Fixing Football

[Taylor Swift]

Football should have a high level of parity, that means that different teams have a chance at winning things each season, and teams in lower leagues have a chance of winning things if they are run in an intelligent manner. This is currently not the case as the rich have the most resources and hoard even more resources (young players) to protect the status quo.

 

Here are a few ideas to fix the footballing world:

 

A. Ban all loans. The current loan system is fucked up. It incentivises financially advantageous teams to buy young players when they are cheap, loan them out to smaller clubs - hence outsource the development of the player (while receiving money) - then introducing them into their first team when they are much improved. If the development goes as plan, the player becomes a member of the first team squad who was acquired cheaply and can be sold expensively (Welbeck, De Bruyne, Courtois, Smalling, Ramsey etc. are all examples of this). The loan system perpetuates the unequal state of the footballing world.

 

It incentivises young players to sign for clubs that offer them more money (ie. the clubs playing in the CL) because they will be provided with both better finances and first team football (at a smaller club). It also incentivises poorer clubs to sign players on loan since permanent transfers entail a higher of degree of risk. Say, if you sign a player for £4m and he doesn't work out, you won't be able to recoup the expense of the transfer fee and the wages. If you loan a player and he doesn't work out, however, you have only lost a loan fee, which is a fraction of a permanent fee, and have paid a lesser share of the wages of the player. The loan system thus promotes long-term inequality in the game.

 

Ban the fuck out of it. No loans, no exceptions, no minimums or maximums or age restrictions or allowances. No loans, period. If a young player wants first team football, he will have to take his chance at the club that wants to sign him, risk losing the most important developmental years of his career sitting on the bench, or he will stay at his original club and grow. If a poorer club wishes to grow, they will have to focus on developing their own players, but now safe in the knowledge that the talent they develop will not have as much incentive to leave. This should lead to higher funding for youth team football because when the players do leave, they will be far more mature and thus attract a higher fee. If the rewards for developing players increase, the funding and the risks taken will also increase. For teams with more financial resources, they will also be far more careful signing young players. Either they will have to offer far higher pay to young players to entice them to sign, given the inherent risks of being benched for years, or they will have to wait and sign players that are first-team ready. First-team ready players will cost a lot of money. This should reduce the advantage of teams with greater financial resources.

 

B. Eliminate the Europa League. The only people that care are the fans, and sadly, the enthusiasm (or lack thereof) shown by the players, clubs, and managers has continually led to a decrease in enthusiasm shown by the fans. It's a broken competition because present success does not beget future success. On the other hand, many teams complain that current success can lead to future failure in their own leagues. The competition is also unfair because teams who have failed at another competition are invited to join at a much later stage than any other team, and thus have a far greater chance of winning it than teams who were in it from the start (or relatively). Dump it. Shut it down. Throw it in the bin. Thus, the only competition that exists in the continent will be the Champions League, which leads to C.

 

C. Increase the amount of teams that qualify. England gets 6, Germany gets 6, Italy gets 5, France gets 4, Spain gets 6 etc. Give teams a chance, spread the money around. The negative effects is that it will dilute the quality of the earlier set of games, but that is basically two months of European football. The first third of the competition will be played with a lot of newer, inexperienced teams, which will reduce the quality of the matches. However, the benefits far, far outweigh this. What this will lead to is more balanced domestic leagues. The teams with financial advantage will have a lesser advantage, and this advantage would not be unsurmountable over the medium term.

 

At present, any team that wishes to challenge for the title must go through a period of genuine, medium term success on-the-pitch coupled with extremely good off-the-pitch management that can ride out the rough seasons. The majority of teams in development aren't able to survive the rough seasons to become long-term contenders (Villa, Liverpool, us, Everton, Spurs) because when we have a bad season, which is inevitable, the financial and prestige advantage of the Champions League disappears, which creates a cycle of rebuilding because your best players want to leave for the clubs which can offer them those things, and you're thus left having to sign newer, unproven players in the hope of catching up. It's a difficult process that is almost impossible to achieve.

 

A bigger Champions League changes this. If you're Spurs, you finish 4th one year, have fun in the Champions League, make a lot of money, which means you can pay your players more, satisfying both their egotistical needs and financial needs, and you give it a go for another year, only this time it doesn't go as well. You finish 5th. In the current system, Modric leaves, then a year later, Bale leaves, and suddenly you're in rebuilding mode. In the new system, you have another year in the Champions League. Modric doesn't leave, you finish 4th the next year, Bale doesn't leave, you use the extra finances to buy new players and improve your squad, you finish 3rd the next year. Things finally go right for you and you might, in a crazy year and a crazy world where UEFA promote equality and parity, win the title.

 

For us? We have a magical season, we finish 5th, we use the money to sign loads of new players (), give it a go, have a mediocre season, finish 10th. But wait, there are 6 spots for the Champions League and different teams have been qualifying. You show that to your players, you have another chance of qualifying for it. The new system also leads to a more equitable share of the finances; Man City and Chelsea aren't so easily able to gobble up players from other clubs. Lescott costs them £35m because Everton are in the Champions League and they don't need the money, Fellaini costs £27m because Everton are in the Champions League and don't need the money (oh, wait.... ), Barkley eventually costs Man Utd £40m, Rooney costs Man Utd £45m, Cabaye costs PSG £40m because we don't need the cash and we can tell him we're playing them in the second round of knockout stages.

 

The clubs with outside investment, the sovereign states of the world would have to pay far, far more than they do today to sign players from other clubs because those other clubs would not need to sell. The teams with greater financial resources would thus be able to buy far lesser players, which leads to a healthier domestic league because the talent is spread within all the teams, and it will also lead teams from lower divisions taking more risks like signing players because they realise a promotion into the Premier League, coupled with a good year could lead them into the Champions League. The likes of Forest wouldn't need to live in the past, remembering previous glories from another generation. One good year and a promotion would have them one good season away from playing in the Champions League. They would have less want to sell their best young players, and teams would take more risks in signing those players. It would lead to a high likelihood of different teams eventually challenging for the title. Offering rewards like this, which are far more easily attainable than present, will lead to a healthier world of football in which teams are able to climb the depths of the leagues through natural, balanced growth.

[Shays Given Tim Flowers]

A wage cap and a transfer cap would probably sort out far more in terms of making the game fairer.

 

 

[NG32]

A wage cap and a transfer cap would probably sort out far more in terms of making the game fairer.

 

 

 

Agreed.

 

The Champions league is killing domestic football.

[Taylor Swift]

A wage cap would be unenforceable and unfair because of the different tax rates that exist in the EU, and also because it wouldn't be worldwide. The current wage system is fine. As much as seeing lazy players being paid £150k/week annoys me, in general, the players deserve what they're paid. They're very good at something that a majority of the world enjoys watching and spends time and money on. They're part of a very, very small minority that is a pure meritocracy. There is no feigning being good at football. You are, or you aren't. It's the way the world should technically work, so I don't mind it.

 

A transfer cap also wouldn't work unless it is enforced worldwide. Eventually the Chinese league will have a lot of money rolling around, and the financial pull will be far greater than at present, which would lead to a shift in power. In the same way that the English league became the dominant league financially, which led to an influx of players from abroad, any league that offers greater financial rewards will eventually become the most attractive league. It's just the way it works.

 

A wage cap is a good idea in theory, but where does the extra money go? It certainly won't lead to lower ticket prices or lower merchandise costs. If there is money to be made, it will be made. Better it goes to players who deserve it rather than clubs that are extracting surplus value from players. If clubs want to run themselves as businesses, which I agree and applaud in general, then they should be forced to compete for the best employees as every other business does. A salary cap would punish the players and unnecessarily reward poor owners.

[Shak]

Good post.

 

None of this will happen though, sadly. Maybe scrapping the Europa League and expanding the CL.

 

The big clubs control the power and have no interest in doing things for the good of the game.

[Shays Given Tim Flowers]

A wage cap would be unenforceable and unfair because of the different tax rates that exist in the EU, and also because it wouldn't be worldwide. The current wage system is fine. As much as seeing lazy players being paid £150k/week annoys me, in general, the players deserve what they're paid. They're very good at something that a majority of the world enjoys watching and spends time and money on. They're part of a very, very small minority that is a pure meritocracy. There is no feigning being good at football. You are, or you aren't. It's the way the world should technically work, so I don't mind it.

 

A transfer cap also wouldn't work unless it is enforced worldwide. Eventually the Chinese league will have a lot of money rolling around, and the financial pull will be far greater than at present, which would lead to a shift in power. In the same way that the English league became the dominant league financially, which led to an influx of players from abroad, any league that offers greater financial rewards will eventually become the most attractive league. It's just the way it works.

 

Well I disagree that it would be unenforceable but it is your thread and I am loathe to derail it by talking about competition law and such, for numerous reasons.

 

I disagree it is unfair because we are talking about making the game fair.

 

What fans should be bothered about is a fair competition. If this means the worlds best players go to different leagues than our own so be it. The product we watch will be better, because it will be fairer. The game must always be bigger than the prize.

 

The current wage system isn't fine. Money and success are inextricably linked in football. Until there is a fair financial system in place football can't be fixed.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Wages are only an issue as long as clubs are allowed to overspend. If clubs can afford to pay big wages, then IMO it's fine as long as they aren't being bankrolled by a bottomless pool of money. Wages should reflect the actual profits available in the game.

[Taylor Swift]

Wages are only an issue as long as clubs are allowed to overspend. If clubs can afford to pay big wages, then IMO it's fine as long as they aren't being bankrolled by a bottomless pool of money. Wages should reflect the actual profits available in the game.

 

You would be entrenching the current system. Teams with huge revenue streams and massive stadiums would always pass this 'test'. But what about the likes of Liverpool who are trying to rebuild? They would most definitely be beyond any artificial wage 'threshold' that the league would set, and why would you blame them? They are trying to rebuild, to grow, because the rewards are great if they succeed. Make the rewards far more easily attainable and you will have more clubs competing for it. More clubs competing it will lead to a higher quality of matches and a higher quality of the league itself. But instituting a salary cap or a percentage of revenue would be the worst way to accomplish this because it would entrench the financial advantage that the teams in the Champions League already have.

 

I mean, if you told me I could design one system that would forever protect the positions of the best four or five teams in the league, bar completely unrealistic rules, I'd institute a salary cap or a percentage of revenue that they could spend on wages. It would have a disastrous effect on competition.

[Shays Given Tim Flowers]

Liverpool are still far richer than most clubs despite the absence of recent success.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

So would you allow a sheik to buy someone like Man City and propel them to instant success by massively overspending?

[Taylor Swift]

A wage cap would be unenforceable and unfair because of the different tax rates that exist in the EU, and also because it wouldn't be worldwide. The current wage system is fine. As much as seeing lazy players being paid £150k/week annoys me, in general, the players deserve what they're paid. They're very good at something that a majority of the world enjoys watching and spends time and money on. They're part of a very, very small minority that is a pure meritocracy. There is no feigning being good at football. You are, or you aren't. It's the way the world should technically work, so I don't mind it.

 

A transfer cap also wouldn't work unless it is enforced worldwide. Eventually the Chinese league will have a lot of money rolling around, and the financial pull will be far greater than at present, which would lead to a shift in power. In the same way that the English league became the dominant league financially, which led to an influx of players from abroad, any league that offers greater financial rewards will eventually become the most attractive league. It's just the way it works.

 

Well I disagree that it would be unenforceable but it is your thread and I am loathe to derail it by talking about competition law and such, for numerous reasons.

 

I disagree it is unfair because we are talking about making the game fair.

 

What fans should be bothered about is a fair competition. If this means the worlds best players go to different leagues than our own so be it. The product we watch will be better, because it will be fairer. The game must always be bigger than the prize.

 

The current wage system isn't fine. Money and success are inextricably linked in football. Until there is a fair financial system in place football can't be fixed.

 

It is unfair to the players. Why should they be earning less from a game that they are a major part of it? A salary cap would actually lead to the best players being paid very well and the average players being paid very poorly - far poorer than present, poorer than they deserve to be. The current system is a meritocracy without excessively rewarding the best players and punishing the average players. Salary caps without maximum salaries have traditionally led to the best players being way overpaid and thus the average players being way underpaid. The evidence is there in the States, which is why a salary cap is coupled with a maximum salary, to protect the average players, the journeymen. Now if you have a salary cap and a maximum salary, you'd be guaranteeing profits for every club. If you don't guarantee profits then you're almost guaranteeing losses for the majority of clubs because how else could they compete with clubs that spend their caps? If they don't have the revenue to support the cap, then what do they do? Not spend, don't compete. Spend, lose money every year.

 

You would have to go further and have transfers of wealth, and that is never going to happen.

[Shays Given Tim Flowers]

Wages are only an issue as long as clubs are allowed to overspend. If clubs can afford to pay big wages, then IMO it's fine as long as they aren't being bankrolled by a bottomless pool of money. Wages should reflect the actual profits available in the game.

 

You would be entrenching the current system. Teams with huge revenue streams and massive stadiums would always pass this 'test'. But what about the likes of Liverpool who are trying to rebuild? They would most definitely be beyond any artificial wage 'threshold' that the league would set, and why would you blame them? They are trying to rebuild, to grow, because the rewards are great if they succeed. Make the rewards far more easily attainable and you will have more clubs competing for it. More clubs competing it will lead to a higher quality of matches and a higher quality of the league itself. But instituting a salary cap or a percentage of revenue would be the worst way to accomplish this because it would entrench the financial advantage that the teams in the Champions League already have.

 

I mean, if you told me I could design one system that would forever protect the positions of the best four or five teams in the league, bar completely unrealistic rules, I'd institute a salary cap or a percentage of revenue that they could spend on wages. It would have a disastrous effect on competition.

 

I really need you to explain how ensuring that clubs could only spend a uniform amount on players and wages would be disastrous for competition.

 

EDIT: I have just seen above. Will reply to it in a bit.

[Taylor Swift]

So would you allow a sheik to buy someone like Man City and propel them to instant success by massively overspending?

 

They would have to spend far more than present because the smaller clubs are less likely to accept their fees, the players would be less likely to join them because there's no chance of escaping on loan. If you're Lescott or Sinclair, do you sign a five year deal knowing there's a good chance you're getting replaced in two years and thus being forced to sit on the bench for three years with no escape? Man City wouldn't be able to buy success as easily as they have done. They would have to spend more. And they would be competing with more clubs because the likes of Spurs, us and Everton would also be benefitting from Champions League money. We would also be competing with them for players from abroad and competing with them for sponsorship money.

[Disco]

Reducing prize money in the CL whilst adding to it significantly in the Europa League would soon see clubs taking it more seriously.

 

We must remember that this "Europa League is shit" is a bit misnomer because of the relative riches involved in the PL compared to other leagues around Europe.

[George Bailey]

Not for me mate.

 

The CL would just become the 'particiaptors league' in all effect.

 

Scrap the CL for me. devalue the fuck out of it.

 

Go back to European competitions having meaning. Champions and maybe, maybe 2nd placed sides play each other in knock out comp.

2nd,3rd and 4th placed sides play in knock out UEFA cup.

Bring back the Cup winners cup.

 

TV and the amount of money sloshing about needs addressing as a priority. Not a fan of every fucking game being 'live'...Oh great its Kidderminster v Cleethorpes tonight..whoop the fuck eeee. Ive passed mysaturation point.

 

Football is not a sport that people should ONLY watch on TV. k

Kids from Hull, Dunfermline and Skegness scratching about in bloody barca and Real tops.

 

Get football back to its roots of local teams for communities.

 

Pay needs sorting too. its far too disproportional. No person on the planet, is worth £100, 150,200, 250k a week, ludicrous.

 

All in all 'modern'football is largely shit imo.

 

Certainly wont be around to celebrate clubs second centeniaries if the centralised, elitist model continues..thing is it appears the governing bodies couldnt give a shit. We and clubs like us are simply an irrelevant annoyance to them.

 

12-20 teams in Europe. The great Real v Bayern every 2nd weekend. Man U v Benfica ad infinitum. Franchise football here we come.

 

Once capitalism got really interested it was writing on the wall time....

[Taylor Swift]

Wages are only an issue as long as clubs are allowed to overspend. If clubs can afford to pay big wages, then IMO it's fine as long as they aren't being bankrolled by a bottomless pool of money. Wages should reflect the actual profits available in the game.

 

You would be entrenching the current system. Teams with huge revenue streams and massive stadiums would always pass this 'test'. But what about the likes of Liverpool who are trying to rebuild? They would most definitely be beyond any artificial wage 'threshold' that the league would set, and why would you blame them? They are trying to rebuild, to grow, because the rewards are great if they succeed. Make the rewards far more easily attainable and you will have more clubs competing for it. More clubs competing it will lead to a higher quality of matches and a higher quality of the league itself. But instituting a salary cap or a percentage of revenue would be the worst way to accomplish this because it would entrench the financial advantage that the teams in the Champions League already have.

 

I mean, if you told me I could design one system that would forever protect the positions of the best four or five teams in the league, bar completely unrealistic rules, I'd institute a salary cap or a percentage of revenue that they could spend on wages. It would have a disastrous effect on competition.

 

I really need you to explain how ensuring that clubs could only spend a uniform amount on players and wages would be disastrous for competition.

 

Chelsea's revenue vs ours. Let's say you institute a salary cap of 70% of revenues. Clearly this allows Chelsea to spend more in nominal terms. It would entrench their position because they would be successful year-in year-out, success would lead to sponsorship and commercial income, which would lead to a more 'ability' to spend. So % terms are out. So you institute a nominal spending cap instead. At which level, though? £70m? Chelsea's revenues are £250m+. You'd be guaranteeing Abramovich £100m in profits every year and it would come directly out of the players' pockets into his. Those profits could also be spent on developing youth teams and facilities, something that we wouldn't be able to afford to. But anyway, say we put a cap at £70m, what happens to clubs like Wigan and Charlton and Forest, whose revenues are not even close to £50m. If they want to compete, they have to spend. But if they spend, they would lose money year after year, an unsustainable model. And if they don't spend, well, you're not promoting competition.

 

The aim is to promote competition, to promote sustainable risk-taking. The aim is promote youth development and protecting smaller clubs from becoming feeder clubs for bigger teams. A salary cap - either a % wise or nominal wise - leads to an unhealthy league. You shouldn't cap spending but you should share the rewards and make it more attainable. That is the long-term fix that will lead to a healthier league because it is promoting competition.

[Guest Howaythetoon]

Football should have a high level of parity, that means that different teams have a chance at winning things each season, and teams in lower leagues have a chance of winning things if they are run in an intelligent manner. This is currently not the case as the rich have the most resources and hoard even more resources (young players) to protect the status quo.

 

Here are a few ideas to fix the footballing world:

 

A. Ban all loans. The current loan system is f***ed up. It incentivises financially advantageous teams to buy young players when they are cheap, loan them out to smaller clubs - hence outsource the development of the player (while receiving money) - then introducing them into their first team when they are much improved. If the development goes as plan, the player becomes a member of the first team squad who was acquired cheaply and can be sold expensively (Welbeck, De Bruyne, Courtois, Smalling, Ramsey etc. are all examples of this). The loan system perpetuates the unequal state of the footballing world.

 

It incentivises young players to sign for clubs that offer them more money (ie. the clubs playing in the CL) because they will be provided with both better finances and first team football (at a smaller club). It also incentivises poorer clubs to sign players on loan since permanent transfers entail a higher of degree of risk. Say, if you sign a player for £4m and he doesn't work out, you won't be able to recoup the expense of the transfer fee and the wages. If you loan a player and he doesn't work out, however, you have only lost a loan fee, which is a fraction of a permanent fee, and have paid a lesser share of the wages of the player. The loan system thus promotes long-term inequality in the game.

 

Ban the f*** out of it. No loans, no exceptions, no minimums or maximums or age restrictions or allowances. No loans, period. If a young player wants first team football, he will have to take his chance at the club that wants to sign him, risk losing the most important developmental years of his career sitting on the bench, or he will stay at his original club and grow. If a poorer club wishes to grow, they will have to focus on developing their own players, but now safe in the knowledge that the talent they develop will not have as much incentive to leave. This should lead to higher funding for youth team football because when the players do leave, they will be far more mature and thus attract a higher fee. If the rewards for developing players increase, the funding and the risks taken will also increase. For teams with more financial resources, they will also be far more careful signing young players. Either they will have to offer far higher pay to young players to entice them to sign, given the inherent risks of being benched for years, or they will have to wait and sign players that are first-team ready. First-team ready players will cost a lot of money. This should reduce the advantage of teams with greater financial resources.

 

B. Eliminate the Europa League. The only people that care are the fans, and sadly, the enthusiasm (or lack thereof) shown by the players, clubs, and managers has continually led to a decrease in enthusiasm shown by the fans. It's a broken competition because present success does not beget future success. On the other hand, many teams complain that current success can lead to future failure in their own leagues. The competition is also unfair because teams who have failed at another competition are invited to join at a much later stage than any other team, and thus have a far greater chance of winning it than teams who were in it from the start (or relatively). Dump it. Shut it down. Throw it in the bin. Thus, the only competition that exists in the continent will be the Champions League, which leads to C.

 

C. Increase the amount of teams that qualify. England gets 6, Germany gets 6, Italy gets 5, France gets 4, Spain gets 6 etc. Give teams a chance, spread the money around. The negative effects is that it will dilute the quality of the earlier set of games, but that is basically two months of European football. The first third of the competition will be played with a lot of newer, inexperienced teams, which will reduce the quality of the matches. However, the benefits far, far outweigh this. What this will lead to is more balanced domestic leagues. The teams with financial advantage will have a lesser advantage, and this advantage would not be unsurmountable over the medium term.

 

At present, any team that wishes to challenge for the title must go through a period of genuine, medium term success on-the-pitch coupled with extremely good off-the-pitch management that can ride out the rough seasons. The majority of teams in development aren't able to survive the rough seasons to become long-term contenders (Villa, Liverpool, us, Everton, Spurs) because when we have a bad season, which is inevitable, the financial and prestige advantage of the Champions League disappears, which creates a cycle of rebuilding because your best players want to leave for the clubs which can offer them those things, and you're thus left having to sign newer, unproven players in the hope of catching up. It's a difficult process that is almost impossible to achieve.

 

A bigger Champions League changes this. If you're Spurs, you finish 4th one year, have fun in the Champions League, make a lot of money, which means you can pay your players more, satisfying both their egotistical needs and financial needs, and you give it a go for another year, only this time it doesn't go as well. You finish 5th. In the current system, Modric leaves, then a year later, Bale leaves, and suddenly you're in rebuilding mode. In the new system, you have another year in the Champions League. Modric doesn't leave, you finish 4th the next year, Bale doesn't leave, you use the extra finances to buy new players and improve your squad, you finish 3rd the next year. Things finally go right for you and you might, in a crazy year and a crazy world where UEFA promote equality and parity, win the title.

 

For us? We have a magical season, we finish 5th, we use the money to sign loads of new players (), give it a go, have a mediocre season, finish 10th. But wait, there are 6 spots for the Champions League and different teams have been qualifying. You show that to your players, you have another chance of qualifying for it. The new system also leads to a more equitable share of the finances; Man City and Chelsea aren't so easily able to gobble up players from other clubs. Lescott costs them £35m because Everton are in the Champions League and they don't need the money, Fellaini costs £27m because Everton are in the Champions League and don't need the money (oh, wait.... ), Barkley eventually costs Man Utd £40m, Rooney costs Man Utd £45m, Cabaye costs PSG £40m because we don't need the cash and we can tell him we're playing them in the second round of knockout stages.

 

The clubs with outside investment, the sovereign states of the world would have to pay far, far more than they do today to sign players from other clubs because those other clubs would not need to sell. The teams with greater financial resources would thus be able to buy far lesser players, which leads to a healthier domestic league because the talent is spread within all the teams, and it will also lead teams from lower divisions taking more risks like signing players because they realise a promotion into the Premier League, coupled with a good year could lead them into the Champions League. The likes of Forest wouldn't need to live in the past, remembering previous glories from another generation. One good year and a promotion would have them one good season away from playing in the Champions League. They would have less want to sell their best young players, and teams would take more risks in signing those players. It would lead to a high likelihood of different teams eventually challenging for the title. Offering rewards like this, which are far more easily attainable than present, will lead to a healthier world of football in which teams are able to climb the depths of the leagues through natural, balanced growth.

 

Good post and interesting reading.

 

The game needs fixed at so many levels though. I'm sick of the cheating, whinging and histrionics from players, managers etc. I can't stand it. When my player gets fouled I want him to get back up and show his opponent how tough he is and how focused he is on the game. I want my manager to act with dignity and not call someone an old cunt. I want to be able to go the match spending the 90 minutes supporting my team and players not screaming at the ref or linesman or pantomime booing of the opposition defender for pulling one of our player's shirt or whatever.

 

If a player dives, send him off and give him a 3 game suspension. Diving is cheating. If a ref cheated he would get sacked. Persistent divers get lengthier bans.

 

Only the captain's can talk or argue with the ref, no-one else. But in a respectful way.

 

I'd introduce a sin bin type thing, swear at the ref or start pushing other players? Go sit on the bench for 5 minutes.

 

And speaking of refs, we have women running the line, lets have some women refs and ex players too. Create a refereeing academy to coach and train refs of the future, make it a full-time job.

 

For dubious decisions like the Tiote goal the other week, have a 2nd ref with an ipad to view such decisions and give him the power to overrule if the decisions from the ref or linesman has been proved incorrect or wrong.

 

I'd ban loans too and I'd limit squad sizes to 25 and thats including youngsters. I'd allow an extra sub to be made and increase the bench size to 8.

 

I'd do away with the Europa League too and increase CL places, but only to domestic cup winners. If one of the top 4 clubs win a cup, the extra CL place is awarded to the next highest placed team in 5th.

 

I'd do away with the January transfer window too and I'd like to see some kind of rule introduced whereby a club cannot just sack their manager during the season without some kind of fine or points deduction. Too many managers get binned at the first sign of problems, meaning we have a managerial merry-go-round. We also have clubs hiring a manager in the summer and a month or several into the season they get rid. This will hopefully make clubs choose their managers more wisely. Its absurd that Pardew is the second longest serving manager in the league.

 

To help the national side and our homegrown younger players develop I'd limit the number of foreign players allowed in each XI to 5. I'd make this a world-wide criteria.

 

For fans I'd bring back safe standing and I'd cap season ticket prices and individual ticket prices too. For example an away ticket to cost £20 whether its West Ham away or Arsenal.

 

I'd also make it law that every single football club should be 25% owned by the fans.

 

I wouldn't exactly cap wages, but I'd abolish transfer fees and I'd make it where only 50% of a club's turnover can go on wages. That will we will see an end to average players earning silly money and clubs signing any old player.

 

In time these changes would help see things even out a bit across the board.

[Taylor Swift]

You have some interesting views except for capping wages to a ratio of turnover. That is the worst way to promote competition, mate. You need to make it so that the commercial and sponsorship income that those clubs currently enjoy are accessible to a wider range of clubs. Why do those clubs enjoy those incomes? Because they are exposed to consumers and audiences around the world through the Champions League and through becoming competitive in their domestic league. So now you try to expose other clubs, too. How? Increase qualifiers into the Champions League. That will increase exposure, increase commercial income and increase access for newer clubs. How do you make clubs more competitive in their leagues? Protect them from the clubs that have more money, so that they're able to keep their best players longer. How do you do that? Ban loans because loans promote inequality. Banning loans will lead to lesser permanent transfers to the clubs with money and it would also lead to transfers that are far more expensive (because the players will be more mature). That will lead to greater income to the smaller clubs, and if it is wisely spent, will lead to them being more competitive vis-a-vis the clubs with money.

 

You want to promote competition without making it easy to compete. A salary cap which essentially guarantees profits reduces the incentive to compete and grow because owners will be satisfied with making profits each year. A transfer cap would make it harder for promoted teams to compete because they won't be able to overhaul their squads in preparation of a tougher league, and it would also make it harder for newly qualifiers of the Champions League to be able to compete with the teams already in there, too. You need to promote good, sustainable risk-taking because good off-the-pitch management needs to be well-rewarded.

[George Bailey]

Cracking post as normal.

 

Just goes to show how much actually needs looking at, in almost every aspect of the game.

 

Whats the priorities?

 

The restructuring of the game and leagues, European cups?

Money and its effect on the game?

TV and its over influence?

Corruption and cheating?

The games position in society and comunities?

 

The game is at a crossroads for me.  Massive questions and solutions needed imo to ensure its survival as we know it...Or is that it? maybe its just no longer footbal (as we have known it)l and its evolved or evolving into its next stage of being?

[AyeDubbleYoo]

I think red cards for diving would just make it less likely that a ref would accuse a player. For me, retrospective review of every PL game is the way to go.

[colinmk]

Not for me mate.

 

The CL would just become the 'particiaptors league' in all effect.

 

Scrap the CL for me. devalue the fuck out of it.

 

Go back to European competitions having meaning. Champions and maybe, maybe 2nd placed sides play each other in knock out comp.

2nd,3rd and 4th placed sides play in knock out UEFA cup.

Bring back the Cup winners cup.

 

TV and the amount of money sloshing about needs addressing as a priority. Not a fan of every fucking game being 'live'...Oh great its Kidderminster v Cleethorpes tonight..whoop the fuck eeee. Ive passed mysaturation point.

 

Football is not a sport that people should ONLY watch on TV. k

Kids from Hull, Dunfermline and Skegness scratching about in bloody barca and Real tops.

 

Get football back to its roots of local teams for communities.

 

Pay needs sorting too. its far too disproportional. No person on the planet, is worth £100, 150,200, 250k a week, ludicrous.

 

All in all 'modern'football is largely shit imo.

 

Certainly wont be around to celebrate clubs second centeniaries if the centralised, elitist model continues..thing is it appears the governing bodies couldnt give a shit. We and clubs like us are simply an irrelevant annoyance to them.

 

12-20 teams in Europe. The great Real v Bayern every 2nd weekend. Man U v Benfica ad infinitum. Franchise football here we come.

 

Once capitalism got really interested it was writing on the wall time....

 

Sounds a bit more like it for me. 

[Lotus]

I think red cards for diving would just make it less likely that a ref would accuse a player. For me, retrospective review of every PL game is the way to go.

 

Good point and good idea.

[ponsaelius]

Agree with point A completely. The loan system helps to perpetuate the wealth of the few and maintain the status quo, its a cop out from making proper restrictions on squads.

 

Point B + C I disagree with, the CL needs knocking down and the UEFA Cup reinstated with the same status it used to have and financial incentives to match it. We still need a second competition that teams have a chance of winning, putting everybody in the CL and getting rid of the second tier competition is one less competition that teams like ourselves have to aspire for.

 

Football needs a massive dose of socialism across the board. Wage caps, squad restrictions, financial fair play whatever - anything that can be done to narrow the gap between the haves and the have nots needs to be done before the sport becomes a farce for everybody but a handful of clubs.

[Disco]

Agree with point A completely. The loan system helps to perpetuate the wealth of the few and maintain the status quo, its a cop out from making proper restrictions on squads.

 

Point B + C I disagree with, the CL needs knocking down and the UEFA Cup reinstated with the same status it used to have and financial incentives to match it. We still need a second competition that teams have a chance of winning, putting everybody in the CL and getting rid of the second tier competition is one less competition that teams like ourselves have to aspire for.

 

Football needs a massive dose of socialism across the board. Wage caps, squad restrictions, financial fair play whatever - anything that can be done to narrow the gap between the haves and the have nots needs to be done before the sport becomes a farce for everybody but a handful of clubs.

 

[AyeDubbleYoo]

I could see the point in a single European competition for the PL teams, if there were (say) 7 or 8 positions it would be open to nearly everyone. But what about the leagues where they only get 1 or 2 spots? Ironically those are the European countries who actually care about competing in Europe.