Financial Fair Play - Good or Evil?

Joel`

Member
Jul 23, 2010
8,166
0
0
David Moyes works under conditions that are not his choice or the chairmans choice he works under them because no one has put a meaningful offer which would benefit the club long term not from choice. They are the most 'competitive' team in the league thats for sure. If you honestly think that FFP will make the small clubs bigger and the big clubs smaller so to speak then that my friend IS naive, it is not just clubs like Manchester United have large debt teams lower in the division have unsustainable debt.

Spirit of football is a different point, again you go on your crusade of sentimentalism about how the little clubs make the league what it is the spirit of the Premier League is that every team competes and plays at a high tempo with the ultimate level of commitment from each player. The problem you have is in the past 19 years as the Premier League worldwide brand has increased the stature of clubs like United, Arsenal, Liverpool and even Chelsea in recent years has monopolised the Asian African and European markets with merchandising and promotion. So the situation that this will help Everton, Spurs etc is wrong they will have to sell players to break even and comply to offload from the wage bill/and or help clear the debt creating an era of clubs suddenly becoming 'selling clubs'.
I'm aware of that and I didn't claim it's going to make all 20 clubs competitive. Congratulations on putting words in my mouth. Do you even understand what a monopoly is? The European market is most certainly not monopolised.

So, lets see what you've achieved in your argument. You've put words in my mouth to criticise me by, criticised FFP and then offered no alternatives to "help Spurs and Everton". I never said FFP was a perfect policy, that it'll help Everton and Spurs. I said that your argument of letting billionaires do what they like in the sport is retarded, which it is. Also, how on Earth can you criticise FFP for not offering support to the smaller clubs and then be perfectly fine with billionaires running clubs, spending what they like. 'selling clubs' you're against that philosophy, but are fine with billionaires just buying their players instead? Kudos.

They will be under no such need to sell players to break even. Most of their best players are usually homegrown, or brought up as a star for a small fee. This means that the overall spend on the player is low, the return in the form of playing performance and eventual profit from the sale is huge. Look at Rodwell at Everton, if they sell him for £20m, they can buy 3-4 players to improve the squad. To argue FFP is going to constrain clubs like Everton into selling everyone to break even is silly. Firstly, they most likely won't be affected by the European cup sanctions. Secondly, they can already afford their playing staff, why are they suddenly having to sell up to break even.

The Premier League has long past the time of English spirit, we have the most diverse league in the world and it is easily Englands most famous worldwide export with millions of viewers tuning in every weekend no matter who plays. It will be worst with FFP the gap between bottom and top, teams like Blackburn who are building HUGE wage bills and yet have extremely little revenue will be forced into the red. It is common sense that Spurs worldwide merchandising and sales for their turnover will be so inferior to United/Arsenal that it will be near on impossible for them to break the top four again without having the strength to buy freely without selling stars.
So, it's worse under FFP, but then you're fine with billionaires absolutely annihilating the gap between the top and the bottom? These rules have been brought into sort out the horrid state of club finances in Europe's top competition. Smaller clubs are far more likely to be benefited, even though it's not aimed at helping them. You realise that large clubs have such a big gap between the smaller clubs because they can finance so much through huge debts and being bankrolled by a sugar daddy? And you SUPPORT the sugar daddy, and then you go off criticising FFP for bridging the gap? Come on now, please. FFP will have downwards pressure on wages and transfer fees, enabling smaller clubs to become more financially able to sanction transfers. Smaller teams are also far less burdened by debt, but large teams will have to cut back massively. Chelsea can no longer splash £70m in one go, if they're not spending, teams aren't selling, simple economics. Yet you suggest that they'll carry on spending bridging the gap, and teams will become 'selling clubs. Those two ideas are plain false, and the complete opposite to what the rules are doing.
True long term effects? Like Manchester City reaching their first final in 40 years+? Like Manchester City/Tottenham breaking the top four? You ask any average Joe fan if he wants mediocrity at his football club or success with stability and without the threat of debt then you would say yes it absolutely is a good thing.
You CAN'T have short term success and long term stability at the same time. As I said, they're not substitutes. Manchester City's growth is accelerating far faster than its productive capacity for revenue can. Think of it in terms of economics, you could go on a huge spending spree and get 10% growth, but in a few years you'll be bitten in the *** by massive inflation and such. United, Liverpool, Arsenal etc. have all grown at a steady rate, stadiums and merchandising have expanded as they got larger. City can't suddenly become large, it takes years to build a viable market, qualifying for the CL once isn't going to do that. And what happens if the Sheikh gets bored with them in 10 years, they're left with massive wages without the revenue to support it. But I'm sure that's worth a few glory years, right?
So your statement is the rich stay rich and powerful whilst City and Spurs suffer the consequences of needing to pay big wages to attract big stars because they have not won 19 trophies+ in the past twenty years? It is too late to do what Wenger has done and be as successful, his marketing and promotion in Africa has practically monopolised that market along with the other big clubs so if City/Spurs are to make a big turnover they surely need a market to exploit?...Oh wait United/Arsenal/Chelsea got their first so they can never be as big in terms of self sustainable money power it is practically impossible. You can not punish owners/clubs/fans for wanting to be top and doing it by all means necessary so long as the owner is committed and it does not put the clubs future in jeopardy.
It's the fundamental principle of sport that the best win. If you're not the best and can't handle it, then why are you a fan of sport in the first place. Should we allow drugs at the olympics so they can do "whatever it takes to win"? Should a rich tennis player be allowed to finance a new racquet material that gives him the advantage? No. You don't buy success, you earn it. I think you'll find most fans bar Chelsea/City aren't happy at their purchasing of success. And there's one MAJOR flaw with your whole hypothesis. If you want billionaires to run everyone, then demand for players will outstrip the supply, everyone will be then at the same point they were originally at where success gives the competitive advantage, allowing differences to appear between clubs once again. Why don't you actually try thinking about your idea past the first three years? The flaws are so huge it's completely ridiculous for you to suggest it as viable, especially combined with the massive hypocrisy in your posts.
 

curtis290

Member
Oct 9, 2010
1,203
1
36
33
Competition laws in football? Football has always been big clubs vs little clubs, teams like Stoke can't afford Tevez without FFP so it would make no difference if the rich stayed rich and the middle clubs stayed in the middle with regular sustainable finances. If the billionaires in question all agree to annual sheet balancing and keep the club 100 pct debt free long term then it should not make a difference in my opinion, Chelsea and Manchester City are such extra ordinary cases that I don't believe you can govern them the same way you can Vilareal for example. Sheikh Mansours family wealth fund is estimated to be 580 BILLION pounds with his personal wealth rumoured to be 23 billion, I genuinely can not see anything wrong with billionaires doing what they want with their money. This regulation is designed to make clubs live within their means and all I can see it doing is pushing the gap between top and middle, I.E Manchester Uniteds annual turnover is 3 times that of Spurs for example so I do not see this being fair to be honest. The principle is good but when your talking about individual ownership with individual ideas and wealth you can not have 'one rule applies to all' theory, measures do need to be taken in world football but IF a clubs balance sheet is cleared by an owner every year out of their own pocket then nothing is damaging the long term future of the club. These measures mention nothing on takeovers which I think is insane, if UEFA would focus on a real immediate problem of prospective owners not really buying clubs but taking loans out AGAINST the club and it's assets in order to fund the takeover. That is completely wrong and definitely should not be allowed and if it is a guideline percentage of the price should be acceptable to borrow such as 10 percent, that will stop 70 pct of takeovers across Europe instantly. I hope UEFA realise as well that half of players wages in this day and age are not paid directly from club holding to player with the 50 pct high earners tax, so that is practically impossible to determine exactly how much players are getting paid. Another measure would be UEFA set up a finance auditing department and any club who is registered with UEFA who's owners want to take out a loan against a club should get an approval rating like banks give clients/countries and that way there is a chance to stop clubs taking on toxic debt because of ridiculous owners.
I agree with a lot of your points but I'm a bit ambivalent about the billionaire owners...on the one hand, I don't like how they come into the league because it's like using FMRTE to build a team, which isn't really fair. I mean, why should ManCity get a Sheikh while Everton doesn't? It's literally a deus ex machina that comes out of nowhere to create a club into a powerhouse. There is also the problem of what to do when they get bored. On the other hand, it challenges the established order of things. ManCity is challenging the established order of the Prem, and for the first time in ages we could get a team other than ManU or Chelsea (or Arsenal) to win the title. That's pretty cool, and if we're going to use the FFP, than a billionaire owner is the only way any team can challenge the established order. So if they implement the FFP than maybe I might support the idea of a billionaire being able to pay for a club's debt.

Firstly, go find out what a paragraph is.

Of course there will always be big and small clubs, the point is that clubs should become large through footballing means. Sports aren't made for the rich to succeed, they're made to reward personal triumph. Look at Moyes, working wonderful things on next to nothing with Everton and staying competitive. That's the spirit of football personified.

Although coming from the man who wanted the premier league to be a "brand", I see why you'd like billionaires to control the sport. But you're failing to see that entertaining football and money spent can not be equated. Manchester City - 3 CDM's at home rings a bell. Then look at Arsenal, one of the best footballing teams with the best balance sheet too. Even teams like Bolton, Wigan etc. all try to play the best football possible. The branding of the Premier League should revolve around the fantastic English spirit and determination, which again is personified this season with the number of surprising results we've had, the whole league staying tight the whole season. Under your proposals you'd have half a league of superstars bullying the weaker teams. People love our league because on any given day any team can beat another.

Your whole idea that "They have money, they're entitled to do what they like" is so horribly naive I can't believe I'm arguing with you. What if an owner gets bored with the club, and leaves it with wages that it can't afford to be paying. Why don't you actually consider the true long term effects rather than just simplifying it to "Who cares if they clear the debt each year".

Why is it not fair that United turnover three times more than Spurs? Under what principle? You consider it perfectly fine for a billionaire to spend £350 million in a couple of seasons, but when United earn their money through continued success and clever marketing you have a problem? My God, hypocrisy thy name is you.

The point is United were the first to become successful in the Premier League, took the money and continued to cycle it to get more success. That's the whole point of football, you get rewarded for success. You're saying it's unfair to be more successful, but it's fair that someone can attempt to buy success in a few seasons all because "It's their money". Do you consider it unfair that Microsoft and Apple make millions more than their nearest competition? They got there through being the best in their market.
First of all, how many trophies do Everton win? How are they rewarded for what they do? Since they don't have tons of people in the US or Korea or London buying their merchandise, they'll never be able to compete with ManU, Arsenal, etc. I hate how in the modern game this is what determines your success. It's business not sport, and it's almost enough to make me stop watching soccer and going back to watching ugly American sports where the competition is at least fair.

I disagree with this. I don't see how it's fair how ManU should get to spend three times as much money as Tottenham and have that enforced by the FFP. Yes, they were savvy and went over to Asia and America and got a bunch of gloryhunters to buy their merchandise, but that's not good for the game. It's fair in the business sense, but it's ****** in the sports sense. It's not fair that they and the other Premiership teams were able to establish such a financial strangehold on world football. It has taken away the talent from all of the other leagues, so none of those fans get to see their best players, the players their countries produced, while the English get to sit there with this amazing Premiership that is built on foreign players, foreign managers, and foreign owners. What did the English, Spanish, Italians, and Germans do to get to have all the best players? Why do the Argentines and Brazilians, who are the best footballers and traditionally had the best leagues, have to have ****** leagues now because the European teams buy all their best players?

Football is more of a business than any sport in the world and it's really sickening. In the US, even though we worship economic liberalism and despise socialism more than any nation on the planet, we respect the fact that sport is sport and not business. Theoretically, every team should have a relatively equal shot at winning the title. It's awful seeing the same big clubs rule the league every single year because they have so much money. And it was never like this: in past eras, the big teams didn't have so much spending power, and they could rise or fall from prominence. It's not like that anymore, and ManU was extremely lucky.

They got good (and a great manager) right at the right time, right when the age of globalization went into full steam and the Prem started marketing itself abroad, right when football started getting really commercialized. Because they happened to be the best team right when all of this happened, they reaped all of the profits, and they won over fans all over England (before fan support tended to be more localized, in the modern era of the game, the big clubs take more and more support from other areas of the country) and most importantly, abroad. Right when the Asian and American markets entered the game, ManU was the best team, so they got all of those supporters. Now ManU is the world's biggest and most profitable club. Talk about good timing. But anyway, it's stupid that ManU, Chelsea, and Arsenal have now solidified themselves as teams that can't really be competed against. The latter two are small clubs, but since they have so much foreign glory-hunter support their revenue streams are out of this world and they will always be able to outspend clubs like Tottenham. How is that fair or good for the sport? If we were speaking about a closed system that would be one thing, but these European giants (the big 3 English clubs I'm mainly referring to) make so much money from foreign support that it's just unfair. There's nothing fair about teams being able to dominate a competition just because they sell shirts in Japan. That isn't what sports are about.

I don't mean to pick on ManU but I hate how unequal soccer is and it's because business dominates the game and because people always have this mentality that "well it's the free market so it's fair." Even Americans would never say that. Sports aren't supposed to be completely dominated by business. In La Liga it's even worse because of the TV deals so now only two teams are wealthy. I'm afraid the FFP will destroy Spain because teams like Valencia are in serious financial trouble. FFP won't allow them to compete with RM and Barca, who have insanely large revenue streams (mostly thanks to the TV deals but also foreign glory hunters). I guess we have to hope La Liga re-structures it's TV system.

Of course the Bundesliga has the best model by far and has the most parity. Small teams challenge the title every year...look at Dortmund this year! That could never happen in the Prem. And the Bundesliga in the end is better off for how it does business, it has the highest attendance by far in Europe since there's parity and everyone has a chance, and their clubs are in great financial shape. Their national team is also doing well.

Just some food for thought, in American baseball (the most capitalistic of the leagues, there is a luxury tax but no salary cap) the clubs only make 1/13 of the profit of their merchandise sold in states outside of their own. The rest goes to the MLB and is shared among all the teams. Can you imagine what the Prem or La Liga would look like if they had rules like that?
 

Jamie.

Member
Nov 7, 2009
2,992
0
0
www.fm-base.co.uk
I'm aware of that and I didn't claim it's going to make all 20 clubs competitive. Congratulations on putting words in my mouth. Do you even understand what a monopoly is? The European market is most certainly not monopolised.

So, lets see what you've achieved in your argument. You've put words in my mouth to criticise me by, criticised FFP and then offered no alternatives to "help Spurs and Everton". I never said FFP was a perfect policy, that it'll help Everton and Spurs. I said that your argument of letting billionaires do what they like in the sport is retarded, which it is. Also, how on Earth can you criticise FFP for not offering support to the smaller clubs and then be perfectly fine with billionaires running clubs, spending what they like. 'selling clubs' you're against that philosophy, but are fine with billionaires just buying their players instead? Kudos.

They will be under no such need to sell players to break even. Most of their best players are usually homegrown, or brought up as a star for a small fee. This means that the overall spend on the player is low, the return in the form of playing performance and eventual profit from the sale is huge. Look at Rodwell at Everton, if they sell him for £20m, they can buy 3-4 players to improve the squad. To argue FFP is going to constrain clubs like Everton into selling everyone to break even is silly. Firstly, they most likely won't be affected by the European cup sanctions. Secondly, they can already afford their playing staff, why are they suddenly having to sell up to break even.



So, it's worse under FFP, but then you're fine with billionaires absolutely annihilating the gap between the top and the bottom? These rules have been brought into sort out the horrid state of club finances in Europe's top competition. Smaller clubs are far more likely to be benefited, even though it's not aimed at helping them. You realise that large clubs have such a big gap between the smaller clubs because they can finance so much through huge debts and being bankrolled by a sugar daddy? And you SUPPORT the sugar daddy, and then you go off criticising FFP for bridging the gap? Come on now, please. FFP will have downwards pressure on wages and transfer fees, enabling smaller clubs to become more financially able to sanction transfers. Smaller teams are also far less burdened by debt, but large teams will have to cut back massively. Chelsea can no longer splash £70m in one go, if they're not spending, teams aren't selling, simple economics. Yet you suggest that they'll carry on spending bridging the gap, and teams will become 'selling clubs. Those two ideas are plain false, and the complete opposite to what the rules are doing.
You CAN'T have short term success and long term stability at the same time. As I said, they're not substitutes. Manchester City's growth is accelerating far faster than its productive capacity for revenue can. Think of it in terms of economics, you could go on a huge spending spree and get 10% growth, but in a few years you'll be bitten in the *** by massive inflation and such. United, Liverpool, Arsenal etc. have all grown at a steady rate, stadiums and merchandising have expanded as they got larger. City can't suddenly become large, it takes years to build a viable market, qualifying for the CL once isn't going to do that. And what happens if the Sheikh gets bored with them in 10 years, they're left with massive wages without the revenue to support it. But I'm sure that's worth a few glory years, right?
It's the fundamental principle of sport that the best win. If you're not the best and can't handle it, then why are you a fan of sport in the first place. Should we allow drugs at the olympics so they can do "whatever it takes to win"? Should a rich tennis player be allowed to finance a new racquet material that gives him the advantage? No. You don't buy success, you earn it. I think you'll find most fans bar Chelsea/City aren't happy at their purchasing of success. And there's one MAJOR flaw with your whole hypothesis. If you want billionaires to run everyone, then demand for players will outstrip the supply, everyone will be then at the same point they were originally at where success gives the competitive advantage, allowing differences to appear between clubs once again. Why don't you actually try thinking about your idea past the first three years? The flaws are so huge it's completely ridiculous for you to suggest it as viable, especially combined with the massive hypocrisy in your posts.
Flaws are huge?
My idea is simple do not over regulate the system and industry so much that it gives power to the already capitalised and economically mobile forces of United,Chelsea and Arsenal. It is obvious that you will slate City's plan and try to lock out competition because you know fine well that Uniteds revenue stream is 324 million a year at last count and even with your HUGE interest loans taken by the Glazers to purchase Man United it is quite sustainable short-medium term. Get a City fan/Spurs fan into this who's clubs have small bases but have quite wealthy/healthy balances because of Daniel Levy/Gary Cook running it smartly. If you turn the whole market of football and take the edge of individualism from chairman/financial strategies then all clubs will attempt the same approach and the inevitable outcome is more focus on branding, merchandising and increasing revenue stream which is near on impossible for most Premier League clubs outside England.

Until there is a precedented case of a Billionaire deserting a football club your argument is flawed and my case is apparently too short term?
Your coming from the side of economics that says keep costs down and it will make certain long term stability and growth. BUT Citys plan is completely different, spend big in the short term grow the brand and the club's stature until in ten years IF the Sheikh wants to put the club on the market then he can and probably make alot of money and find the right guy to take on the task.
City will not spend 100 million every off season they spent big to reach new heights for the football club, football clubs are not regular assets they change with league position and their value fluctuates. Inflation going up has minimal baring on City since their deals are done in all cash and the club has taken ZERO loans out so does not have to cope with high interest rates. Whereas if the aim was that of Hicks and Gillette whos goal was short term risk through loans with the aim of producing the maximum from the Liverpool brand over the coming fifteen years to pay off the loans.
You go on and on about Billionaires and how I love them, nothing is wrong as a football fan seeing your club taken over by a BILLIONaire, football clubs ten years ago used to be a millionaires game and that is a changing trend. Yet another problem by FFP is the only way Spurs/City/Prem League can adapt and survive sufficiently they will have to increase revenue streams which means stadium sponsorship (name changes), the 39th game could come in.
Differences between clubs are fine as they are right now, go on and on about the flaws in my hypothesis but long term transfer wise City have paid all their transfer fees and have no loans outstanding unlike 3 of Europes biggest clubs with Madrids loan for Ronaldo and co still weighing heavily on their chequebooks. Demand outstripping supply? Will never happen because the premier league has a squad registration rule.(Which is quite flawed because HG players prices become hugely over inflated)


Hope I've answered your questions, I do love a debate

And so I am not putting words in your mouth, you gave examples of sustainable models currently working Everton, Arsenal (Arsenal is the FFP model), but what your saying is giving examples of rich companies like Apple, Microsoft and rick tennis players being better because they win more tournaments. Well yeah Manchester United have won cups BUT they spent money to win them, so Manchester United have EARNED the right to dominate the league?

Just because they have history does not mean that they should have an unfair advantage, I see your point but being a United fan you obviously want the best for United and screw the rest of the league in the process.

I say again, my argument is VETTING, AUDITING, MONITORING and 'RUBBER STAMPING ALL LOANS' by a UEFA department that can be set up with Finance experts. That is the solution not over regulating the system to an extreme.

Solution: Cap Agent Fees worldwide, work out a realistic prospective turnover to wage budget.

My argument is transfer wise, that should not be restricted as it is not really the problem the Agent fees/wage budget is the drain on clubs (Portsmouth)

As long as the transfers are up front payments they should be unaffected by FFP in my opinion everything else should fall in but not the transfer funds.
 
Last edited:

Joel`

Member
Jul 23, 2010
8,166
0
0
I see what you're saying Curtis, but you're fighting a different fight here. Things like that aren't going to change, but surely, surely FFP is going in the right direction? It's not going to make the gap bigger by any stretch of the imagination. Surely, rules aimed at economic stability are better than just allowing clubs to make even bigger advantages financed by debts from banks? I just don't see how you can disagree with the FFP rules.

---------- Post added at 09:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:27 PM ----------

Flaws are huge?
My idea is simple do not over regulate the system and industry so much that it gives power to the already capitalised and economically mobile forces of United,Chelsea and Arsenal. It is obvious that you will slate City's plan and try to lock out competition because you know fine well that Uniteds revenue stream is 324 million a year at last count and even with your HUGE interest loans taken by the Glazers to purchase Man United it is quite sustainable short-medium term. Get a City fan/Spurs fan into this who's clubs have small bases but have quite wealthy/healthy balances because of Daniel Levy/Gary Cook running it smartly. If you turn the whole market of football and take the edge of individualism from chairman/financial strategies then all clubs will attempt the same approach and the inevitable outcome is more focus on branding, merchandising and increasing revenue stream which is near on impossible for most Premier League clubs outside England.

Until there is a precedented case of a Billionaire deserting a football club your argument is flawed and my case is apparently too short term?
Your coming from the side of economics that says keep costs down and it will make certain long term stability and growth. BUT Citys plan is completely different, spend big in the short term grow the brand and the club's stature until in ten years IF the Sheikh wants to put the club on the market then he can and probably make alot of money and find the right guy to take on the task.
City will not spend 100 million every off season they spent big to reach new heights for the football club, football clubs are not regular assets they change with league position and their value fluctuates. Inflation going up has minimal baring on City since their deals are done in all cash and the club has taken ZERO loans out so does not have to cope with high interest rates. Whereas if the aim was that of Hicks and Gillette whos goal was short term risk through loans with the aim of producing the maximum from the Liverpool brand over the coming fifteen years to pay off the loans.
You go on and on about Billionaires and how I love them, nothing is wrong as a football fan seeing your club taken over by a BILLIONaire, football clubs ten years ago used to be a millionaires game and that is a changing trend. Yet another problem by FFP is the only way Spurs/City/Prem League can adapt and survive sufficiently they will have to increase revenue streams which means stadium sponsorship (name changes), the 39th game could come in.
Differences between clubs are fine as they are right now, go on and on about the flaws in my hypothesis but long term transfer wise City have paid all their transfer fees and have no loans outstanding unlike 3 of Europes biggest clubs with Madrids loan for Ronaldo and co still weighing heavily on their chequebooks. Demand outstripping supply? Will never happen because the premier league has a squad registration rule now.

Hope I've answered your questions, I do love a debate
Sure, the club who gets the billionaire loves it. The other 19 teams in the league do not.

And how can they buy the players now and maintain it long term. It takes a long, long time to build the facilities to sustain yourself through youth etc. Sure, they can spend everything they like now. Then they have to do it again in 6 years. Then again. Look at Chelsea, they were so strong and now have their hand forced into paying £50m on Torres, £24m on David Luiz, then reportedly even more this year to build a team to support Torres. Is not sustainable.

Of course demand outstrips supply in a billionaire's league. Players like Kaka, Rooney, Ronaldo etc. are extremely rare. When kaka was for sale, realistically only Madrid, City and Chelsea could afford him. If you're fine with everyone being run by billionaires, and the rate increased, we could have 8 teams competing for that 1 player. If all 20 of our teams are run by billionaires, then the gaps will just stay the same. Players will go where success is, and the clubs at the bottom will be rich but can't attract the best. There's few top quality players, they can't get them all. You're not helping competition at all by just regulating owners. There's much more to it. Sure, you say, 20 billionaires will never be in 1 league! Sure, but then you have a few billionaires buying everyone and leaving the rest of the league with nothing, akin to the SPL now. It's also advocating ever inflating transfer fees and wage bills, which is then inflating merchandise and ticket sales. So now the fan who was so 'overjoyed' can't even afford to see his team play or buy merchandise. FFP is aiming to limit wild spending and exert downward force on transfers and wages.

But of course, billionaires dominating the game is far better than successful teams dominating the game. FFP isn't aiming to fix all the problems in football, because it can't. But all billionaires are going to achieve is widening the gap further and exaggerate all existing problems further. I simply can't comprehend how you can support billionaires but not FFP, especially considering all the negative things you've said you dislike, which billionaires bring to the game.
 

Jamie.

Member
Nov 7, 2009
2,992
0
0
www.fm-base.co.uk
Yeah to put it simply, Billionaires do great things for football clubs they bring prestige and really do help the local community with projects but FFP and its laws should target the problem in football of the source of expensive transfers and extortionate fees which is the agents.

You cap the fees you audit clubs books in an assosciation by assosciation basis work out who has the 'capacity' not the balance sheet to spend what and work from there. If you look at Valencias books this year the club is so far in the red because of 400 million euro debts that are pure toxic on the clubs finances. That is the thing I want FFP to work for, to stop clubs being irresponsible with funds and stop them going into the state of Valencia, Mallorca, Portsmouth, Sampdoria etc. Thats where it is desperately needed, it is a plan and I do agree with some points but too much is put on owners shoulders when in reality if the English FA grew a pair they could get our house in order so simply with a few regulations and a body set up to monitor all finances vetting and auditing working out the clubs capacity to spend, my hope was that FFP would target the agents I mean a simple agent fee cap would say premier league clubs an estimated 220 MILLION pounds a year it is ridiculous. And wages/transfer fees I hope will be cut because of this, but the FAs own homegrown rules have resulted in the over valuing of HG players, another option for clubs like Man City is to go to a PLC company over value its shares and buy at a ridiculously high price then sell back cheap like it never happened (Pumping money directly into the clubs holdings).

Can't wait to see if these work mind you, my worry really is that the gap will become too big from Europes elite to the next branch. Can you imagine the Champs League as well when you consider Inter,AC are nowhere near FFP compliant
 
Aug 1, 2009
3,414
0
36
33
How does the minimum wage do the opposite to what it's supposed to do?
Norway, which has not got a minimum wage, has a much higher effective minimum wage. Companies figure out they may actually be competing for the same labour, so they offer a bit more than what they think the work's worth. Simples.
 

sunilvk7

SAF greatest ever.
Dec 16, 2008
13,085
0
0
It is for good. It is logical that "Spend what you earn" instead of becoming someone's toy.

Hope FFP is introduced and stay for long time.
 

Joel`

Member
Jul 23, 2010
8,166
0
0
Norway, which has not got a minimum wage, has a much higher effective minimum wage. Companies figure out they may actually be competing for the same labour, so they offer a bit more than what they think the work's worth. Simples.
The whole theory behind the minimum wage is that you set it above the equilibrium market rate otherwise it does nothing at all. The minimum wage can create unemployment but it still fulfils its objective if needed in the market. Norway must just have a higher equilibrium wage than other countries, meaning it's not necessary. :)
 

curtis290

Member
Oct 9, 2010
1,203
1
36
33
I see what you're saying Curtis, but you're fighting a different fight here. Things like that aren't going to change, but surely, surely FFP is going in the right direction? It's not going to make the gap bigger by any stretch of the imagination. Surely, rules aimed at economic stability are better than just allowing clubs to make even bigger advantages financed by debts from banks? I just don't see how you can disagree with the FFP rules.
Yeah I dunno how I feel about it...it is good that they're making sure that football clubs are run sustainably, but I disagree with the idea that it won't make the gap bigger. I'm afraid it will screw over clubs like Valencia, Sevilla, etc. that don't have huge foreign fan bases. As well as keep the clubs in places other than England from keeping up with the huge spending of these clubs. I also have a funny feeling that the billionaire owners will have ways to get around this. You're right that I'm fighting a different fight but I don't see why it's impossible...I'd way rather have them put a transfer or salary cap in a league as opposed to the FFP.
 

Mike.

Moderator
Staff member
Feb 15, 2009
31,891
31
48
Yeah I dunno how I feel about it...it is good that they're making sure that football clubs are run sustainably, but I disagree with the idea that it won't make the gap bigger. I'm afraid it will screw over clubs like Valencia, Sevilla, etc. that don't have huge foreign fan bases. As well as keep the clubs in places other than England from keeping up with the huge spending of these clubs. I also have a funny feeling that the billionaire owners will have ways to get around this. You're right that I'm fighting a different fight but I don't see why it's impossible...I'd way rather have them put a transfer or salary cap in a league as opposed to the FFP.
what you are asking is realistically unachievable to be fair, can you ever see a salary cap coming. FFP isnt perfect, but its a lot better than what we have already, if only it had come in sooner
 

Joel`

Member
Jul 23, 2010
8,166
0
0
Yeah I dunno how I feel about it...it is good that they're making sure that football clubs are run sustainably, but I disagree with the idea that it won't make the gap bigger. I'm afraid it will screw over clubs like Valencia, Sevilla, etc. that don't have huge foreign fan bases. As well as keep the clubs in places other than England from keeping up with the huge spending of these clubs. I also have a funny feeling that the billionaire owners will have ways to get around this. You're right that I'm fighting a different fight but I don't see why it's impossible...I'd way rather have them put a transfer or salary cap in a league as opposed to the FFP.
A salary cap would be the death of European football in my opinion.
 

Jamie.

Member
Nov 7, 2009
2,992
0
0
www.fm-base.co.uk
Reason a wage cap is never going to happen in football: (Main of many reasons)
You would have to work out a guideline wage cap in proportion of Turnover percent-Wage bill, so a budget cap of say 20 pct of turnover for a club like Bolton would be minuscule in comparison to the bigger clubs turnover so the scenario arises that Manchester Uniteds cap would be 80-100 million and Bolton's would be 18-25 million. That's one of the reasons why it is practically impossible (too late) to enforce a salary cap in the Premier League, what UEFA CAN do however is simply put out legislation with a worldwide cap on agent fee's putting an end to that growing trend over night. Surely 1 million cap is more than sufficient, that is one piece of legislation football desperately needs.
 

curtis290

Member
Oct 9, 2010
1,203
1
36
33
what you are asking is realistically unachievable to be fair, can you ever see a salary cap coming. FFP isnt perfect, but its a lot better than what we have already, if only it had come in sooner
Well you never know, look at how much football has changed over the past 15 years. Also, maybe FFP could be the first step? I like the idea of making sure football clubs are sustainable (FFP), but I think it might make things worse in some ways, which is why I'm not a big fan of it (and it might not even stop the practices it wants to, I could see the billionaire owners getting around it), and for me, there are worse problems out there in football that I would rather see fixed...namely the domination of the world by the Big 4 and the inequality within the leagues.

A salary cap would be the death of European football in my opinion.
Why? It might be the death of English football (and for the rest of the Big 3) but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be great for the rest of the world.

Reason a wage cap is never going to happen in football: (Main of many reasons)
You would have to work out a guideline wage cap in proportion of Turnover percent-Wage bill, so a budget cap of say 20 pct of turnover for a club like Bolton would be minuscule in comparison to the bigger clubs turnover so the scenario arises that Manchester Uniteds cap would be 80-100 million and Bolton's would be 18-25 million. That's one of the reasons why it is practically impossible (too late) to enforce a salary cap in the Premier League, what UEFA CAN do however is simply put out legislation with a worldwide cap on agent fee's putting an end to that growing trend over night. Surely 1 million cap is more than sufficient, that is one piece of legislation football desperately needs.
You're outlining some of the reasons the FFP might put a strangehold on smaller clubs...but I wasn't calling for a salary cap related to the club's income, I'm asking for a flat salary cap (or transfer cap)...meaning none of the clubs can spend more than x amount on wages. Like they do in the NBA, NFL, NHL, MLS, etc.
 

Mike.

Moderator
Staff member
Feb 15, 2009
31,891
31
48
Well you never know, look at how much football has changed over the past 15 years. Also, maybe FFP could be the first step? I like the idea of making sure football clubs are sustainable (FFP), but I think it might make things worse in some ways, which is why I'm not a big fan of it (and it might not even stop the practices it wants to, I could see the billionaire owners getting around it), and for me, there are worse problems out there in football that I would rather see fixed...namely the domination of the world by the Big 4 and the inequality within the leagues.



Why? It might be the death of English football (and for the rest of the Big 3) but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be great for the rest of the world.



You're outlining some of the reasons the FFP might put a strangehold on smaller clubs...but I wasn't calling for a salary cap related to the club's income, I'm asking for a flat salary cap (or transfer cap)...meaning none of the clubs can spend more than x amount on wages. Like they do in the NBA, NFL, NHL, MLS, etc.
hasnt worked out too well in the MLS, and dont the NBA pay huge wages anyway?

And yes it would be the death of euro football, you think england is the only country with high wages? barcelona is the highest paid team in any team sport in the world. it would be terrible for european football
 
Last edited:

Joel`

Member
Jul 23, 2010
8,166
0
0
Why? It might be the death of English football (and for the rest of the Big 3) but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be great for the rest of the world.
Wages are high throughout Europe's top leagues, not just England. And when you account for the massive money that circulates football right now, a salary cap will be ineffective. The money's going to stay there, just because you limit the salary from y to x, doesn't prevent clubs just making y-x up in terms of signing on fees and bonuses.

Plus if we consider this doesn't happen, then you're capping wages below way below the equilibrium price. The NBA, NFL, NHL are all monopsony, so the players have no choice but to supply themselves at the capped rate. Football is worldwide, players will move around to where the money is, which wouldn't be Europe. Hence the death of European football.
 

Jamie.

Member
Nov 7, 2009
2,992
0
0
www.fm-base.co.uk
Clubs like Valencia would genuinely have no wage budget if you factored a wage cap into FFP, Barcelona etc all hold large debts but they service the debts more than capably each year with their huge turnover and operating profits. Valencias debt is into the 500 millions and is just increasing despite selling off assets last summer, FFP would means they need to break even to play in European competition but unlike City etc whocan more than service/clear their debts Valencia doesn't hold the capacity. They make a loss each week of the year and with no signs of new investment the club is already on the brink of bankruptcy, apart from selling more players that can't be changing since the interest rates on the loans increase when payments aren't made in full to creditors/mainly spanish banks.

So back on the point of a UEFA wide salary cap, it would kill Valencia because if you implemented it in to FFP and proportioned it to turnover they would have 5 euros of liquid funds free to pay players since they could not lend to pay the wage bill.

And I agree with the above points, it would be stupid to implement a salary cap but I say again Agent fee cap would be a simple easy solution and save the Premier League clubs alone an estimated 225 million pounds a year which goes to agents in contract negotiations/transfers.
You cap the fee allowed to be paid to say 1 million and decrease it down to 700k over a 4 year period it would save European clubs a heck of alot of money without damaging the 'product'.
 
Last edited:

curtis290

Member
Oct 9, 2010
1,203
1
36
33
Wages are high throughout Europe's top leagues, not just England. And when you account for the massive money that circulates football right now, a salary cap will be ineffective. The money's going to stay there, just because you limit the salary from y to x, doesn't prevent clubs just making y-x up in terms of signing on fees and bonuses.
Doesn't have to be like this. All you have to do is keep close track of a club's finances and be sure to include all signing on fees and bonsuses.

Wages are the highest in England (as a whole). The other leagues can't compete with England's wages, and the salaries in the other big 4 leagues are high also. If you put a salary cap in these 3, 4, or 5 leagues it won't make the other leagues dominate unfairly. Holland, Portugal, Turkey, etc. do not have the economies to support leagues with extremely high wage budgets that buy up the best players from the other leagues. What would happen if you put in a salary cap is salaries would decrease (meaning cheaper ticket prices) and players would much, much more likely to stay in their home countries to play. It would mean that football would look like what it did 20 years ago, where there was relative parity among the world's leagues and fans everywhere got to have great players in their own leagues.

Plus if we consider this doesn't happen, then you're capping wages below way below the equilibrium price. The NBA, NFL, NHL are all monopsony, so the players have no choice but to supply themselves at the capped rate. Football is worldwide, players will move around to where the money is, which wouldn't be Europe. Hence the death of European football.
Players move where the money is right now, which is in one of the Big 4. Put in a salary cap and they'll probably just play in their home countries, meaning football would be like it always was. All of the leagues were good and had their own local superstars. I do agree that it would suck for England, Spain, and Italy. Not only would the quality of play there drop drastically since they would be mostly watching domestic players (especially in England), they would no longer dominate European football like they do now. The Germans would be annoyed too with all of the foreign players leaving, but they would be glad to see German football start doing well in European competitions again (like they did before the Big 3 started bringing in all of the foreign players). Every other country would be thrilled that they would get to keep their domestically produced superstars and that they would be able to compete in European competitions with the clubs from the Big 3.

Football would look like it did for decades (there's nothing wrong with that) and it would be good for most European nations. I can't see how that would spell the "death of European football." I do agree that it would lead to there being less good players in Europe (because players from other continents would be more likely to stay at home), but I don't see how that's a bad thing (for the world).
 

Joel`

Member
Jul 23, 2010
8,166
0
0
That's a great ideology to have, apart from it destroying all modern economic theory, it's practically perfect.
 
Aug 1, 2009
3,414
0
36
33
The whole theory behind the minimum wage is that you set it above the equilibrium market rate otherwise it does nothing at all. The minimum wage can create unemployment but it still fulfils its objective if needed in the market. Norway must just have a higher equilibrium wage than other countries, meaning it's not necessary. :)
Well, it's hardly above the equilibrium market rate anyway;p The UK minimum just allows loads of companies to offer jobs at 6.08£ an hour because they're well aware that's what everyone else is offering. In Norway, hardly anyone would take a typical minimum wage job for less than 13£;p
 
Top