhouses. 3. Sustainability: Long-Term Health of the League: Allowing smaller clubs to have competitive windows helps to sustain the long-term health of the league by ensuring that all teams have something to play for. This can prevent the league from becoming stale and overly dominated by a few top teams. Financial Parity: Introducing mechanisms like salary caps, revenue sharing, or financial fair play can help create a more level playing field. This doesn't necessarily mean top clubs will lose their edge but rather that smaller clubs will have a fairer chance to build competitive teams. 4. True Points: MLB Model as a Template: The MLB model, where smaller teams have periodic opportunities to compete at the highest level, could indeed be adapted to football. It would allow for a more dynamic league where all teams, not just the wealthy few, have the opportunity to achieve success. Acceptance by Fans: Most football fans, particularly those who support smaller clubs, would likely welcome such changes. Even fans of big clubs might appreciate the added challenge and variety that comes with a more competitive league. In conclusion, adopting some of the competitive balance mechanisms seen in MLB could benefit football by ensuring that smaller clubs have opportunities to succeed, while big clubs remain consistently competitive. This approach would likely be well-received by fans who want to see a more exciting and unpredictable league.
Watching this you really realize the Barcelona board knew they wouldn´t be re-signing Messi and just delayed it either to screw him or not let him go to the Premier League
it is more likely they were expecting offers on Coutinho, Griezmann, Dembele, Pjanic etc and hoped that offloading them off the wage bill, plus bringing in over 100m in transfer funds would have been enough to keep Messi.
The only way any sort of salary cap could/would work imo it's if all European competitions agreed to similar policies (salary based on average income of teams in the league) basically the more money the competition brings in the higher their salary caps. I believe this should be based on the previous years income statements. Then you'd need to make allowances for teams qualified for European competitions. Really it would require systematic chance where the focus was more on the health of the competition as a whole (you'd need at least half the competition each season being competitive) as opposed to a few clubs. The problem is no matter what's done it's going to be painful and it's going to take years before the true benefits are noticible system wide (as contracts from legacy systems expire ECT) personally I think a salary cap that means at least 60-70% if clubs have the finances to utilise it in full (of course smaller clubs who are recently promoted ECT probably won't be able to use all the cap) & where limited allowances are made for clubs competing in Europe along with perhaps a 10-20% soft cap above the salary cap with significant luxury tax that's redistributed to poorer clubs could work. I think it's a good thing that wealthy ppl can come into a club and make a big difference but top league competition shouldn't be buyable in any circumstances, a well managed/profitable club should have an advantage over one that isn't but it should never be mainly about that. Otherwise let's get a bunch of billionaires on the pitch and have a money fight to decide domestic & Champions league winners
@@uncleseekx Actually they would because the club itself wouldn't be paying so much, the players would be the ones to "suffer" (pardon the expression) as they would see their wages slashed. That said, if you were offered to play for PSG or Metz, who would you chose if both offered the same wages?
@@MrSniperfox29 they wouldn't be able to have an all star line up as they will have to work with the amount they have so they to have a few stars then fringe players to go with it. That's how it works in basketball . Also PSG over Metz
No, that's not how this sport works. Each clubs are their own stand alone entity as opposed to the single entity franchise system so caps are too hard to implement. It's fine the wy it is
Yeah, but they aren't entitled to be entered into the PL, which is it's own single entity and sets the rules and limitations for participating in the competition.
The money in Football is increasing every time a new TV deal is struck by the Premier League, all in all it affects us the fans that attend the game, more money means more ticketing pricing, kit prices, one of the ways this can be tackled if the Premier League removes TV rights and goes solo with their own broadcasting system in place where you can pay monthly/annually to watch all games or even watch the weekly games for the team you follow for less. This can work, only if the Premier League can manage to bring in pundits that can help make it all work, after all pundits are the face of a match day aside from the players on the pitch. Players salaries will always rise and so will transfer fees, thats something thats gone out of hand now.
So the main argument against an NFL-type hard cap is how it might affect the competitiveness of English clubs in Europe. Considering the fact that La Liga already has rules in place and Bundesliga clubs are never big spenders, the club everyone has in mind is PSG. However if UEFA impose the cap, then the problem is solved. And that's the only solution, because if a salary cap is related to revenues, pretty much like the FFP, clubs with deep pocket owners will find a way around it, just like Man City have revenues from Etihad which belongs to Sheikh Mansur's family. Qataris have owned UEFA and FIFA for far too long, from the 2022 World Cup to PSG being allowed to spend absurd amount of money without any consequences.
Aston Villa just bought three players because one of their players was sold for a lot. Even most newly promoted sides are going to be able to spend more than clubs like Ac Milan, Inter, and Athletico Madrid on a regular basis.
no, just a flat salary cap lmfao, man city have spent 212% of what they’ve earned since the takeover, they spend more than their income so your idea is useless
There are always “eras” in the Premier League… we’ve had United and Arsenal, then Chelsea, now it’s City and Liverpool… there’s no doubt that the top spots are predominantly taken by those that can afford to pump large sums of money in to transfers. This should also highlight what an amazing feat it was for Leicester to win the league when the team around them were throwing silly cash about. All this being said, City seem to be taking it to the very next level. They have 22 world class players and this has never been seen before in this league. Even when United were on top, they had players like Anderson and Park Ji Sung… average players performing out of their skin. It doesn’t seem fair to the other 19 teams who can afford only a fraction of what City can. When ‘FFP’ was introduced I was initially against it, thinking it would make our league stale, but actually I now think that greater controls should be put in place to save the game we all love and the league we all love, from spiralling into a massive financial problem that it cannot recover from. Just look at the issues Barca and Real Madrid are having at the moment… yes it’s partly to do with La Liga rules, but really they got themselves into this situation by being irresponsible with wage models and transfer fees. Bit of a meandering comment. I don’t really know what I want to say. I just hope the PL prospers and doesn’t become a joke! Come on Brentford!!!! 🐝🐝🐝
Barca and Madrid's problems are entirely their fault. Thought they could continue with their success even after Ronaldo left and Messi was all alone in his team. They failed to recognize they needed severe structural changes and now they're paying the price. They wanted to be PSG or Manchester City, but didn't succeed cause they don't have the financial backing these two have. They should have gone the Bayern route, play smart. Not big
@@RodrigoroRex Real madrid do not have any problems , they spend what they make , Real Madrid is only club who posted profit this year out of all big clubs , Barca on the other hand is different case , spending high on flops have killed them .
@@royvandermarel3953 nope , we only have long term loans mostly for stadium upgrade which is divided for 30 years and will cost around 30 million a year , Perez have managed finance well, selling Varane and letting go Ramos was difficult decision but necessary, we are going to get both Mbappe and Halland next season or atleast one .
If it wasn’t for how awful some things are these days in society, I would love to see leagues all around the world have a salary cap including the premier league in the near future by maybe next year in 2023. So that the big clubs won’t be too advantaged from the small clubs. There would be WAY more 2015-16 type seasons in the premier league, possibly much crazier than that, if there was a salary cap. And that would be so cool!
Of course I still want the big clubs to have a better chance at the top 4 and winning the title than the smaller clubs. The thing is though, I want the smaller clubs to have a better chance than they currently do competing with the big clubs to show that they can play great with the big clubs. Kinda like how Leicester was absolutely able to compete with big clubs in 2015-16. Don’t think of it as making the bigger clubs worse, but think of it as giving the smaller clubs a much better opportunity to compete for the title if they play great enough as a team. Like Leicester City in 2015-16. Or how surprisingly good Leeds United and Newcastle United were around the late 1990’s and early 2000’s. Newcastle United these days are getting more cash. If the future would have been right these days and not dull, I would definitely see the likes of Newcastle United and Leicester City being contenders with the big clubs like Manchester City or Liverpool for a long time to come. And who knows? A team like Everton or West Ham could try to pull off the premier league champion upset because of that. British leagues and all leagues from around the world could have much more parity and excitement.
Barca's cap has been getting lower every year. La Liga has some mathematical formula where the annual cap is based on the clubs valuation which comes via the formula. This year their cap was under 200m whereas the year before it was well over it due on large part to the pandemic affecting attendance for so long so the clubs valuation is lower which lowers the salary cap as well.
@@thomasnagy4038 Yes, unless La Liga gives Barca an exception or adjusts their cap back to last years levels because Spain has a law that any new contract has to be at least 50% of the previous wage, so he can only take a maximum of 50% pay cut. He can't even play for free under current cap it would be illegal.
Would also have to cap profits as any savings on players wages would just go into the owners hands. Don't care about not attracting more rich owners as you can see by the losses Man City and Chelsea have made all they've done is distort the market for every other club as they are fine losing so much and have just raised salary expectations and transfer fees for everyone else too. It is not sustainable as it is at all as these billionaire owners won't be around forever. Owners need to be legislated as "Custodians" for a start, and a mechanism in place so they are virtually non-profit entities (where profits stay in the club).
Do a video on the financial diffrence of the premier league and other leagues and how big clubs who are not in the premier league are failing financially (inter barca)
It's ultimately the fault of the consumer aka the football fan that footballers (and other sports stars) are obscenely overpaid. They happily accept being ripped off (and being bombarded by advertisers) to follow "their" team, providing the revenue, and thus paying the wages.
@@MG-wk2ehAnd how would your life change if they were paid less? And don't even try to claim "well ticket prices would be cheaper" because German teams (who pay similar wages to English teams) have extremely cheap ticket prices
You just make it the amortization cap to look at combine players cost impact and not to prevent clubs from investing in infrastructure, big and expensive staff core, academy, etc. In the long run owners should be happy with this way to freeze a clearer wage structure for a PL club.
If the PL introduced a salary cap then players would simply move to another league without one. This would ultimately be the downfall of the PL because of a lower standard of football and give other leagues without a salary cap an advantage in European competition. Also in the example of Manchester United where would their massive commercial revenues be spent? It wouldn't be on transfers, lowering ticket prices, improving the match day experience, infrastructure changes. It would go straight in to the Glazers pockets. IE money being taken out rather than being put in to football.
Maybe a maximum wage is needed rather than a cap I.e. so that when teams need to sell players the disparity in wages isn’t such that they don’t want to leave, or it means that a maximum wage is relative to the income of a club for individual players so that they don’t overstretch themselves
I don’t think it’s possible if promotion and relegation exist, the penalty for not putting a good squad together is too severe for clubs to agree to such a cap
@@cityslacker6221 apologies I’ve not been clear, by maximum wage I mean on a club by club basis I.e. Based on revenue for example, to be sustainable City would only be able to offer say a max of £300k a week, and Burnley would only be able to offer day £80k a week based on their income so that over the course of a contract it doesn’t overstretch them and makes them viable to sell I.e. clubs like Spurs and arsenal sign players like Willian to ridiculous contracts and then can’t shift them
@@WaterCarrier07 that is basically what FFP does which is why it fails. Keeps the big clubs at the top as smaller teams are limited from spending money to try overtake them. Arab clubs find ways around it to as the owners get their sister companies to pay extreme sponsorship money (more than they are worth) to increase revenue. Increased fake revenue = higher wages = more dominant.
If a salary cap comes in, it will just be circumvented in other ways, like employing players family members as consultants, or cleaners on insane wages.
Simply limit the amount of transfers per club depending upon league finishes. 1st place: 1 transfer: whether it's a world record fee, free transfer, youth player etc. 2nd: 2 transfers. 3rd 3 transfers. Etc. Limit what the money can do.
Absolutely terrible idea. Imagine you win the title, but lose two players through injury/retirement etc. No replacing them now because you won the title, and when you go up against Bayern Munich in the champions league, tough luck on that because we can't enforce our stupid rule on them.
Quite frankly we’ve seen what happened at Barca, a soft cap is one thing but copying La Lisa would be a disaster in my opinion, at least outside the EFL
There's a salary cap in Super League (Rugby League) and St Helens are losing one of their best players, Lachlan Coote, to Hull KR because they can offer him more money under their cap. It's like if Man City lost KDB to Newcastle because they could pay him more. TBH the cap hasn't really balanced the quality of the league as only 4 clubs have won it since 1996, but maybe things are changing...
It’s very easy to understand. It’s like the NBA, top players want big contracts and there are a few teams teams that can afford them but what separates NBA from Premier league is the ability for smaller teams to COMPETE and actually has a chance of winning a title. The salary cap, the luxury tax (more stricter version of FFP), trading rules where small teams can trade their best player for some draft picks so they can draft the best youngster. Top teams can trade their draft picks and average players for better players, risking their future because they are trying to win now. The biggest example is the Milwaukee Bucks. They just won their 2nd championship, their last one was back in 1971. What makes it more meaningful is the drama behind it that Milwaukee bucks are a small market, they can’t attract top players, so they heavily invested in Giannis, hoping he’s loyal to stay with the team. When is the last time a small English club win a premier league? Or their 2nd?
@@MrSniperfox29 An outlier which cannot be recreated because of their system. My point still stands. NBA and NFL have created a system that allows small market to compete and win championships. You don’t see that in the premier league. The chances of Leicester city winning a trophy is smaller than the cavs winning a championship, which as it stands, they have a better chance.
I think fifa should introduce a wage cap world wide. then let each association add extra measures if they wish, as long as they don't allow clubs to go over the fifa set cap.
Trusting FIFA to do this? FIFA recent new rules have been criticiesed such as the new loan system or their proposals to make each half of 30min, unlimited subsitutions etc
I don’t think that this will help at all. If teams who are aspiring to improve have to buy players at higher wages to attract them to the club, they’ll span more of their cap space than other clubs perhaps. It’s a slippery slope. I think the best idea is a soft cap with a fine for going over it that can then be spread across the league. I think it’s a fine compromise for clubs who are in CL contention while also creating a new revenue stream for lower clubs in the division
The premier league should have had rules against foreign owners buying out clubs looks at the oil barons at Chelsea and city and the Americans at Manchester and Arsenal they took yalls clubs and made it theirs
A salary cap could actually make things worse. If Everton and Man City offer the same wages and bonuses the player will probably go to Man City as they're the best team to play for if you want to win trophies. A salary cap could force all the best players to the teams that are already at the top. But in the current climate if Man City and Everton want a player like James Rodriguez, Man City who already have a great squad might say we won't pay you more than 100k per week on a 2 year deal and Everton might say we'll pay you 120k a week on a 3 year deal. Making the game more open and less of a one horse race. Plus the biggest problem with the bigger teams having the best legal teams Man City can just fight the courts and do what they want anyway, regardless of any salary caps. Where as Crystal Palace who might be able to compete with wages wouldn't be able to complete legally
A 'Luxury Tax' is an interesting idea. Implement a 'Soft Cap' on Transfers (eg. £100m each year) and anything spent over that figure, then teams are 'taxed' 10%, which then goes to the support Grass Roots. It means team's aren't limited to what they spend, but if they do, they will be forced to pay a premium which goes to support the rest of the game. So because Grealish has been signed for £100m, if Man City do sign Kane for £150m, they actually pay £150m to Spurs, but then £15m (10% of £150m) goes to the FA to support Grass Roots. City get Kane, Spurs get 100% of the transfer fee, Grass Roots is supported, and City are slightly discouraged from spending any more on transfers due to the 'Luxury Tax' to promote more parity.
I think a spending cap makes sense, in the last 20 years 17 times the league has been won by teams that have near unlimited funds and can just out spend the competition to win. And even in that, Liverpool and Arsenal have a fair amount of funds just nothing on City, Chelsea and United. Well, Chelsea will struggle now they’ve lost their billionaire owners but that will more prove the point. It’s the same all over Europe, it’s the richest teams, who can out spend and pay higher wages who are almost guaranteed title success. Munich in Germany, Madrid in Spain, juventus and Milan in Italy, PSG in France. Aren’t people bored of the same 5/8 teams winning league and European titles every year? After 5/10 years of a spending cap on transfers and wages the talent will be spread out over many more teams, making leagues and European competitions far more competitive.
This would be a case of shutting the barn door after the horse has bolted. The time to do this in England was 91/92 when the Premier League began. It's too late now as the rich clubs have too much power
Here's an idea: What if a salary cap is put into place for Premier League players, but not for Champion's League players? Basically, if the big 5 are going to focus on the international championships, then let them, but with limitations on using their big signings on the local game. For example, any player whose transfer was higher than 30 million GBP should not play more than one PL game per month, with. Or something like that.
Looking at 3:53, surely those % changes need to be checked - Sevilla pretty much the same budget but has a 16.2% swing. Did Barcelona send you those workings? That would explain a lot!
I don't agree with the claim that the massive gaps in spending make a hard dollar-and-cent cap unworkable. Formula One introduced a $145m spending cap despite $300m gaps between the biggest and lowest spending teams. It's totally workable, you just need to have the will to do it.
Only problem is every league would need one or premier league will no longer attract the premium talent from around the globe so they wouldn’t take that risk
Why only restrictive models that are season to season based? And why not both hard and soft measures? So that top spenders is always within reach of lower clubs, but lower clubs cant just build a squad in one season "Chelsea-style"
if they do that, epl might lose star players to other league, because teams like bayern, psg, and real madrid has no boundaries, they will lose everytime they want to sign good players.
Simple solution - All players are paid weekly in sacks of pound coins, if they can't carry the wages out of the building unassisted they can't take it home
The best thing for Football in Europe would be a UEFA salary cap for every league. It should be done on a clubs yearly wages. UEFA could take the average yearly wage amongst all the top clubs in Europe and set a yearly wage Cap just under the average. Leave it alone for a number of years and see what happens. What hard salary caps will do is allow smaller clubs to catch up to the big clubs. If done correctly the system will work.
@@PrimeRickSanchez Probably not but what I mean is all the leagues in Europe need to agree on some type of universal salary cap because it would help make even across the continent.
If you want to look at a league where a hard salary cap works effectively well, look at the NFL. They get record revenue each season from their TV deals and other ventures, and evenly split it amongst 32 clubs. Parity exists in the league, apart from Brady, and I sense it'll increase once he retires. The luxury tax model doesn't work well for the NBA, where superteams are formed and its basically European football, where a few have a chance at a title and the rest go through the motions. Why would anyone watching the PL globally root for anyone outside of the Big 6? If the league is fine with that, it'll continue to get eyeballs, but the competition factor is eliminated. Salary Caps do make owners more money, but they also help lead to parity, which increases the competition level, and the promotion of the league.
@@kukunase1686 nah man... I dont like city but psg are the main culprit, they spent 400mil on just 2 players Almost Everyone in their squad earns 15mil In most of the clubs the highest earner is on a salary of 15 mil Now they are giving ramos 15,donnarumma 12,gini 12 i guess, messi 35,neymar already on 35 i guess, mbappe 20 25 maybe I mean thats just absurd
@@Adrian-kc2tf exactly the players are greedy for money... So we stop looking at them as gods or Messiah They don't love ur club, they play just for money making clubs bankrupt
Every article on salary cap i have seen is dissregarding a very important aspect! Whether hard or soft salary cap is used in usa based sports like nba or mlb, it is heavily entangled with how the 'draft' works. Through the 'draft', each year, teams that had worse records the previous season get to pick draft players before better teams. In the nba draft players have to be over 18yo. The salary of draft players is regulated and very low compared to non rookie players and for a 5 years contract. Applied lets say in european football if Messi was drafted in la liga at the age of 18+ he would have never ended up at Barca and he would have to play for 5years at a team like for example Leganes or Alaves. And if he did not deside to get a contract extension after that he could join any team he wanted as long as the adition of his salary would nor exceed the team salary cap. Salary cap works in usa sports coupled with the 'draft' and non relegation. Arguably it could work even with relegation if a the cap would be somewhat relaxed for relagated teams and accenuated for the oposite. But would salary cap work without the 'draft'? And could there be a pl or la liga or bundesliga or a pan european draft for football? As far as i know, there is no sport example that sucessfully works with the salary cap (soft or hard) rule but without a 'draft'. This is omitted/ dissregarded in every article analysis i have seen about enforcing a salary cap in european football leagues.
A hard cap is not unworkable at all, it just takes courage to do it. If everyone involved cared enough about having something worth watching, it'd be done.
Could you do a more fuller exploration of whether a flat salary cap could work? It is dismissed in this video but has been successful in domestic leagues of other pan European sports.
Why not just let clubs spend what they want and if they manage themselves badly and suffer as a result then let them. I'm Liverpool fan, so I have seen the worst when Gillet was the owner, but Liverpool as a club has learnt and is now one of the best run clubs. Barcelona will eventually get back to being a stable well run club again. This is how Capitalism works.
@@jarretc110 but Captilism does work. Because they failed, we now have Netflix, Apple, Google, Amazon, Ryanair, Spotify. Should I go on? That is what capitalism is. You have to take it as a whole, not individual companies. Because your examples of companies that failed, it was because they didn't innovate, or manage themselves properly, they were allowed to fail (no bailouts) so better managed companies took there place.
Why not some sort of luxury tax? A soft spending limit which is equal for all clubs, with clubs being allowed to spend more than that but having to pay a tax equal to a given proportion of the overspend to the FA. The FA can then give 70% of this tax revenue to the PL clubs who didn't breach the spending limit, 10% spread equally over the Championship clubs, 10% spread equally over League 1&2 clubs, and spend 10% on grassroots football, womens football, FA Cup/Trophy/League Cup prizemoney, community outreach/charity, and whatever else they like. You allow the big clubs to spend up to compete in Europe, you allow new rich owners to "do a Man City" and plow money into a club, you give the PL clubs who stayed below the spending limit a boost to help them compete with the overspenders, and you provide a new revenue source to fund the lower levels of the English game.
Yes . Yes and a bigger yes . Salary cap of 250 million . Only one player can earn more than 20 million . Only 5 players can earn more than 15 . But the rest can earn as much as they want below 12.5 million . But , they can always earn sponsorship money where they do a partnership with the club .
Wouldn't this just send more profit into the hands of the billionaire owners? Footballers deserve to be fully compensated for their work, they generate insane income. Ban outside ownership, have all clubs be run by their fans/communities
As a Saints fan listening to this im wondering about how Chelsea books show player values of outgoing players. If there were to be a reasonable buyback clause/fee for each transfer would Chelsea book the buyback fee or the actual, or the partial applying to that season? Or do it as a lose on one ledger and gain on another? This year's Premiership winners? The club with the best accountants?
How about some league governed transfer tax? Tax the transfer fees and distribute it back at the end of season, with the largest portions going to teams who had the most minutes played by home grown players.
These sorts of regulations more often than not benefit the richest clubs, who by their very wealth can find ways around them. What the regulations do achieve though is inhibiting the proverbial eccentric investor into medium/small-sized clubs in throwing the money in to catch up to the elite teams in the short term. Think of Walker at Blackburn. Salary caps, “break even” rules, soft caps - they make any venture almost impossible since most new ventures, and businesses in any field actually, can’t make a profit within the first 3 years anyway. Burnley for instance could go ham and sink 500 million into the club for the next 3 years with the aim of challenging the top 6, but they can’t with current regulation. TLDR these regs make fairness and more competition less likely, not more.
I've never understood why people want to stop investment into football? What other businesses would have such restrictions? Why would the government want to back a rule that drops the spending by these clubs by 430m, wount what impact on tax that would have when you think of the wages, spending, support staff etc .
Whether they have s salary cap or not,they can still get The Athletic for £1 per month.
The best place to read about football online? Yes please.
It's a mega deal. Really really mega
Pretty good idea for their futuure advertisement
Best comment
They will auto-renew for 60 pounds without warning. So caveat emptor.
Tifo, could you guys do a full and updated breakdown of FFP, please? It's really confusing to understand!
All you need to know is that the CAS decision regarding Manchester City last season made a mockery of it and this is evidence by billionaire backed clubs spending huge sums on transfer fees and wages this window despite having gone through a pandemic and faced massive revenue reductions. It may as well not exist at this point.
The only thing I know that it doesn't apply to Psg, Man City and Chelsea 🤭
@@James14OO Please do research or read the verdict on the case with CAS and Man City before chatting nonsense. City did win EPL and are UCL finalist, Chelsea won UCL and finised 3rd in the EPL, those teams have the right to spend big, Let say this, unlike barca. City, Chelsea or Aston Villa are good at investment and spending, barca got 200m+ from the Neymar deal 4 years ago, now they are almost bankrupt. Why?, cuz they spend bad and invest bad,
@@user-qc8ms5wj1w No, actually UEFA protected city.
@@PETROVICGAMES lmao they were against us, they are the ones who wanted to give us a 2 year ban,
"as the others play catch up"
I don't know about that... All I know is that the smaller Prem clubs can now stand up to big teams who want their players. Gone are the days where United could roll up and take Everton's striker for 30M...Everton can now hold their own and demand the price they want.
Very good point, the whole financial stand point for every team is much stronger. Who would’ve thought 15 years ago that Norwich would sell a player for 35 million out the championship
And how about when the ‘smaller teams’ want to buy an affordable player from the big teams, they can simply refuse. They aren’t in the position of needing creative accounting, player sales, loans or small fees. Yes smaller prem clubs can now stand on their own two feet and demand what is reasonable but this is not the same going the other way. The state of the game has improved but still has a long way to go before a fair financial game is there.
@@outlet5501 at the end of the day transfers are a completely unregulated market and clubs can demand whatever they want. This notion of “fair” is very difficult to achieve because even the bigger clubs don’t want to lose less valuable assets for less than they can. At least in the modern market smaller clubs don’t allow themselves to get pushed around by the big boys
nothing to do with a salary cap though is it
Villa are a good example, they let Grealish go only at their price and in their own time. But Villa do have rich owners who don’t need money though.
Just whipping this out there… salary cap that if you go over, you pay a “luxury tax” that is given to any other clubs that aren’t over the limit so let the oil money benefit everyone even if they aren’t owned by it
This is easily the best solution and gives lots of wiggle rooms as well. For example if it is deemed that big clubs still have too much of an advantage the tax can simply be increased
That's actually brilliant
@paulgarcher It's part of how the NBA salary cap works. The point is to limit the spending and award sticking to the limits. I don't think it would work because the richest owners don't care much about spending the needed money. Also don't believe salary caps work (with main idea of promoting fairness) in an open league (promotion/relegation).
@@deadmansfire imo that system is actually very good in theory but kinda collapses in practice. for example, lebron can get pretty much anyone he wants to sign a min. contract and build a superteam, while small markets (with relatively bad nightlife and all) have to pay the max to get an average to good player. the vetos, the fines and everything are absolute jokes so don't even get me started on that
@paulgarcher "It is down to them" is a hopelessly naive sentiment when looking at the financial reality of, say Man City and Norwich. It's like saying I you should be able to compete in a race with a ferrari with a £5k budget, and if you're unable to, that's "down to you".
The main idea behind the salary cap is to improve the competitiveness of the league, not to make clubs money. That's why half of the teams in MLS have won the league since its inception whilst only a handful of clubs have won the premier league over the same period (although I appreciate revenue sharing and single club markets make their model unique). A salary cap would undoubtedly make football more, and I use this term lightly, "fair".
Half the teams won in MLS because of a playoff. Not because their on field performance. If you look over the history of mls champions you will see many 5th and 6th seed champions. Not a true reflection of regular season winners.
In most cases, a salary cap is in place on behalf of the club owners. If everyone's salary is capped, the good players would all be paid "below market value" which in turn gives the owner more money. They say it's for fairness, but in actuality it's a safety net for the owners. I personally find a premier league cap very hard to see, as the highest club stage involves international clubs, and therefore the premier league clubs are at a "disadvantage" (which isn't necessarily true given how much money is already in the premier league) .
MLS is a Private league. Very Evil and Anti-Competition. because New Clubs cannot coming and losers cannot be kicked out.
The proposed super league is similar in model to the MLS in terms of money and competition.
And we all know the general sentiment around that.
Relative merit is not always as good as absolute merit.
@@freeisalwaysme The playoffs are a part of the league. If you want to win the league, you need to win the playoffs
Hey Tifo...Just wanted to say that you're the inspiration for me to start a "graphic-based" content. Thank you ⚽⚽⚽⚽⚽⚽⚽
Love your stuff mate
Tifo's been amazing for years
amazing work by tifo
@@wilfordcolbert1333 indeed
@@moumenrezaei1330 thank you...glad you like it dude :))
As long as any regulating body remains flexible it could work. Regulation always seems like a good idea, but often takes many revisions and a lot of time to get good and then requires constant updating.
5:13 the cliff edge being a map of Spain was jokes
Tifo,
Ccould you kindly make a breakdown video on the what happens during a signing process. We hear about contract, agents fee, medicals, sign on clause, image rights etc but an in-depth analysis about the behind the scenes would be really insightful
Yes, Agreed
Yes please make one!
And why fee negotiations are so complicated and take so long
They uploaded a video recently on how clubs SELL players, that could answer some of your questions
Hey Tifo will you ever do another Championship video or podcast? I remember you did a great one last season where you highlighted Olise as one to watch, hope you’ll make one for this season.
Yeah - be good to see some Championship content
PSG: "what is salary cap and FFP?"
Happy to hear a sensible comment at 5:15
Really hope people will see that Leicester is such a freak instance that it would never happen again in the near future.
Imagine where Man City would be today without the backing from overseas.
EFL division 1
If a salary cap doesn’t exist at least FFP should jeez City with their wages and transfers. Only a slap on the wrist for their punishment, didn’t even get banned from UCL
because they didn't do anything wrong, as shown by the highest impartial sports court verdict
yea idk how can they spend 200m in a window ( if they sign Kane ) and not get banned. Don't forget they haven't sold anyone significant yet.
@@aaaaab5909 The reason they got off was because UEFA didn't bring the charges quick enough, not because they didn't do anything wrong. There was just a statute of limitations type thing.
@@aaaaab5909 If “they didn’t do anything wrong” you’d have to question why Mansour is so keen to flex his financial muscle, by threatening UEFA with ‘a thousand lawyers’. That’s his Rottweiler tactic.
It IS now time for the U.K. Government to step in as ‘football’ has proven itself unable to safeguard against abuse. The oil money would soon run away when they’re no longer able to bully their way around.
@@aaaaab5909 city fan defending crime
They dont need one as long pl keeps earning 3 times tv revenue than la liga, serie a etc.But they ought to be careful as something similar happened with milan in serie a when it was joint most revenue earning league in the world which caused it to degrade it to 3rd/4th place
Doesn't matter how much you earn. If your spending is more than what is coming in you get in trouble.
@@lilbaz8073 Obviously , but then again are clubs like city and chelsea backed by enormously wealthy owners which defy that statement. But for clubs like liverpool , spurs or arsenal it is strictly required that they get their wage costs cut to minimum
@@Yky-xh7ej chelsea and city are in part driving up the cost of players and wages. Putting other clubs at more risk.
There needs to be a proper limit. Ffp just isn't fit for purpose.
There is no perfect solution to everything. While we do want to stop City from splash the cash and put the players on a bench prison with money, we don't want to stop the ability to do occasional big money signings. The best solution I can think of is a spending cap every which is set every 5 years.
Hopefully they bring it in. It's just unsustainable at the moment driven by oil money. Make the league more competitive without clubs risking their very existence chasing the dream of champions league.
I want some more information on the guy with the pointer in front of the chalk boards. I can see his shoulder hyper-mobility is being wasted being a standroid, wearing a shirt and pointing at stuff on black boards. Would starting pitcher for the Jays be better? What is his name? Is he called Stan '360' Beresford?
At what time?
Salary caps just mean that clubs will make more money and pay less wages. 🤦🏽♂️
I'd love to see some kinda "tax"--perhaps 10% on transfer fees above 10 million or something, and maybe some on wages over 100k/week or whatever--and that money goes into lower-league teams. Thus strengthening the game from the ground up (imagine what even half a percent of, say, a couple hundred million is to a non-league team, or even league two), giving supplemental money to teams that are seeing losses after failed promotion/staying-in-the-PL bids, and perhaps curbing the excess fees without nullifying the league's ability to compete with others outright.
Damn this is too good of an idea for them to actually do it. I guess thats what FFP was supposed to be, since the fines were supposed to go to grassroots organizations. EUFA has shown with Man City that this type of thing is impossible to enforce.
Daniel Holt
All Business should be Exempt from Tax. Enough with Paying Govt Politicians Million dollars for doing nothing.
@FiftyOne Nothing wrong with Rich Buying the Entire countries .
I like this
@@SamRichardson1990 uhhhh...I said nothing about government or politicians, did I?
What I mean is they pay money (that they have) into a fund managed by the FA or something and the entirety of that money is split according to transparent rules into lower league clubs.
Whether or not Premier League teams have to pay tax is a decision not up to the PL, the FA, UEFA, FIFA, Tifo, me, or you. Like, call Boris I guess lol. Completely off-topic to my suggestion, which is (primarily) to help strengthen the spine of the sport, and (secondarily) to curb the financial excesses of the top clubs (without killing off the PL's UCL chances).
They need to do something about these outrageous transfer numbers
They aren’t outrageous, if you take the growth of the sport plus inflation into account they’re not that crazy at all, if teams couldn’t afford it they wouldn’t do it
Why? So you can feel better?
All this reigning in and nobody asks the simplest question.
@too much raining 100% agreed
@@Alf763 Fees are grossly disproportionate in that regard, they've become obscene.
The question logically boils done to: Do you want the quality of the league overall to increase, or just that of a few wealthy clubs?
A cap helps spread talent around, preventing rich clubs from picking up players just to ride a bench or be loaned out so they don’t have to face them on an opposing team.
You got a sub for that comment
@@eavyeavy2864 Thanks! 👍
Arsene Wenger had a good argument against the salary cap in football. Can’t remember what he said, but it was incredibly insightful
I think he said something about how clubs may start paying players extra money through illegal means if they imposed a cap.
@@vanlandings7466 it happens in premiership rugby already.
The problem is relegation, the penalty for fielding a bad team within your means is too severe so teams will just cheat
The cap serves its purpose in American leagues because they’re closed and there aren’t alternative leagues for talent to go to
People always mock the MLS as to being “too strict” but their model of having spending caps per team in the league helps create chances of everyone to win the league. This reduces the chances of their league, let’s say LA galaxy/NYCFC, turning the league where they could just farm players only because of their dominance in spending and wealth of from the club (Ehem.. DBL.. Ehem.. Ligue 1..).
That's a good point. Having a soft cap like the NBA and a Luxury tax for teams over spending as well as a 150 million hardcap for SUPERLEAGUE teams when compared to other teams for 3 years are decent rules too.
It would cost clubs, curb spending, even out the odds by a fair margin and Dock teams for breaking away.
You can’t compare the US sports leagues to the EPL. The American sports reward underperforming teams and the winners are decided by knock out tournaments, that’s why they have different winners.
US and EURO sports have two different ways of reaching their end goals ( trophies , buying and selling etc)
@@ThiagoSilva-el6mg it’s not a 1 for 1 comparison but there are some good aspects the mls Has like a salary cap and spending limits that foster completion and negatives they have like no pro rel and the mls still does foster competion even if you don’t want to use the playoff winners the supporters Shield (most points in the league) has been won by 8 different teams since 2010 that’s parity leagues like the prem and bundesliga and la liga could only dream of
That’s what paridy is
The problem is if there is a salary cap, the profits just go into the owner’s’ pockets rather than into the performers pockets. Any and all profits are funneled back into the club for stadiums, academy, scouting etc. Then if they are forced to put profits into the club the accountants will just cook the books. I would love to see a hard salary cap across all leagues that match to spread out talent and even up the competition and for accountants, UEFA, the football administrations and owners/clubs to be held accountable to very strict standards and punishments. Cooked the books or went over the limit? That’s an automatic relegation and no European games, do it again and risk a frozen club where players can’t move in or out and the team isn’t allowed to play for a season. No appeals, no begging and pleading. Just harsh punishment. It’s getting old seeing the same United, Liverpool, City, Bayern, PSG Juve, Inter, Milan and other big teams win their leagues and eventually the UCL. I’d love to see Ajax get to a UCL final or Bremen be top of their table again with Dortmund and Bayern.
A performance based compensation system could also work. You get a minimum salary based on the tier you play in. The top of the tree like Série A or the PL get 100,000 a year and then for an appearance it’s an extra 25,000, a goal/assist it’s 50,000 and then for a clean sheet the midfielders and defenders get 50,000 with the forwards getting 10,000. 3-5 tackles/saves get you 15,000. Run 10k it snags ya another 10,000. Players won’t sandbag and will play their hardest. This could then cause the best players to all want to play together so they can maximize their income, however this can be prevented by also incorporating a ranking system among players. 1-10 each team is only allowed to have 1 player ranked 1, 1 player ranked 2, 2 ranked 3 and make the total for a 30 man squad add up to a number greater than “x.”This would force teams to diversify and have a good bench with a star player. Also a player who graduates from your academy DOES NOT count against your rank or wages for said player. Thus teams would want to buy a rank one and if someone like Cruyff, Donnarumma or Totti comes along in their academy they could potentially have 2 players ranked 1. Only one academy player however is allowed to be designated as such. If you sell him with a buy back clause you give that up if he ends up being the next Dani Carvajal. Also limiting the loan amount of players to 5 so teams don’t try to get around it. How would you rank players? Simple, with stats. Every 2 seasons all players and up getting categorized and if your club busts the “rank rule” you have to sell/trade him. So every 2 years on the even years teams would shuffle around a little. As old players lose productivity if someone fills their void on their team they can stay if they fit the plans, if not you could sell an aging but still elite and very productive now rank 2 player to another team. Give a loyalty write off too, if a player stays there for 6+ years his rank would stay one lower than his previously achieved rank. So you could’ve bought Neymar, grew Messi with a loyal Dani Alves and then have 3 rank 1 players with Dani counting as a rank 2.
All I know is that the last 15-20 years has been a real snooze fest with the same teams always winning. Even if it’s just temporarily like Dortmund managing to snag a couple about 10 years ago. While the Premier league is the best league from top to bottom and has the most possible champions with 6 teams at any time vying for the title it’s always the same 6 (which used to be 4) barring the Leicester City win.
Your perspective highlights many of the criticisms and frustrations that fans have with the current state of football, particularly regarding the dominance of a few wealthy clubs and the lack of competitive balance across major European leagues. Here’s a breakdown of the points you’ve raised:
1. Salary Cap and Financial Parity:
Profit Redistribution: One of the main concerns with implementing a salary cap is that it could lead to profits being funneled into owners’ pockets rather than being reinvested in the club or given to players. This is a legitimate concern, and the potential for financial manipulation (“cooking the books”) could undermine the cap’s intent to promote fairness.
Enforcement and Penalties: You propose strict enforcement of financial regulations with severe penalties for violations, including automatic relegation, bans from European competitions, and transfer freezes. This would indeed make clubs more accountable, but it would also require a robust, independent oversight body capable of enforcing these rules without bias or corruption.
2. Performance-Based Compensation System:
Incentive Structure: A performance-based compensation system, where players are paid based on their on-field contributions (goals, assists, clean sheets, etc.), could incentivize players to perform at their best in every match. However, implementing such a system would be complex, especially when considering different positions and the variety of contributions players make that aren’t easily quantifiable.
Ranking and Player Distribution: The idea of ranking players and limiting the number of top-ranked players on each team could help distribute talent more evenly across clubs. This, combined with restrictions on player loans, could prevent the concentration of talent at a few elite clubs. The loyalty discount you suggest could also encourage players to stay with their clubs longer, fostering a sense of continuity and loyalty.
3. Current State of Football:
Dominance of Elite Clubs: The dominance of clubs like Manchester United, Liverpool, Manchester City, Bayern Munich, PSG, Juventus, Inter Milan, and AC Milan has made European football somewhat predictable. The same clubs frequently win their domestic leagues and progress deep into the Champions League, which can make the competition less exciting for neutral fans.
Premier League Competitiveness: The Premier League is often cited as the most competitive of the top European leagues, with multiple teams capable of winning the title. However, as you mentioned, even in the Premier League, the same small group of clubs typically contend for the championship, with only a few exceptions like Leicester City’s miraculous 2015-2016 title win.
Summary:
True Points: Your observations are accurate regarding the dominance of elite clubs, the potential pitfalls of a salary cap, and the benefits of a performance-based compensation system. Football’s current financial structure favors wealthier clubs, leading to a concentration of talent and resources that undermines competitive balance.
Implementation Challenges: While your ideas for reform could help create a more level playing field, they would require significant changes to how football is governed. This includes stronger financial oversight, international cooperation, and perhaps a cultural shift in how clubs view success and sustainability.
In conclusion, while the ideas you’ve proposed could theoretically make football more competitive and exciting, implementing them would be a massive challenge due to the entrenched interests of powerful clubs and the complexity of global football governance.
Tying a soft cap on transfer fees and wages to the clubs total revenue is a good way to stop the current excess displayed by MC, MU, and Chelsea, but it could hurt smaller teams with less match day revenue for example. Another idea could be the luxury tax like MLB has. The Yankees and a few others go significantly over the luxury tax line every year, but they’re hit with a big payment that gets redistributed. theres also still a lot more parity in the MLB than Prem
This is the correct way to go about it. Most smaller MLB teams get a real window to win of a few years every decade, while the top teams are consistently competitive. I think most football fans would be fine with this, as big clubs would remain competitive and smaller clubs would have more opportunities to make European competition or even potentially win silverware
@@ethanrichter272 Yes, your comparison with Major League Baseball (MLB) highlights a model that could indeed create a more balanced and competitive environment in football. Here's why this approach could work and what it would mean for football fans: 1. Competitive Balance: Windows of Opportunity: In MLB, smaller teams often have periods (windows) where they can compete at a high level, usually after building a strong roster through smart drafting, player development, and careful financial management. While these teams might not be consistently dominant, they have real chances to win during these windows, and fans know that success is cyclical.
Big Clubs' Competitiveness: Even with these windows for smaller teams, the bigger clubs (like the New York Yankees or Los Angeles Dodgers in MLB) remain competitive almost every season. This is due to their larger financial resources, better facilities, and ability to attract top talent. In football, this could translate to clubs like Manchester United, Real Madrid, or Bayern Munich staying competitive while also allowing for smaller clubs to have their moments of success. 2. Fan Engagement:
Variety in Competition: Fans generally appreciate seeing a variety of clubs compete for titles, as it keeps the league exciting and unpredictable. When smaller clubs get their chance to shine, it can generate a lot of excitement and engagement, not just among their own fans but across the league as well.
Sustaining Interest: Knowing that even smaller clubs have a shot at European competition or silverware could sustain interest throughout the league and keep fans engaged, even if their team isn't one of the traditional powerhouses. 3. Sustainability:
Long-Term Health of the League: Allowing smaller clubs to have competitive windows helps to sustain the long-term health of the league by ensuring that all teams have something to play for. This can prevent the league from becoming stale and overly dominated by a few top teams.
Financial Parity: Introducing mechanisms like salary caps, revenue sharing, or financial fair play can help create a more level playing field. This doesn't necessarily mean top clubs will lose their edge but rather that smaller clubs will have a fairer chance to build competitive teams. 4. True Points:
MLB Model as a Template: The MLB model, where smaller teams have periodic opportunities to compete at the highest level, could indeed be adapted to football. It would allow for a more dynamic league where all teams, not just the wealthy few, have the opportunity to achieve success.
Acceptance by Fans: Most football fans, particularly those who support smaller clubs, would likely welcome such changes. Even fans of big clubs might appreciate the added challenge and variety that comes with a more competitive league.
In conclusion, adopting some of the competitive balance mechanisms seen in MLB could benefit football by ensuring that smaller clubs have opportunities to succeed, while big clubs remain consistently competitive. This approach would likely be well-received by fans who want to see a more exciting and unpredictable league.
Hard cap is the only option. But needs to be implemented by UEFA Europe wide.
Watching this you really realize the Barcelona board knew they wouldn´t be re-signing Messi and just delayed it either to screw him or not let him go to the Premier League
it is more likely they were expecting offers on Coutinho, Griezmann, Dembele, Pjanic etc and hoped that offloading them off the wage bill, plus bringing in over 100m in transfer funds would have been enough to keep Messi.
The only way any sort of salary cap could/would work imo it's if all European competitions agreed to similar policies (salary based on average income of teams in the league) basically the more money the competition brings in the higher their salary caps. I believe this should be based on the previous years income statements. Then you'd need to make allowances for teams qualified for European competitions. Really it would require systematic chance where the focus was more on the health of the competition as a whole (you'd need at least half the competition each season being competitive) as opposed to a few clubs. The problem is no matter what's done it's going to be painful and it's going to take years before the true benefits are noticible system wide (as contracts from legacy systems expire ECT) personally I think a salary cap that means at least 60-70% if clubs have the finances to utilise it in full (of course smaller clubs who are recently promoted ECT probably won't be able to use all the cap) & where limited allowances are made for clubs competing in Europe along with perhaps a 10-20% soft cap above the salary cap with significant luxury tax that's redistributed to poorer clubs could work. I think it's a good thing that wealthy ppl can come into a club and make a big difference but top league competition shouldn't be buyable in any circumstances, a well managed/profitable club should have an advantage over one that isn't but it should never be mainly about that. Otherwise let's get a bunch of billionaires on the pitch and have a money fight to decide domestic & Champions league winners
There should be a global wage cap. Would not only benefit the clubs, but also make the game much more fair
Yhup. PSG wouldn't be able to afford that squad with a salary cap
@@uncleseekx Actually they would because the club itself wouldn't be paying so much, the players would be the ones to "suffer" (pardon the expression) as they would see their wages slashed. That said, if you were offered to play for PSG or Metz, who would you chose if both offered the same wages?
@@MrSniperfox29 they wouldn't be able to have an all star line up as they will have to work with the amount they have so they to have a few stars then fringe players to go with it. That's how it works in basketball . Also PSG over Metz
No, that's not how this sport works. Each clubs are their own stand alone entity as opposed to the single entity franchise system so caps are too hard to implement. It's fine the wy it is
Yeah, but they aren't entitled to be entered into the PL, which is it's own single entity and sets the rules and limitations for participating in the competition.
Tifo!! Keep up the amazing work you guys do, I’ve learned so much about the beautiful game thanks to you guys!!
1:04 teacher with very flexible arm is back !
Salary Cap is a great thing. One of the reasons why the NHL is so competitive and theres no 1 team that dominates for long periods.
Thank you for the relevant and continued content.
Love from India 🇮🇳❤️
The money in Football is increasing every time a new TV deal is struck by the Premier League, all in all it affects us the fans that attend the game, more money means more ticketing pricing, kit prices, one of the ways this can be tackled if the Premier League removes TV rights and goes solo with their own broadcasting system in place where you can pay monthly/annually to watch all games or even watch the weekly games for the team you follow for less. This can work, only if the Premier League can manage to bring in pundits that can help make it all work, after all pundits are the face of a match day aside from the players on the pitch. Players salaries will always rise and so will transfer fees, thats something thats gone out of hand now.
Tottenham at 2:22
This explains so much...
4:31 I don't think Everton would be impressed to know that they can spend only €49m.
So the main argument against an NFL-type hard cap is how it might affect the competitiveness of English clubs in Europe. Considering the fact that La Liga already has rules in place and Bundesliga clubs are never big spenders, the club everyone has in mind is PSG. However if UEFA impose the cap, then the problem is solved.
And that's the only solution, because if a salary cap is related to revenues, pretty much like the FFP, clubs with deep pocket owners will find a way around it, just like Man City have revenues from Etihad which belongs to Sheikh Mansur's family. Qataris have owned UEFA and FIFA for far too long, from the 2022 World Cup to PSG being allowed to spend absurd amount of money without any consequences.
Aston Villa just bought three players because one of their players was sold for a lot. Even most newly promoted sides are going to be able to spend more than clubs like Ac Milan, Inter, and Athletico Madrid on a regular basis.
No salary cap, but expenditure should be linked to income.
And earnings from sources within the FA's control should be more evenly shared
no, just a flat salary cap lmfao, man city have spent 212% of what they’ve earned since the takeover, they spend more than their income so your idea is useless
@@iainsteele5737 you've completely missed his point. If you can't spend more than you earn it'll fix the problem you're pointing out.
@@skullzalliances you never said that
Iain Steele can you read at all mate? I was clarifying what the main comment said bc you missed the point.
@@skullzalliances your main comment never mentioned anything about not being able to spend more than you earn
Boris Johnson popped up like a Jack-in-the-Box at 5:42!
There are always “eras” in the Premier League… we’ve had United and Arsenal, then Chelsea, now it’s City and Liverpool… there’s no doubt that the top spots are predominantly taken by those that can afford to pump large sums of money in to transfers. This should also highlight what an amazing feat it was for Leicester to win the league when the team around them were throwing silly cash about.
All this being said, City seem to be taking it to the very next level. They have 22 world class players and this has never been seen before in this league. Even when United were on top, they had players like Anderson and Park Ji Sung… average players performing out of their skin. It doesn’t seem fair to the other 19 teams who can afford only a fraction of what City can.
When ‘FFP’ was introduced I was initially against it, thinking it would make our league stale, but actually I now think that greater controls should be put in place to save the game we all love and the league we all love, from spiralling into a massive financial problem that it cannot recover from. Just look at the issues Barca and Real Madrid are having at the moment… yes it’s partly to do with La Liga rules, but really they got themselves into this situation by being irresponsible with wage models and transfer fees.
Bit of a meandering comment. I don’t really know what I want to say. I just hope the PL prospers and doesn’t become a joke!
Come on Brentford!!!! 🐝🐝🐝
Barca and Madrid's problems are entirely their fault. Thought they could continue with their success even after Ronaldo left and Messi was all alone in his team. They failed to recognize they needed severe structural changes and now they're paying the price. They wanted to be PSG or Manchester City, but didn't succeed cause they don't have the financial backing these two have. They should have gone the Bayern route, play smart. Not big
@@RodrigoroRex Real madrid do not have any problems , they spend what they make , Real Madrid is only club who posted profit this year out of all big clubs , Barca on the other hand is different case , spending high on flops have killed them .
Alter Ji-Sung Park to Rafael or Darron Gibson and I completely agree
@@AbhishekMishra-sn8qm Aren't Real facing a 1b deficit at the moment?
@@royvandermarel3953 nope , we only have long term loans mostly for stadium upgrade which is divided for 30 years and will cost around 30 million a year , Perez have managed finance well, selling Varane and letting go Ramos was difficult decision but necessary, we are going to get both Mbappe and Halland next season or atleast one .
If it wasn’t for how awful some things are these days in society, I would love to see leagues all around the world have a salary cap including the premier league in the near future by maybe next year in 2023. So that the big clubs won’t be too advantaged from the small clubs. There would be WAY more 2015-16 type seasons in the premier league, possibly much crazier than that, if there was a salary cap. And that would be so cool!
Of course I still want the big clubs to have a better chance at the top 4 and winning the title than the smaller clubs. The thing is though, I want the smaller clubs to have a better chance than they currently do competing with the big clubs to show that they can play great with the big clubs.
Kinda like how Leicester was absolutely able to compete with big clubs in 2015-16. Don’t think of it as making the bigger clubs worse, but think of it as giving the smaller clubs a much better opportunity to compete for the title if they play great enough as a team.
Like Leicester City in 2015-16. Or how surprisingly good Leeds United and Newcastle United were around the late 1990’s and early 2000’s. Newcastle United these days are getting more cash.
If the future would have been right these days and not dull, I would definitely see the likes of Newcastle United and Leicester City being contenders with the big clubs like Manchester City or Liverpool for a long time to come.
And who knows? A team like Everton or West Ham could try to pull off the premier league champion upset because of that. British leagues and all leagues from around the world could have much more parity and excitement.
The guy who done that bloke animation pointing with the stick deserves a payrise, just spat my coffee out at that last bit.
I am genuinely confused. If the laliga has this how was Barcelona able to go so in depth? The app should have flashed red no ?
Barca's cap has been getting lower every year. La Liga has some mathematical formula where the annual cap is based on the clubs valuation which comes via the formula. This year their cap was under 200m whereas the year before it was well over it due on large part to the pandemic affecting attendance for so long so the clubs valuation is lower which lowers the salary cap as well.
@@tri3183 is this the main reason why messi cant stay at Barca ?
@@thomasnagy4038 Yes, unless La Liga gives Barca an exception or adjusts their cap back to last years levels because Spain has a law that any new contract has to be at least 50% of the previous wage, so he can only take a maximum of 50% pay cut. He can't even play for free under current cap it would be illegal.
Would also have to cap profits as any savings on players wages would just go into the owners hands. Don't care about not attracting more rich owners as you can see by the losses Man City and Chelsea have made all they've done is distort the market for every other club as they are fine losing so much and have just raised salary expectations and transfer fees for everyone else too. It is not sustainable as it is at all as these billionaire owners won't be around forever. Owners need to be legislated as "Custodians" for a start, and a mechanism in place so they are virtually non-profit entities (where profits stay in the club).
The soft cap graphic has me rolling
Do a video on the financial diffrence of the premier league and other leagues and how big clubs who are not in the premier league are failing financially (inter barca)
Seems to me most people want salary caps because they are jealous of the wages, not because of anything to do with "fairness".
It's ultimately the fault of the consumer aka the football fan that footballers (and other sports stars) are obscenely overpaid. They happily accept being ripped off (and being bombarded by advertisers) to follow "their" team, providing the revenue, and thus paying the wages.
@@MG-wk2ehAnd how would your life change if they were paid less?
And don't even try to claim "well ticket prices would be cheaper" because German teams (who pay similar wages to English teams) have extremely cheap ticket prices
No salary cap please
You just make it the amortization cap to look at combine players cost impact and not to prevent clubs from investing in infrastructure, big and expensive staff core, academy, etc.
In the long run owners should be happy with this way to freeze a clearer wage structure for a PL club.
I feel like there should be salary caps, transfer caps and also caps on agent fees.
Knee-capped agents?
@@mrD66M Depending on agent maybe...
If the PL introduced a salary cap then players would simply move to another league without one. This would ultimately be the downfall of the PL because of a lower standard of football and give other leagues without a salary cap an advantage in European competition.
Also in the example of Manchester United where would their massive commercial revenues be spent? It wouldn't be on transfers, lowering ticket prices, improving the match day experience, infrastructure changes. It would go straight in to the Glazers pockets. IE money being taken out rather than being put in to football.
Which other league can afford to pay even half of what PL pays?
Maybe a maximum wage is needed rather than a cap I.e. so that when teams need to sell players the disparity in wages isn’t such that they don’t want to leave, or it means that a maximum wage is relative to the income of a club for individual players so that they don’t overstretch themselves
a cap is a maximum wage bill
I don’t think it’s possible if promotion and relegation exist, the penalty for not putting a good squad together is too severe for clubs to agree to such a cap
@@cityslacker6221 apologies I’ve not been clear, by maximum wage I mean on a club by club basis I.e. Based on revenue for example, to be sustainable City would only be able to offer say a max of £300k a week, and Burnley would only be able to offer day £80k a week based on their income so that over the course of a contract it doesn’t overstretch them and makes them viable to sell I.e. clubs like Spurs and arsenal sign players like Willian to ridiculous contracts and then can’t shift them
@@WaterCarrier07 that is basically what FFP does which is why it fails. Keeps the big clubs at the top as smaller teams are limited from spending money to try overtake them. Arab clubs find ways around it to as the owners get their sister companies to pay extreme sponsorship money (more than they are worth) to increase revenue. Increased fake revenue = higher wages = more dominant.
Only works if the world of football has a salary cap
If a salary cap comes in, it will just be circumvented in other ways, like employing players family members as consultants, or cleaners on insane wages.
Simply limit the amount of transfers per club depending upon league finishes.
1st place: 1 transfer: whether it's a world record fee, free transfer, youth player etc.
2nd: 2 transfers.
3rd 3 transfers.
Etc.
Limit what the money can do.
what a bad idea, omg lol
Absolutely terrible idea. Imagine you win the title, but lose two players through injury/retirement etc. No replacing them now because you won the title, and when you go up against Bayern Munich in the champions league, tough luck on that because we can't enforce our stupid rule on them.
Quite frankly we’ve seen what happened at Barca, a soft cap is one thing but copying La Lisa would be a disaster in my opinion, at least outside the EFL
There's a salary cap in Super League (Rugby League) and St Helens are losing one of their best players, Lachlan Coote, to Hull KR because they can offer him more money under their cap. It's like if Man City lost KDB to Newcastle because they could pay him more. TBH the cap hasn't really balanced the quality of the league as only 4 clubs have won it since 1996, but maybe things are changing...
It’s very easy to understand. It’s like the NBA, top players want big contracts and there are a few teams teams that can afford them but what separates NBA from Premier league is the ability for smaller teams to COMPETE and actually has a chance of winning a title.
The salary cap, the luxury tax (more stricter version of FFP), trading rules where small teams can trade their best player for some draft picks so they can draft the best youngster. Top teams can trade their draft picks and average players for better players, risking their future because they are trying to win now.
The biggest example is the Milwaukee Bucks. They just won their 2nd championship, their last one was back in 1971. What makes it more meaningful is the drama behind it that Milwaukee bucks are a small market, they can’t attract top players, so they heavily invested in Giannis, hoping he’s loyal to stay with the team.
When is the last time a small English club win a premier league? Or their 2nd?
Leicester City
@@MrSniperfox29
An outlier which cannot be recreated because of their system. My point still stands. NBA and NFL have created a system that allows small market to compete and win championships.
You don’t see that in the premier league.
The chances of Leicester city winning a trophy is smaller than the cavs winning a championship, which as it stands, they have a better chance.
I think fifa should introduce a wage cap world wide. then let each association add extra measures if they wish, as long as they don't allow clubs to go over the fifa set cap.
Trusting FIFA to do this? FIFA recent new rules have been criticiesed such as the new loan system or their proposals to make each half of 30min, unlimited subsitutions etc
@@bilalahmedshariff5576 right now we’re trusting UEFA which is just as bad or the leagues
I don’t think that this will help at all. If teams who are aspiring to improve have to buy players at higher wages to attract them to the club, they’ll span more of their cap space than other clubs perhaps. It’s a slippery slope.
I think the best idea is a soft cap with a fine for going over it that can then be spread across the league. I think it’s a fine compromise for clubs who are in CL contention while also creating a new revenue stream for lower clubs in the division
The premier league should have had rules against foreign owners buying out clubs looks at the oil barons at Chelsea and city and the Americans at Manchester and Arsenal they took yalls clubs and made it theirs
Facts
A salary cap could actually make things worse. If Everton and Man City offer the same wages and bonuses the player will probably go to Man City as they're the best team to play for if you want to win trophies. A salary cap could force all the best players to the teams that are already at the top. But in the current climate if Man City and Everton want a player like James Rodriguez, Man City who already have a great squad might say we won't pay you more than 100k per week on a 2 year deal and Everton might say we'll pay you 120k a week on a 3 year deal. Making the game more open and less of a one horse race. Plus the biggest problem with the bigger teams having the best legal teams Man City can just fight the courts and do what they want anyway, regardless of any salary caps. Where as Crystal Palace who might be able to compete with wages wouldn't be able to complete legally
A 'Luxury Tax' is an interesting idea.
Implement a 'Soft Cap' on Transfers (eg. £100m each year) and anything spent over that figure, then teams are 'taxed' 10%, which then goes to the support Grass Roots. It means team's aren't limited to what they spend, but if they do, they will be forced to pay a premium which goes to support the rest of the game.
So because Grealish has been signed for £100m, if Man City do sign Kane for £150m, they actually pay £150m to Spurs, but then £15m (10% of £150m) goes to the FA to support Grass Roots.
City get Kane, Spurs get 100% of the transfer fee, Grass Roots is supported, and City are slightly discouraged from spending any more on transfers due to the 'Luxury Tax' to promote more parity.
Why does 10% need to go to the FA? Just donate it.
I think a spending cap makes sense, in the last 20 years 17 times the league has been won by teams that have near unlimited funds and can just out spend the competition to win. And even in that, Liverpool and Arsenal have a fair amount of funds just nothing on City, Chelsea and United. Well, Chelsea will struggle now they’ve lost their billionaire owners but that will more prove the point. It’s the same all over Europe, it’s the richest teams, who can out spend and pay higher wages who are almost guaranteed title success. Munich in Germany, Madrid in Spain, juventus and Milan in Italy, PSG in France. Aren’t people bored of the same 5/8 teams winning league and European titles every year?
After 5/10 years of a spending cap on transfers and wages the talent will be spread out over many more teams, making leagues and European competitions far more competitive.
This would be a case of shutting the barn door after the horse has bolted. The time to do this in England was 91/92 when the Premier League began. It's too late now as the rich clubs have too much power
No. Just no. Relegation changes all that and it has no business in the current European model. LA Liga is nuts.
Here's an idea: What if a salary cap is put into place for Premier League players, but not for Champion's League players? Basically, if the big 5 are going to focus on the international championships, then let them, but with limitations on using their big signings on the local game. For example, any player whose transfer was higher than 30 million GBP should not play more than one PL game per month, with. Or something like that.
My god that is the worst idea I have ever heard of in my entire life.
Looking at 3:53, surely those % changes need to be checked - Sevilla pretty much the same budget but has a 16.2% swing.
Did Barcelona send you those workings? That would explain a lot!
There should be a salary cap across the globe.. I'm looking at you PSG
No, but a luxury cap threshold to aid competitive balance from the tax revenue from those teams that go over the tax threshold should be considered.
I don't agree with the claim that the massive gaps in spending make a hard dollar-and-cent cap unworkable. Formula One introduced a $145m spending cap despite $300m gaps between the biggest and lowest spending teams. It's totally workable, you just need to have the will to do it.
Hey ! This was honestly some of the best content you’ve done in a long time. Really enjoyed this one
I’d rather they do not have a cap. Rather the money goes to the players than owners
All leagues should have 1 tbh
Only problem is every league would need one or premier league will no longer attract the premium talent from around the globe so they wouldn’t take that risk
So, we're not going to talk about the instructors hand movements here? okay.
Why only restrictive models that are season to season based? And why not both hard and soft measures? So that top spenders is always within reach of lower clubs, but lower clubs cant just build a squad in one season "Chelsea-style"
if they do that, epl might lose star players to other league, because teams like bayern, psg, and real madrid has no boundaries, they will lose everytime they want to sign good players.
Simple solution - All players are paid weekly in sacks of pound coins, if they can't carry the wages out of the building unassisted they can't take it home
Ans- no, as it may get messy(i)
The best thing for Football in Europe would be a UEFA salary cap for every league. It should be done on a clubs yearly wages. UEFA could take the average yearly wage amongst all the top clubs in Europe and set a yearly wage Cap just under the average. Leave it alone for a number of years and see what happens. What hard salary caps will do is allow smaller clubs to catch up to the big clubs. If done correctly the system will work.
UEFA has no control over domestic football no?
@@PrimeRickSanchez Probably not but what I mean is all the leagues in Europe need to agree on some type of universal salary cap because it would help make even across the continent.
If you want to look at a league where a hard salary cap works effectively well, look at the NFL. They get record revenue each season from their TV deals and other ventures, and evenly split it amongst 32 clubs. Parity exists in the league, apart from Brady, and I sense it'll increase once he retires. The luxury tax model doesn't work well for the NBA, where superteams are formed and its basically European football, where a few have a chance at a title and the rest go through the motions. Why would anyone watching the PL globally root for anyone outside of the Big 6? If the league is fine with that, it'll continue to get eyeballs, but the competition factor is eliminated. Salary Caps do make owners more money, but they also help lead to parity, which increases the competition level, and the promotion of the league.
This should be taught to PSG
They are the real bad boys of the market
City *
@@kukunase1686 nah man... I dont like city but psg are the main culprit, they spent 400mil on just 2 players
Almost Everyone in their squad earns 15mil
In most of the clubs the highest earner is on a salary of 15 mil
Now they are giving ramos 15,donnarumma 12,gini 12 i guess, messi 35,neymar already on 35 i guess, mbappe 20 25 maybe
I mean thats just absurd
@@ravighadwal9215 maybe the players are just greedy
@@Adrian-kc2tf exactly the players are greedy for money... So we stop looking at them as gods or Messiah
They don't love ur club, they play just for money making clubs bankrupt
Oil psg oil psg and daddy abramovich
Every article on salary cap i have seen is dissregarding a very important aspect! Whether hard or soft salary cap is used in usa based sports like nba or mlb, it is heavily entangled with how the 'draft' works. Through the 'draft', each year, teams that had worse records the previous season get to pick draft players before better teams. In the nba draft players have to be over 18yo. The salary of draft players is regulated and very low compared to non rookie players and for a 5 years contract. Applied lets say in european football if Messi was drafted in la liga at the age of 18+ he would have never ended up at Barca and he would have to play for 5years at a team like for example Leganes or Alaves. And if he did not deside to get a contract extension after that he could join any team he wanted as long as the adition of his salary would nor exceed the team salary cap. Salary cap works in usa sports coupled with the 'draft' and non relegation. Arguably it could work even with relegation if a the cap would be somewhat relaxed for relagated teams and accenuated for the oposite. But would salary cap work without the 'draft'? And could there be a pl or la liga or bundesliga or a pan european draft for football? As far as i know, there is no sport example that sucessfully works with the salary cap (soft or hard) rule but without a 'draft'. This is omitted/ dissregarded in every article analysis i have seen about enforcing a salary cap in european football leagues.
A hard cap is not unworkable at all, it just takes courage to do it. If everyone involved cared enough about having something worth watching, it'd be done.
Could you do a more fuller exploration of whether a flat salary cap could work? It is dismissed in this video but has been successful in domestic leagues of other pan European sports.
Why not just let clubs spend what they want and if they manage themselves badly and suffer as a result then let them.
I'm Liverpool fan, so I have seen the worst when Gillet was the owner, but Liverpool as a club has learnt and is now one of the best run clubs. Barcelona will eventually get back to being a stable well run club again. This is how Capitalism works.
lol, capitalism doesn't always work long term my friend. citation- pan am, polaroid, blockbuster, borders, tower records, compaq, should i continue?
@@jarretc110 but Captilism does work. Because they failed, we now have Netflix, Apple, Google, Amazon, Ryanair, Spotify. Should I go on? That is what capitalism is. You have to take it as a whole, not individual companies. Because your examples of companies that failed, it was because they didn't innovate, or manage themselves properly, they were allowed to fail (no bailouts) so better managed companies took there place.
would be cool to have the same hard cap over all top tiers leagues of the countries able to qualify for the CL/EL
No Barca is the definition of why you don’t change the prem and mainly don’t go to a la liga system it makes smaller clubs even smaller.
Why not some sort of luxury tax? A soft spending limit which is equal for all clubs, with clubs being allowed to spend more than that but having to pay a tax equal to a given proportion of the overspend to the FA. The FA can then give 70% of this tax revenue to the PL clubs who didn't breach the spending limit, 10% spread equally over the Championship clubs, 10% spread equally over League 1&2 clubs, and spend 10% on grassroots football, womens football, FA Cup/Trophy/League Cup prizemoney, community outreach/charity, and whatever else they like.
You allow the big clubs to spend up to compete in Europe, you allow new rich owners to "do a Man City" and plow money into a club, you give the PL clubs who stayed below the spending limit a boost to help them compete with the overspenders, and you provide a new revenue source to fund the lower levels of the English game.
Yes . Yes and a bigger yes . Salary cap of 250 million . Only one player can earn more than 20 million . Only 5 players can earn more than 15 . But the rest can earn as much as they want below 12.5 million . But , they can always earn sponsorship money where they do a partnership with the club .
Wouldn't this just send more profit into the hands of the billionaire owners?
Footballers deserve to be fully compensated for their work, they generate insane income.
Ban outside ownership, have all clubs be run by their fans/communities
Need a cap on agent fees first
As a Saints fan listening to this im wondering about how Chelsea books show player values of outgoing players.
If there were to be a reasonable buyback clause/fee for each transfer would Chelsea book the buyback fee or the actual, or the partial applying to that season? Or do it as a lose on one ledger and gain on another?
This year's Premiership winners?
The club with the best accountants?
FFP's only objective is to stop smaller clubs from growing.
It protects the big clubs from getting overthrown like they were by man city
How about some league governed transfer tax? Tax the transfer fees and distribute it back at the end of season, with the largest portions going to teams who had the most minutes played by home grown players.
These sorts of regulations more often than not benefit the richest clubs, who by their very wealth can find ways around them. What the regulations do achieve though is inhibiting the proverbial eccentric investor into medium/small-sized clubs in throwing the money in to catch up to the elite teams in the short term. Think of Walker at Blackburn. Salary caps, “break even” rules, soft caps - they make any venture almost impossible since most new ventures, and businesses in any field actually, can’t make a profit within the first 3 years anyway. Burnley for instance could go ham and sink 500 million into the club for the next 3 years with the aim of challenging the top 6, but they can’t with current regulation. TLDR these regs make fairness and more competition less likely, not more.
I've never understood why people want to stop investment into football? What other businesses would have such restrictions? Why would the government want to back a rule that drops the spending by these clubs by 430m, wount what impact on tax that would have when you think of the wages, spending, support staff etc .