Time for a salary cap in the Premier League?

[Colocho]

The smaller clubs will want this, the bigger clubs won't.

 

On that basis alone, it's a long way off.

[Village Idiot]

Can't see this happening to be honest. Big talent would just go to other leagues to get bigger wages. It works in the US since their major leagues are the undisputed financial pinnacle of these sports, while La Liga, Germany or Serie A could easily fill the hole of a deflated PL.

[Theregulars]

Absolutely. Look at the NHL, different winners most seasons, quite hard to create dominant dynasties we know them - let's say in the US you win 3 trophies in 10 years, you are considered dominant, here United win it almost every single year, it's boring. For fans of clubs like ours it's disheartening that we basically can't win because we can't compete financially. It would make for a much more exciting premier league, and viewed as a product, surely a much more sensible business venture.

[Dr. Nguyen Van Falk]

Only if its something crazy low like 15k a week at most.

[NG32]

Absolutely. Look at the NHL, different winners most seasons, quite hard to create dominant dynasties we know them - let's say in the US you win 3 trophies in 10 years, you are considered dominant, here United win it almost every single year, it's boring. For fans of clubs like ours it's disheartening that we basically can't win because we can't compete financially. It would make for a much more exciting premier league, and viewed as a product, surely a much more sensible business venture.

 

Yep but it seems people are happy with a stagnant league.

 

 

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Can't see this happening to be honest. Big talent would just go to other leagues to get bigger wages. It works in the US since their major leagues are the undisputed financial pinnacle of these sports, while La Liga, Germany or Serie A could easily fill the hole of a deflated PL.

 

The global nature of the game is the biggest problem I reckon.

[Guest neesy111]

Absolutely. Look at the NHL, different winners most seasons, quite hard to create dominant dynasties we know them - let's say in the US you win 3 trophies in 10 years, you are considered dominant, here United win it almost every single year, it's boring. For fans of clubs like ours it's disheartening that we basically can't win because we can't compete financially. It would make for a much more exciting premier league, and viewed as a product, surely a much more sensible business venture.

 

Yep but it seems people are happy with a stagnant league.

 

 

 

Completely different sports in different cultures and with different histories.

 

Comparison is useless imo.

[Theregulars]

Absolutely. Look at the NHL, different winners most seasons, quite hard to create dominant dynasties we know them - let's say in the US you win 3 trophies in 10 years, you are considered dominant, here United win it almost every single year, it's boring. For fans of clubs like ours it's disheartening that we basically can't win because we can't compete financially. It would make for a much more exciting premier league, and viewed as a product, surely a much more sensible business venture.

 

Yep but it seems people are happy with a stagnant league.

 

 

 

Completely different sports in different cultures and with different histories.

 

Comparison is useless imo.

 

Neeeeeeeesy! how's your trip? Great chap.

 

I don't think the comparison is useless at all. If you look at it from a Canadian point of view, hockey is ingrained into their culture and history just as much as football to ours. From the American teams' perspective - yes it's not as popular as NFL or MLB, but considering the sheer amount of people over there there's probably more NHL fans in the US than there are football fans in the UK (although the proportionate percentage would obviously be in the UK's favour). I don't even think a sport requires a similar culture/history to be subject to comparisons about sensible directions which they could take to improve - for instance, there is nothing similar about football, cricket and tennis, yet they were all subject to the same debate about the use of video technology, with the other two now looking far more progressive than our national sport and better off for its inclusion. I think you need to take a broader view. In an era of the potency of TV money, ridiculous admission prices and multi-million pound wages, the essential points of comparison are essentially there between each and every sport, regardless of culture and history. Football in that way is essentially similar to F1 - aesthetically, culturally and historically completely different, but in terms of the root problem (the richest team winning the vast majority of races/games), both, if you take a broader view, are essentially very similar in terms of their competitive output.

 

I think the NHL saw this problem - in baseball it was a problem until relatively recently, with the Yankees and Red Sox dominating at the highest level by dint of their bloated payroll - on both a national and international scale, doubtless in my opinion using European football (e.g. England, Spain) as examples of the dominance of the main financial players, and saw it as a better move. I think the idea is thus entirely applicable and simultaneously commendable.

 

Bring me back a tasteful souvenir!

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Any cap would have to be at least Europe-wide.

[Guest neesy111]

Absolutely. Look at the NHL, different winners most seasons, quite hard to create dominant dynasties we know them - let's say in the US you win 3 trophies in 10 years, you are considered dominant, here United win it almost every single year, it's boring. For fans of clubs like ours it's disheartening that we basically can't win because we can't compete financially. It would make for a much more exciting premier league, and viewed as a product, surely a much more sensible business venture.

 

Yep but it seems people are happy with a stagnant league.

 

 

 

Completely different sports in different cultures and with different histories.

 

Comparison is useless imo.

 

Neeeeeeeesy! how's your trip? Great chap.

 

I don't think the comparison is useless at all. If you look at it from a Canadian point of view, hockey is ingrained into their culture and history just as much as football to ours. From the American teams' perspective - yes it's not as popular as NFL or MLB, but considering the sheer amount of people over there there's probably more NHL fans in the US than there are football fans in the UK (although the proportionate percentage would obviously be in the UK's favour). I don't even think a sport requires a similar culture/history to be subject to comparisons about sensible directions which they could take to improve - for instance, there is nothing similar about football, cricket and tennis, yet they were all subject to the same debate about the use of video technology, with the other two now looking far more progressive than our national sport and better off for its inclusion. I think you need to take a broader view. In an era of the potency of TV money, ridiculous admission prices and multi-million pound wages, the essential points of comparison are essentially there between each and every sport, regardless of culture and history. Football in that way is essentially similar to F1 - aesthetically, culturally and historically completely different, but in terms of the root problem (the richest team winning the vast majority of races/games), both, if you take a broader view, are essentially very similar in terms of their competitive output.

 

I think the NHL saw this problem - in baseball it was a problem until relatively recently, with the Yankees and Red Sox dominating at the highest level by dint of their bloated payroll - on both a national and international scale, doubtless in my opinion using European football (e.g. England, Spain) as examples of the dominance of the main financial players, and saw it as a better move. I think the idea is thus entirely applicable and simultaneously commendable.

 

Bring me back a tasteful souvenir!

 

I agree with the idea 100% and would back it only if it was unilateral across Europe and it was regulated properly.

 

I do believe it will happen but only when the football bubble bursts.

 

Would a ladyboy do as a gift?

[Theregulars]

Absolutely. Look at the NHL, different winners most seasons, quite hard to create dominant dynasties we know them - let's say in the US you win 3 trophies in 10 years, you are considered dominant, here United win it almost every single year, it's boring. For fans of clubs like ours it's disheartening that we basically can't win because we can't compete financially. It would make for a much more exciting premier league, and viewed as a product, surely a much more sensible business venture.

 

Yep but it seems people are happy with a stagnant league.

 

 

 

Completely different sports in different cultures and with different histories.

 

Comparison is useless imo.

 

Neeeeeeeesy! how's your trip? Great chap.

 

I don't think the comparison is useless at all. If you look at it from a Canadian point of view, hockey is ingrained into their culture and history just as much as football to ours. From the American teams' perspective - yes it's not as popular as NFL or MLB, but considering the sheer amount of people over there there's probably more NHL fans in the US than there are football fans in the UK (although the proportionate percentage would obviously be in the UK's favour). I don't even think a sport requires a similar culture/history to be subject to comparisons about sensible directions which they could take to improve - for instance, there is nothing similar about football, cricket and tennis, yet they were all subject to the same debate about the use of video technology, with the other two now looking far more progressive than our national sport and better off for its inclusion. I think you need to take a broader view. In an era of the potency of TV money, ridiculous admission prices and multi-million pound wages, the essential points of comparison are essentially there between each and every sport, regardless of culture and history. Football in that way is essentially similar to F1 - aesthetically, culturally and historically completely different, but in terms of the root problem (the richest team winning the vast majority of races/games), both, if you take a broader view, are essentially very similar in terms of their competitive output.

 

I think the NHL saw this problem - in baseball it was a problem until relatively recently, with the Yankees and Red Sox dominating at the highest level by dint of their bloated payroll - on both a national and international scale, doubtless in my opinion using European football (e.g. England, Spain) as examples of the dominance of the main financial players, and saw it as a better move. I think the idea is thus entirely applicable and simultaneously commendable.

 

Bring me back a tasteful souvenir!

 

I agree with the idea 100% and would back it only if it was unilateral across Europe and it was regulated properly.

 

I do believe it will happen but only when the football bubble bursts.

 

Would a ladyboy do as a gift?

 

Both you and Ian make a good point there, it's incomparable in that American sports are effectively restricted to their own country. If we had a cap and others didn't we'd lose all the best players - it would likely take a massive coercive effort from UEFA, FIFA and even the EU to achieve, and set aside massive monetary gain for the betterment of the game as a spectacle and a product in the long-term. It's therefore probably too philanthropical a vision to implement in reality.

 

Hell yes Neesy, a ladyboy would make my summer. Perhaps also a skull from the Cambodian killing fields.

[NG32]

Absolutely. Look at the NHL, different winners most seasons, quite hard to create dominant dynasties we know them - let's say in the US you win 3 trophies in 10 years, you are considered dominant, here United win it almost every single year, it's boring. For fans of clubs like ours it's disheartening that we basically can't win because we can't compete financially. It would make for a much more exciting premier league, and viewed as a product, surely a much more sensible business venture.

 

Yep but it seems people are happy with a stagnant league.

 

 

 

Completely different sports in different cultures and with different histories.

 

Comparison is useless imo.

 

Neeeeeeeesy! how's your trip? Great chap.

 

I don't think the comparison is useless at all. If you look at it from a Canadian point of view, hockey is ingrained into their culture and history just as much as football to ours. From the American teams' perspective - yes it's not as popular as NFL or MLB, but considering the sheer amount of people over there there's probably more NHL fans in the US than there are football fans in the UK (although the proportionate percentage would obviously be in the UK's favour). I don't even think a sport requires a similar culture/history to be subject to comparisons about sensible directions which they could take to improve - for instance, there is nothing similar about football, cricket and tennis, yet they were all subject to the same debate about the use of video technology, with the other two now looking far more progressive than our national sport and better off for its inclusion. I think you need to take a broader view. In an era of the potency of TV money, ridiculous admission prices and multi-million pound wages, the essential points of comparison are essentially there between each and every sport, regardless of culture and history. Football in that way is essentially similar to F1 - aesthetically, culturally and historically completely different, but in terms of the root problem (the richest team winning the vast majority of races/games), both, if you take a broader view, are essentially very similar in terms of their competitive output.

 

I think the NHL saw this problem - in baseball it was a problem until relatively recently, with the Yankees and Red Sox dominating at the highest level by dint of their bloated payroll - on both a national and international scale, doubtless in my opinion using European football (e.g. England, Spain) as examples of the dominance of the main financial players, and saw it as a better move. I think the idea is thus entirely applicable and simultaneously commendable.

 

Bring me back a tasteful souvenir!

 

 

Yep ! Spot on mate.

 

 

[wormy]

It's been mentioned a good few times, but it has to spread further than England. We'll just lose the good players to countries that can pay more. I'd back it 100% if that were the case.

 

But, at the same time, would we still not lose everyone? If an English and a Spanish club both offer the maximum to a player, would there be enough of a difference tax-wise that they'll consider it a much better option to move to Spain?

[NG32]

It's been mentioned a good few times, but it has to spread further than England. We'll just lose the good players to countries that can pay more. I'd back it 100% if that were the case.

 

But, at the same time, would we still not lose everyone? If an English and a Spanish club both offer the maximum to a player, would there be enough of a difference tax-wise that they'll consider it a much better option to move to Spain?

 

 

Yes it would have to be europe wide...

 

They managed this in the NHL as the canadian teams counldn't match the US teams.  So brought in a rule to balance out the currency difference.

 

 

[wormy]

Sound. Figured there had to be some way of evening it out after tax.

[Theregulars]

It's been mentioned a good few times, but it has to spread further than England. We'll just lose the good players to countries that can pay more. I'd back it 100% if that were the case.

 

But, at the same time, would we still not lose everyone? If an English and a Spanish club both offer the maximum to a player, would there be enough of a difference tax-wise that they'll consider it a much better option to move to Spain?

 

 

Yes it would have to be europe wide...

 

They managed this in the NHL as the canadian teams counldn't match the US teams.  So brought in a rule to balance out the currency difference.

 

 

 

And also because the NHL owns the franchises in both America and Canada as one whole entity. It's easier as they don't have a number of disparate leagues under control of private national bodies. That doesn't mean it's not feasible, just much more complicated.

[Guest samjack]

Put them on £10k pw max & that would start off at £1k pw for new pro's with limited games then going up in increments with appearences & maybe bonus's for loyalty !!! I'm sure they could scrape by on a few grand a week ffs !!

[Guest CheickMansour]

Just a thought, but since the influx of money (as I understand it) came from TV money, is it not possible to regulate how much of that money each club is allowed to spend on players? E.g. force a 30% limit on players. The rest is allowed to be spent on facilities (youth etc) and subsidising the fans (and how much they have to pay for each match etc) and so on.

 

You could apply this internationally as well.

[Guest neesy111]

Just a thought, but since the influx of money (as I understand it) came from TV money, is it not possible to regulate how much of that money each club is allowed to spend on players? E.g. force a 30% limit on players. The rest is allowed to be spent on facilities (youth etc) and subsidising the fans (and how much they have to pay for each match etc) and so on.

 

You could apply this internationally as well.

 

League Two already has this (60% on wages), they want to introduce it across all football league divisions soon.