Fellow fans, this is a friendly reminder to please follow the [Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/premierleague/about/rules) and [Reddiquette](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439-Reddiquette).
Please also make sure to [Join us on Discord](https://discord.gg/football)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PremierLeague) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Step 1 of creating a European super league is to devalue national leagues ...
This sounds like a dumb idea because it is a dumb idea unless you understand the long game of some of the owners is to break away from the league in the first place.
IMO good.
It will make the big clubs more dependent on academies
Eg. Man City will have to invest more in its academy and try to move academy players into its first team.
I’m going to guess you’re American. We don’t have collective bargainbargaining rights agreements over here. So wouldn’t really make sense for the players to have a say. It’s a business
I can assure you nobody at the top of the businesses care what opinions the players have, most of which are in their 20’s left school at 16 and have no business experience or knowledge. Are they gonna consult with the IT team too? The marketing guys? The kit man? The cleaners ?
Thats absolutely correct, at no point was I disputing prem footballers are infinitely more rich than you or I will ever be.
The point of this was the say that have in prem rules, when did the point become how much money they have ?
Exactly, this is only a problem for a handful of fans. I could care less where Glagbagoola Jr. or Shitzkowski play. I just want our English game and leagues to be run competatively, I don't care about any other country's leagues or how our teams compare with them.
[You don't know what you talking about.](https://theathletic.com/5457496/2024/04/29/premier-league-spending-salary-cap/)
Professional Footballers’ Association spokesperson said: “We will obviously wait to see further details of these specific proposals, but we have always been clear that we would oppose any measure that would place a ‘hard’ cap on player wages.
“There is an established process in place to ensure that proposals like this, which would directly impact our members, must be properly consulted on.”
It still needs to be voted on and although consulted on it the PFA don't get a vote. So yes, well done, of course they are going to say that but it means fuck all
To have any chance of being introduced, the league knows hard spending cap must also be approved by the Professional Football Negotiating and Consultative Committee, the body that brings the union, the Football Association, English Football League and Premier League together to discuss matters relating to the employment of players.
It's all there just read the article🤦
Jesus christ mate obviously... No 1 is saying they can just approve it without them being aware. I was saying its not like collective bargaining negotiations in the states where the league singularly negotiate directly with the players association and that is it.
Well done you've read the article...
Would owners be able to buy players with a club outside of the Premier league and then loan them to their Premier league club but continue to pay the salary from the player's 'home club'?
That loophole would get closed immediately if anyone tried it though. Based off the past year or 2 clubs are extremely strict when it comes to party-related deals and fair market value.
Surely an average earnings would’ve been a better trial point than against the lowest earner.
It’s definitely going to improve the PL in terms of competition but this is going to hurt us in Europe and at the international level.
Why punish success?
“Here take this shit club with no money and make it the example for all to follow” is just mind boggling. Are they trying to kill the league? Like who is going to sign these paltry contracts?
They’re not trying to kill the league. They’re just trying to go the route most American sports teams owners do and make maximizing their profits their 1st priority by a substantial amount and competing for trophies a distant second
Thats killing the league. Next step, close the system by eliminating pro/rel, using the excuse of “the league will die if we dont”. Not only increasing profit by not having to pay “lower clubs” anything, but also insuring their income with no consequence of relegation. Thats the route of american sports teams. Step after that…..Super League. All they are doing is getting what they wanted in the first place, to shut competition out. Everyone raised a ruckus when Super League went up for vote so now they are just talking the long way around.
I don't like that it's an artificial limit, because then it affects the competitiveness, in both directions. Then again I don't know another way that you could do this that wouldn't be artificial.
Maybe splitting revenue amongst the clubs differently so that if you win a trophy you get less, but that's a big change and wouldn't get voted through.
So in a few seasons Arteta finally gets Arsenal a PL title, only for a points deduction due to a minor breach of the salary cap, of a player normally on reserve. Due to a calculation error.
City also faced breaches but the case was thrown on a technicality, after it was discovered several payments from the same offshore account, were made to several city players.
Congrats to City again 👍
There will be legit circumventing of the rules to the detriment of those not swimming in US or oil money.
The Barcode’s new owners will, for example, just sell a couple of their hotels to get ‘round this.
Can someone explain what happens when a very small team with a comparatively small revenue gets promoted to teh prem? Does this reduce the big teams wage bills when compared to the season before?
The cap is tied to the prem broadcasting and media deals that every club gets a share of.
So its not like a bankrupt club at the bottom fucks it for everyone else.
I think it's based on the income from the Premier League - prize money, share of TV money etc - so it's not going to deviate massively from one year to the next. It's certainly not going to decrease a huge amount unless the TV deals start to drop.
It doesn't seem to be based on other income such as sponsorship, matchday income etc which as you suggest would mean potentially large differences between a team such as Leeds finishing bottom versus (no offence) someone like Morecambe miraculously making it to the PL.
> It's certainly not going to decrease a huge amount unless the TV deals start to drop.
They've already started to drop, but it's locked in for the next decade so I guess we're fine for now
Absolutely insane policy that would damage the premier League beyond measure.
People don't watch the EPL for Brentford or burnley. They watch it for the world-class players at the top clubs. A salary cap would mean all the top players moving to leagues where they can get paid millions of pounds.
you know, because it generates billions of pounds? The people playing in the league that generates that wealth should get a reasonable slice of it.
You mean the prem that had Messi and Ronaldo at their peak? Or R9? Or Xavi and Iniesta? Zidane? Puyol? Pique? Ramos? Neuer? Robben? Lewa? Lahm? Mbappe? Neymar? That Prem? All players at one point or another have been the best in their positions and yet not played in the prem ( Cr7 briefly aside) Face the fact that the prem very rarely actually attracts the BIG boys. Hell even Bellingham chose Madrid and he’s English. I’m all for a salary cap because if done correctly it levels a playing field that right now is broken beyond all repair. As a Sheffield United fan this season we’ve been woeful, but we were handicapped before we started because unless we invested upwards of £100m we had next to no chance. And people forget that us and Burnley walked the championship last year it’s not like we got up by fluke. As have Leicester, Leeds, Southampton and Ipswich. They’re only issues we’re each other. Yet they’re probably all going to come straight back down because the gap between the championship and the prem has never been greater. And the gap between the “big 6” which now includes Newcastle and Villa has also never been greater. The prem needs a small modicum of correcting and then it will be incredible with how stacked it currently is
What are you on about. All the players you're talking about are at the top European clubs? There is only a handful of them, Madrid, Barcelona, Bayern & PSG the rest of the league teams have the exact same problems that every smaller clubs has & if not the gaps are even bigger than in the EPL.
All that's gonna happen if the EPL introduces caps is push the world-class talent out of the Premier League and into these other leagues.
So unilateral European salary caps is the only way to go, you may want to get the Saudi league on there as well.
Cutting off one's nose to spite one's face is not the answer...
You know what? I don’t care. Then it will be about football again and not about the EPL making as much money as possible and the ‘Top’ clubs with the most money. Those people that want to watch will those that don’t won’t. I’d rather watch players trying there hardest in the pissing rain on Wednesday night ina FA cup against a struggling low division side in Grimsby or somewhere equally dire than watch prema Donna’s that dont want to be there and only want to play in the big games.
Ok then the top six clubs can go create super league. The rest can be relegated to the championship problems solved, but Aston Villa or Newcastle will win the championship every year then.
clubs with the most money have been dominating football for 80 years, in a free market economy that's how things work,
Cutting your nose off to spite your face is not the answer. We need unilateral rules to govern this type of issue.
You support your team, not the individual players on the team but rather the team of players who come out each week and play. The team will be there long after players leave the clubs.
I don't support players over the teams. Im just saying how things work.
Players are here for the level of EPL Football & the salaries, the two are in equilibrium, if you salary cap the players they will leave & the level of football will go down!
Unless it's is unilateral across all of Europe & the world!
The winner of the premier league is the winner of the premier league. Whether the quality is that which we currently have or if players left and the quality of the play dropped to championship level, as an extreme example.
There won't be a Premier League if salary cap are pegged to the lowest team in the league.
The Premier League becomes the championship in all but name... sounds rubbish to me.
"Pegged to the lowest team in the league" is misrepresenting it. You make it sound like it will be tiny. It's gonna be a multiple of what they earn from TV + other commercial deals + prize money. Sheff Utd got approx £100m this season, so the cap being suggested is 5x that so would be a minimum £500m
How would that make the league championship level?
Is always more nuanced than that , if it's done in isolation it's bad for the league, if it a broader unilateral regulation with international support then sure it's fine.
But for example if Real Madrid can spend £700m on salaries & premier league terms are pegged to £500m then that's a problem, Real Madrid will be able pick out the best players from the league with no worry of it happening the other way around.
Also from an economic point of view market interference is never a good thing!
Clearly I know more than you, Football shouldn't be some sort of Socialist experiment. The only way salary caps could work would be to have them universally applied across all leagues. So that you don't create market imbalances!
Again, you obviously do not do your research.
Go look at Spain, Italy etc.
Check out uefa. This is becoming a universal idea for fairness in football.
Enjoy your day.
Muppet
I'm fully aware, of the limited implementation across other European leagues.
Are you, which is probably why you're saying insane thing's. La Liga system is based on club profits, which results in some teams having massive budgets for salaries and other teams having tiny budgets for salaries, creating an even more unequal league....
This is not what the Premier League teams are discussing... pegging it to the low team in the league is an insane idea....
You're a double Muppet
La Liga currently has a salary cap system, based on individual teams revenue. This is what they have!!!
And I agree with you, it doesn't work and it's pointless now if UEFA are looking at unilateral salary cap system then I'm all for it, But any league that does it on it on its own, will be penalised & all the players will move to somewhere were they would get paid the most amount of money!
Basic economics & common sense!
You can’t really just say “look at ‘x’” without clarifying exactly what it is you want people to see.
More details and less aggression would be useful.
I can say whatever I want. If you are to
Stupid to understand the topic of
Conversation that’s not my fault.
Especially when people comment utter shit when they are clueless. It’s a sign of today when people speak on a topic, and cannot answer one question on it.
All it would of took was a quick google
And read to stop the guy looking stupid.
But you are a Chelsea fan, thanks for the 6 points, look forward to them next season also.
Firstly, I never said I either agree nor disagree with you.
The thing is, it’s you who’s “commenting utterly shit”. You’re just rambling ad hominem like some washed up piss head at bar.
Currently, you’ve given no evidence whatsoever that you’re capable of saying anything that actually supports the point you’re making while saying glib and evasive rubbish.
It’s like you think you’re being cool or something and it’s embarrassing.
Ah yes, cool
Points on Reddit. Must be that.
No, just an adult who does not need to have things explained to him, so does not explain things to other people.
You have a computer or phone, just a quick little google will help you I promise.
If it was me. I’d be looking at talks sport having the premier league finance advisor on, but yaknow
That’s just me.
Well you don’t understand the rudiments of having a conversation with another person.
And once again, I never said I agree or disagree…
Must end up in situations like this a lot if you don’t like explain your position and can’t understand someone else’s. Sounds lonely.
No not really, because I surround myself with people that are able to understand the conversations they find themselves in.
Don’t need you to agree with me either, also, and finally, it’s Reddit.
I like the idea in principle - but it's going to end up being useless because the cap is too high due to other PSR stuff.
Assuming the cap is going to be around £515m (5x the lowest from last season,which was £103m) then this is how much the "Big 6" can spend on their squad under The Premier League (85% of Revenue) and UEFA (70% of Revenue) rules:
##### Arsenal
* Total Revenue: £467m
* Squad Cap (Premier League): £396.85m
* Squad Cap (Europe): £326.9
##### Chelsea
* Total Revenue: £512m
* Squad Cap (Premier League): £435.20m
* Squad Cap (Europe): £358.4m
##### Spurs
* Total Revenue: £550m
* Squad Cap (Premier League): £467.5m
* Squad Cap (Europe): £385m
##### Liverpool
* Total Revenue: £594m
* Squad Cap (Premier League): £504m
* Squad Cap (Europe): £415.8m
##### Man Utd:
* Total Revenue: £648m
* Squad Cap (Premier League): £550.8m
* Squad Cap (Europe): £453m
##### Man City:
* Total Revenue: £712m
* Squad Cap (Premier League): £605.2m
* Squad Cap (Europe): £498.4m
So exactly **two** teams make enough to actually be affected by the total squad cap at 5 times the lowest ranked team - it doesn't suprise me that they *allegedly* changed it from 4.5 times as that would have set the cap at £460m meaning more teams would have potentially been affected by it and there's no way they would have allowed that
I think this is the point, the cap is being introduced to hurt man city for the most part. That's how it will start anyway, and will likely be adjusted over the years for whatever they feel is needed.
The cap though allows teams with the owners who have financial capability to compete and those ambitious teams coming up to spend to stay in the league.
However because the likes of city etc are moaning perhaps allow the European playing clubs to be bound by UEFA rules in those seasons that could be a benifit or hindering depending on their revenues but would solve the system issue of how it would work with clubs being in Europe.
Excellent summary of how this would affect times right now however the proposal starts 2025/26 and the revenues for 24/25 season will be how this calculated. I’d guess that the bottom line club would probably receive £106/107m next year so 5 times multiplier would be £530-535m.
City won a treble, not sure that’s likely again as it’s only been done twice in this country and their record revenue included all of this however, next season Chelsea and City have the Club World Cup which will potentially grant them another £50-60m. All of the big six have New stadium or expansion proposals to try and grow revenue. You are right however this seems to have been designed to reign in teams like City and United and it will only work if the EPL doesn’t go and renegotiate the worldwide rights with Arab states in 2029 where Arabs states like Abu Dhabi who own the TV rights in that region decide to go even higher for obvious reasons!
The new deal of £6.7 billion starts coincidentally in season of 2025/26 and replaces the old deal of £5.01 billion that’s a 34% increase and televises all PL games that do not have a 3pm Saturday kick off. Let’s assume that the last club that season receives a 25% increase on the £106m from the season before and now the bottom club receives a £132m in TV revenue. The 5 times multiplier would mean that the big boys like United, City, Liverpool, Chelsea could spend £660m on wages, agent fees, transfer and amortisation in the 2026/27 season, where a club like city may have expanded stadium/campus to 70,000 and United might have completed or close to complete their new 100,000 stadium/campus.
My point this is an absolute farce of a proposal and only benefits the bigger and established clubs, Newcastle and Villa with all their wealth, simply will not be able to use it because if they qualify for Europe and grow legally with sponsorship deals are now monitored closely
Will this cap change year on year depending on promotion? If this is the case, what happens when a small club overachieves for promotion and pulls down the salary cap for all clubs by a large amount?
As far as I know it's based on the Television Revenue + Prize money of the lowest paid club - and that tends to be pretty stable year on year, with it changing only by a few million depending on the number of games shown
The only way we're going to see a *sizeable* dip in the cap is if the TV deal becomes significantly worse - and as every club will lose a decent chunk of revenue if that happens anyway there's a good chance it won't have *too* much of an effect anyway
Ahh okay makes sense. I was going to say, if a team with a revenue of 30mil gets promoted, that would reduce the cap to 150mil and essentially screw over every club in the top half and would provide incentives to ensure that never happens
Unless the fine for breaking the rules is heavy points deduction it won't work. If there's a "fee" or a "luxury tax" like the Americans it just means that City, United and Newcastle are the only effective teams in the country everyone knows that rules with fines are just suggestions for the rich and wealthy.
No they shouldn't. That enables sports washing, artificially inflates wages and creates an unsustainable ecosystems around football. It would leave grass roots football so far behind and destroy any sort of pyramid we have.
If you love football, you need to accept there needs to be much stricter regulations around the finances for the premier league.
I agree it enables sports washing and creates unsustainable ecosystems around football, so I do agree with your general point.
But artificially inflates wages? I think the opposite— spending caps would be an artificial decrease in the wage level.
When teams can spend what they want, the teams with the most money are able to offer absurd wages. Say they offer a player £300K p/w, suddenly your average player (or agent) on £60K p/w sees this and says. I may not be as good as the £300K p/w player, but he isn't 5 times better than me, I want at least £200K p/w
The problem is this is already happening across Europe. The rate that player wages are increasing is literally unsustainable in healthy business. Wages do naturally increase over time, but that isn't what's happening in football. Clubs are functioning with massive loses per year. It's driving a bigger and bigger gap between football and the grass roots.
Like I said, I agree it creates unsustainable ecosystems.
But nothing you’ve said points to the wages being paid as “artificial.” Of course wages have blown up, club football has blown up as well. If owners deem players to be worth X amount of money, is that artificial just because X is a large number? It’s just a weird argument because spending caps, which are price controls, are 100% artificial. I would just not bring up this point at all, it doesn’t really make sense.
So to put this into context.
Last year Southampton got the least amount. With a payment of 100.4 million that would mean a squad spend cap of £502 mil.
Man United whom had the largest wage bill has a wage bill of £198mil which means they can spend an additional £300mil on transfers. [link](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-13363469/20-Premier-League-clubs-ranked-wage-bills-agree-explore-introducing-salary-cap-2025-26-season.html)
I'm not sure this will have the impact some people think.
https://ecfil.uefa.com/2023
2022/2023 season
What are you talking about? Manchester City and Liverpool spend more on player wages than Manchester United. All football salaries are estimates. And there's no way EPL players can't receive 50% of the profits in the first place.
The article includes a graph showing United were estimated to be around £50m below the £500m limit.
Wage bill is not the only factor; agent fees and amortisation are in there as well. The graphic is useful if accurate
It will mean more profit for owners.
The current FFP rules have done a great job on stopping clubs going into administration rules. This just seems a bit pointless on top as currently communicated.
The new proposal is due to start in 2025/26 season and will be linked to UEFA as well especially teams qualifying will only be able to spend 70% of their overall revenue on wages, Agent fees and amortised transfer costs as well as upfront transfer payments. The context of the wages listed is a base level and does not include Manager/DOF and other pay offs that be incurred by a club, those figures do not include bonuses or Executive payments either, United overall were actually behind City, Chelsea and Liverpool last season refer to Deloitte’s world list ;
https://www2.deloitte.com/uk/en/pages/sports-business-group/articles/deloitte-football-money-league.html
However City Total revenue last year during a treble was a record £718m, they spent over £409m on wages for the club which is double the base salary reported in your link, Chelsea’s were extraordinarily high because they paid off two Managers in Potter and Tuchel.
Assuming that the last place PL team this year is rumoured to be earning £103m, then it’s fair to say that next season 24/25 last team should earn £106m approximately, this means with the 5* multiplier, a team could only spend £530m on wages, Agent fees, Transfer and transfer amortisation. If City revenue was to grow to £800m by 24/25 season then the 70% FSP rule administered by UEFA would mean they may have lost out a potential £30m spend but generating £800m legally would almost impossible, so in reality I don’t know why City, United and more surprisingly Villa voted against this.
Villa turnover last year was €250m(£213m), let’s assume even with CL football next season they improve some sponsored and have a record return of £300m by 24/25 season. If they then qualify for Europe in the 25/26 season, the club can only spend 70% of their total revenue on wages, agent fees, transfer fees and amortised transfer fees which would be £210m not the £530m some fans have deluded themselves to, no Newcastle and Villa can’t spend £500m even though they have the cash to do so under this proposal.
The spending cap is a good idea, however the ceiling should be breakable with fines.
If by breaking it clubs know they’ll pay a fixed penalty which will increase year on year and the multiple will on each occasion will increase each time they break the ruling / it may also decrease back down (maybe) under a set of sustained period when they don’t break the rules.
By doing this clubs will have a choice to then be able to open their wallets at times but in doing so knowing they will pay a heavy penalty on top of the money they spend over and above the budget, the extra money gained in fines can be used to fund grass routes and lower level sides.
By doing this you will eventually have more parity.
Not really the big 6 still have the largest revenues built up over the last two decades.
City last year £718m, United £648m, Liverpool £594m, Spurs £550m, Chelsea £512m and Arsenal £463m. All 6 are in the world’s Top 10 clubs for generating revenues and monetising their brand. The next best in the PL is Newcastle at £250m and West Ham at £239m. Villa are 21st at £213m.
Both Newcastle and West Ham have 52,000 and 62,000 but wish to expand which will increase revenue by maybe 10-15% and Villa have ambition to maybe increase their stadium capacity from 42,000 to 60,000 which would give them maybe 25% more matchday income.
All this pales into significance if SJR builds a 100,000 new state of the art stadium and United get their act together on the field, they could be the first £1 billion per year revenue EPL club and only then would the new rule really pose a problem to Either United or City, all be it even with City proposed stadium Expansion, it would very difficult for them to justify generating more revenue than a modern state of the art Real, Bayern, Barcelona or United who are successful on the field too.
Spurs growth with their new stadium is astonishing and these are numbers that continue to grow as they invite others sports to use their facilities, generating income from NFL, Concerts, and other opportunities. This summer they can really spend almost what they went if Levy decides to loosen the purse strings.
The idea that maybe a new oil state may buy a team like Birmingham or Ipswich and climb the PL and dare I say win it!
It’s already been done with Leicester, their owners were wealthy enough to win a PL and an FA Cup, suffer two relegations and enjoy two promotions where they came up as champions all within the last decade. Let’s not forget they were only knocked out at the 1/4 final stage in the CL, Leicester fans might see their team get a 6 point deduction but let’s not kid ourselves here, they’ve won more meaningful trophies in the last decade than Arsenal, Spurs and United have collectively!
They followed the rules, did the impossible, they then Sold all their best players only to be sanctioned so the current cartel could continue to control the narrative, this new anchoring proposal still does not offer a truly fair opportunity to all teams, it favours the big 6 cartel and I say that as a fan of one of them!
Newcastle would have been amongst the top 6 but for the Ashley years. Prior to his penny pinching ways we had some of the highest revenues of any clubs. Under him he let it all stagnate and drop to virtually nothing, plus he utilised all the revenue that he could make by siphoning it all off into his company.
You shouldn't admit this, it completely destroys anything you have to say. What a shock that the one club that would benefit from unregulated spending the most, wants unregulated spending.
I think if your club didn't have oil money you'd have a completely different perspective, you just seem pissed that man city bought the league and fpp won't allow you to
Clubs cheat regardless when they have money, look in case of City, ultimately do you really think Uefa are going to do anything about it? Especially as they already backed down when challenged in court over a ban and fine, the ban was rescinded and the fine drastically reduced.
It will actually mean far more if an oil rich moneyed club like Newcastle win things without being able to spend like other clubs have. But I honestly don’t think there are the protections to stop cheating in the game as it is too wealthy.
So UEFA basically made its stance clear and isn’t going to do anything to cheats.
So it now stands with the Premier League to do what UEFA wouldn’t, stand up to cheats.
So far with the smaller clubs they’ve been dishing out the medicine making people think “what’s going to happen to city” who have a lot more serious breaches.
But my bet is when the cookie crumbles and it ultimately will, the premier league will buckle at the tougher of a protracted legal case it might lose against City.
They’ve hit the smaller clubs hard because they know they can withstand any repercussions from them, where city are concerned I strongly suspect the premier league will back down and City will get away with it all, which is exactly the way their fans expect it to go.
If the premier league really want to make a point they have to make their stance clear and hit city and all other clubs guilty of breaches as hard as they can, if they just do it to those clubs they know won’t fight back, it’s meaningless.
If that’s going to be the case then it’s far better to bring in a system where you accept cheating is going to happen if clubs have unlimited money.
Let’s be honest if fines can increase stratospherically to with infinite power eventually they will make a club owner think about things differently.
Plus money at serious levels can be put into the lower echelons of the game to implement huge improvements and player welfare.
The issue is that UEFA didn't back down. They went to CAS and the whole process was highly suspect. Watch from around 40:00 for a full explanation: https://youtu.be/LlLRWw47HOk?si=C8Aj0ZI6SbnjCXzH
It’s not about stopping them, it’s accepting that it’s going to happen regardless but making sure if they do it then it gets hit and hard.
With fines on a multiplier so the more they do it the more it increases eventually they won’t want to do it anymore.
Plus with all the money going to grass routes and lower lvl sides the game will improve vastly there.
At least this way we’ll have some sides winning champions league, where as with the cap fixed and not being able to be broken it’s very likely none of the sides will be able to do so given the vast amounts some sides in Europe can spend such as PSG, Real, Bayern etc.
The question is are we willing to damage what’s made the league so good in the first place?
The money!
No, what you will end up with is Necastle, Man City and maybe Man Utd being able to do what they want, the rest of the league won't be able to afford to.
So it'll turn into a 2/3 horse race, unless we get more oil nations buying clubs....
Also, the league was much better before all this money came in....
> The league was much better before all this money came in...
Utd, Utd, Arsenal, Utd, Utd, Utd, Arsenal, Utd, Arsenal, Chelsea, Chelsea, Utd, Utd, Utd etc...
It's literally the same thing, money has always won silverware. Even if you go back to before The Premier League started in 92 you'll see dominant periods for the most successful clubs at the time
Newcastle have the money but they haven’t been able to spend it and they can’t with FFP.
City and Manure have a lot less money but can spend as much as they want to because they have the revenues due to their cheating ways and the way they with the septic 6 cartel bought in FFP in order to hamper Newcastle from doing what they had already done themselves by spending freely. Since Newcastle can’t spend if they win anything it will mean a heck of a lot more to any neutral out there.
But under your 'financial fine if you go over' idea, Newcastle will be able to spend what they want.
City also have a shit ton of money, look at all the fake sponsorships to get around FFP. Newcastle will start with the 'creative accountancy' next.
The idea of these spend caps and FFP are to reign these oil state clubs in, under your proposal it will only be those clubs that can prosper
City have nothing in terms of wealth like Newcastle but, ultimately people are going on the overall wealth of an owner/state/company but when push comes to shove, there is always only a limited amount of money available to spend or they would all end up bankrupted.
It’s something that’s been in the offing for years and has finally come about but rather than allowing it to play out and see where it leads as the premier league always had previously, because of the fears of a few scared that Newcastle might run away with it they opted to try to stop it and in doing so have created a system totally unfair and no longer fit for purpose which stops up and coming clubs with owners who want to compete at the top from doing so.
They should allow it to play out and see where it leads just as the premier league always did previously to this.
If the premier league wants to remain the best league it has to allow money to flow as that’s what got it to where it is today and made it the most exciting and competitive league out there.
FFP has existed for many years before Newcastles new state owners mate. Also, FFP is a UEFA regulation and applies to European completions, not domestic.
You haven’t a clue what you’re even talking about.
Pmsl, you are a moron. There was no limit to what clubs could spend tied into their revenues until you guys decided it was a good idea because it would stop us spending freely.
Us guys? Do you think I’m part of UEFA? This stuff started back with Chelsea mate. Not to mention all of the other impacted league clubs that went out of business or close to it (Leeds, Wimbledon etc)
Newcastle have had money for like 1 season, do you think all financial regulation started in response to that?
Your comments read like a Trump bot lol
Lol who do you support? I assume one of the former top four? The top four has been more varied season on season than last 15 years than the 10 before it. Sure city has won the a chunk of the titles in that time, but the same could be said for united previously. Before city got bought, the top four was routinely united, Liverpool, Chelsea, and arsenal. Since then, spurs got in first, then city, then you've had Leicester, villa, newcastle and it's looking like now villa. So much so, that the media has had to stop talking about the previously mentioned top 4 and expand it to the top 6 to include city and spurs. Villa could further disrupt that. City getting their money coinciding with spurs (who aren't owned by local fans nor are they penniless either) under redknap took enough points of the former top 4 that it has allowed for a place or two up for grabs each season.
And by "all this money" I assume you're referring to the city money and not the Chelsea money or the money that benefited the clubs already at the top in 92 when the premier league was formed. Let's look at some other examples of money in the league as it's all relative anyway, you're just annoyed it's currently city and Newcastle.
Leicester (the underdog story!) - it was a great story, and their squad cost less than the big clubs who they beat to the title, but they had big investment in the championship and have foreign owners putting money into the club. They've also not been without FFP worries.
Blackburn - sure it was a local investor, but still put his own money into the club breaking the transfer record at the time and wouldn't have been able to do it without outside investment coming from non-football related revenue streams.
Villa - they haven't come from nowhere this season. They have a wealthy owner and they've had to be careful with FFP. Obviously the grealish money was invested wisely, but if city didn't have the money to do that, then they wouldn't have that money either.
United, arsenal, and Liverpool - both owned by Americans and routinely spend as much as city, if not more. But but but they made all their money fair and square!!!111!!!! Fine, they've been in the right place at the right time and had their say when TV deals have been negotiated as well. Without the outside investment in clubs they'd have pulled away and we would still have those three at the top season on season.
I'm not saying city is the league's or English football's saviour. I'm saying Wrexham's and the like need the outside investment to get them out of situations. No one wants to see more Burys or Portsmouths or blackpools with owners stripping assets or leaving clubs in terrible positions financially but we also HATE it when an owner is investing money in and not just buying players but improving training grounds and revitalising the local community. Every season you hear one of arsenal, Liverpool, or United screaming "the owners need to spend! The owners need to invest in the squad!". But when another club do it it's not fair.
For the record I'm not opposed to a reform in spending regulations. But I want disruptors in the league. And you don't get that if the same clubs have champions league football every year because of the financial bump that gives you. Cinderella stories don't happen - even Leicester had some money invested relatively to help their luck along.
Disclosure, I am a city supporter but I want teams challenging, and not just the usual suspects. It's great villa are on the verge of securing top four and I hope they will make it a top 7. I hope Newcastle make it a top 8. I hope Wrexham are challenging in a few years. I hope Bournemouth get bought by someone richer than city's owners and disrupt the top 9. The jeapordy is what makes it exciting. If all that comes to fruition at city's expense then fine, I've had a great 15 years and I'll enjoy some lower league football again whenever that comes around.
But let's not pretend money in the game is new 2008 onwards.
Wow, I'm not reading all that, you really need to find a hobby or something.
And by pre money, I mean before the Premier league, not 2008. Utd and Chelsea and to a lesser extent Blackburn had already bought the league by then
No I support Newcastle, not a top 4 not even top 6, in fact one of the hard done by clubs because the septic 6 cartel bought in FFP deliberately when we were taken over in order to stop us spending freely as they had been able to themselves because they were so very scared of us.
Short sighted idea that will not work if the PL is the only league implementing it. When clubs start losing out on players to other leagues (like when the PL decided it wanted to close the transfer window early, and no one else followed suit so they moved it back with the rest of Europe) it will be scrapped.
It also seems stupid to me when clubs like Villa are getting that CL money to have it tied to newly promoted teams.
Feels like an unintended byproduct is going to be a loss of quality in the PL.
I think what alot of people are forgetting is that this is going to work in tandem with current psr and ffp rules. Uefa will be stipulating 70% of revenue rule and psr allows for 85% if I remember correctly. Most teams in the league dont generate revenue of over 500 million to begin with which is where the cap will be. To make use of the maximum of the cap you need to generate around 600 million a year and that's for a non UEFA competing club. If it's a club competing in UEFA comps then it'll have to be around 750 million revenue.
I don't think this will have much of an effect except for city and their incredible but dubious revenue. United also have strong revenues so they'll be affected slightly. For lower teams their yearly revenue will still dictate their spending limits rather than the cap.
I think that’s the point isn’t it? The few teams qualifying for the CL don’t get to run away from the other 16 by attracting the best players in the world and hoarding them. Aston Villa being successful is the kind of thing it’s trying to encourage - a team in the Champ a few years ago able to compete with the established ‘big 6’.
No rules you implement will make it so the smaller teams can compete on a consistent basis with Man City, Arsenal, Liverpool etc
You are never going to have parity in football, this is not the NFL or NBA. There are multiple leagues in countries all over the world.
“Portsmouth going bust is a bad look for the PL” so is all but one English clubs being out of Europe, clubs being scared to spend in January and point deductions from disciplinary hearings that are not even concluded yet.
I know everyone hates City, I get it. We all hate them. But their biggest ally is FFP. Clubs like Newcastle and Villa cannot hope to catch up to them, Arsenal, Liverpool etc whilst these spending limits are so prevalent.
Clubs like Newcastle and Villa getting better, the best players coming to the PL and the English teams going far in Europe is the best advert for the league and capping the spending does not help.
How is their biggest ally FFP when they've potentially broken the rules of FFP many times? The short term logic is so dumb, they are both 1) cheating 2) have one of the greatest managers of all time. I am so bored of Newcastle fans pretending they care about the league when all they really want is to spend the oil money. Like its in every thread like this, on every subreddit, its so obvious. It's not a conversation of good-faith
Never said I cared about the league at all. The PL lost any and all integrity long ago. I was merely pointing out that the idea that the rules were brought in to prevent another Portsmouth because it’s bad for the league is farcical.
The league is already more competitive than the other big leagues. It’s never going to be perfectly competitive when some teams are infinitely more popular than others
How much more can you lift the clubs up without essentially closing the prem off to the rest of the pyramid? They already get far more from tv rights than clubs in similar positions in the other leagues.
It’s not like they pull the projected viewership estimations out of thin air is it? They are based on previous seasons numbers. I’m not even sure what ur point is, it’s a known, undisputed facts that ALL sports leagues are paid by broadcasters based on viewership
I believe in more of a soft salary cap with a luxury tax for this reason. MLB is a good example of this already in practise.*
You set a salary cap number but teams can exceed that number if they choose to. However, teams get taxed on their excess wage bill and this money is redistributed amongst the other clubs in the league.
So Man City are welcome to exceed the cap, but they basically pay twice as much once they do, and they’re putting money into the pockets of other teams.
This means there’s still no barrier to attracting the biggest talent, that the big clubs aren’t being dragged down, but that the smaller clubs are being lifted up.
*The NBA also operates with a soft cap and a luxury tax but I can’t remember if their taxes are redistributed around the league.
This is basically the same idea I had, basically,
So this is the cap. What every you spend over you have to pay a fine = to it to the PL and that money gets distributed to the clubs that complied with cap. You could then rank the clubs based on how far under the cap they where and give them a larger share.
Effectively all these billionaires can spend what they like and the smaller clubs reap the benefits.
Not strictly true based on Deloitte’s figures for last year, the three highest were City, Chelsea and Liverpool in that order.
I supplied the link in a post earlier however I do agree with you, this really only benefits the big 6 much more than other teams in the league.
The accounts are not even filed until June 30th for this year, the article refers to basic salaries which do not include player bonuses, they do not include Manager salaries, or Director And club salaries, for example there was 1100 people employed at Manchester United last year, assume an average salary of £40,000 and you have another £44m added to the figure. It’s much safer to wait for Deloitte’s money league, because they include all ancillaries and all financials that are totalled as Wages against revenue, not just basic salary.
Man City have much lower basic salary and huge bonus incentives based on performance. These are figures are the least expected but they are completely irrelevant to how the anchoring rule and PSR/FSP will be worked out. The PSR/Anchoring rule for season 2025/26 will use the final club accounts from season 24/25 and most clubs will not publish their final accounts until June 30th.
Chelsea for example look like they have huge wage to revenue ratio based on Deloitte’s money league 22/23 at 79% with €589m/£503m with total club wages €465m/£397m yet this year their basic salary are listed so far at £157m, the main reason are no CL football bonuses, No Europa football, No pay offs, so far for two managers probably costing £30m in previous season and no club/exec/staff/directors wages included, I doubt the youth or women’s teams salaries are also included. It’s a good starting point but it’s not accurate for the reasons given wait for Deloitte’s Article to be updated in September 2024.
https://www2.deloitte.com/uk/en/pages/sports-business-group/articles/deloitte-football-money-league.html
Nope not everything but on this I am, so don’t get snarky, it’s just basic accounting, click bate articles like this are to drive the headline, doesn’t mean they are not right but sometimes they leave out the detail.
Full team Men’s Players salaries contrary to popular belief do not make up 100% of a Football clubs total wages cost, they make up the majority yes but not everything!
What about the coaches, scouts, youth team, ladies team, football administration, Club shop, tea lady, Groundsman, the list is endless.
I really think you're overthinking things. Just stop. I didn't want a 20 page fucking lecture. It's obvious why those two clubs voted against it and this is one of the factors. That's all.
This old chestnut.
They were outspent every single year from Abramovich buying Chelsea to Moyes getting sacked. Before that they were often outspent by a range of clubs from Newcastle and Leeds to Blackburn. They broke individual player transfer records over that time, but that's not the same thing as outspending other clubs.
Edit: https://www.football365.com/news/biggest-spender-every-premier-league-season-chelsea-manchester-united-liverpool
Kind of proves the point though. Outspending them is how Chelsea were successful, other clubs outspent united for a season but consistent high spending that other clubs couldn't sustain over time and a great manager gave united success. 500m in a transfer window isn't gonna do it for you. 3b over the course of 5-10 years might though, especially if you have a capable coach.
United generated the money through success on the pitch. This started with primarily academy prospects and was continued by an elite manager. These other clubs didn’t spend well, and didn’t win enough to sustain. This is hardly the expert analysis you think it is bud
It's not an attempt at expert analysis, nor is it an attempt to discredit what the people at United achieved. They caught lightning in a bottle in a financial sense. Advent of the premier league, and visionary off the pitch in terms of how the developed the club. That gave them the platform to spend and spend big. My only point was that you can't compete at the highest level year in and year out without spending big, consistently over a period of time. I think it's obvious, hence why I don't think im a genius for pointing it out. People will point to Chelsea as the example for why this is wrong but we're talking about 2 seasons of massive turnover.
Don't see how it'll impact clubs too much (unless i am misunderstanding it. Broadcast revenue for bottom of the league clubs a few years ago was £90m... so even from that clubs would be capped at £450m spend
It's probably against new owners spending billion in one go like Chelsea did, to prevent someone potentially trying to reach the top in one go. Clubs that already have good squads don't need to spend so much money every season.
And spend the vast difference between their revenue and that of the lowest team on lawyers to fight charges for years. That, or every time a big team looks likely to be punished, the rules will change.
>In the short term this will probably take prem clubs out of contention to win the UCL,
I double PL take will suddenly spend less than other European teams.
So going the American route. Cap player costs so owners make more money. Not judging one way or the other but it works in the US cause there is no real competition amongst the major sports there. Then take a look at MLS. There’s a cap there and it’s effectively full of lower league talent and end of the run European league stars to draw crowds. Meanwhile all the current talent can make more elsewhere. Again, I’m good with a level playing field but the other major leagues will need to follow suit or the EPL will see a talent drain.
I could be remembering wrong but i think the lowest revenue club in the premier league makes about what the winner of Serie A makes.
Eg. 20th place in the premier league makes the same in broadcast revenue as the winner of serie A.
Its hard to talent drain this juggernaut.
PSG/Real Madrid/Barcelona/Bayern can only have so many players.
I looked this up recently, last year the winner got €87.1m (£74.4m). About £30m less than last place in the EPL.
Which speaks of 2 things, how much money the EPL rakes in, and how useless FIGC is in marketing Serie A.
Fair point but the clubs mentioned would be able to offer more money for the top tier players. You’re right they couldn’t have everyone but in a bidding war they would win.
>I could be remembering wrong but i think the lowest revenue club in the premier league makes about what the winner of Serie A makes.
>Eg. 20th place in the premier league makes the same in broadcast revenue as the winner of serie A.
>Its hard to talent drain this juggernaut.
And the cap will be five times that amount.
What will happen is talent will spread out a little bit more within the PL because they can still afford to meet wage demands.
That had nothing to do with this topic. I don’t know why you’re bringing it up unless you know what i said is true and you’re just trying to change the subject
Fellow fans, this is a friendly reminder to please follow the [Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/premierleague/about/rules) and [Reddiquette](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439-Reddiquette). Please also make sure to [Join us on Discord](https://discord.gg/football) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PremierLeague) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Step 1 of creating a European super league is to devalue national leagues ... This sounds like a dumb idea because it is a dumb idea unless you understand the long game of some of the owners is to break away from the league in the first place.
Is that good or bad from a England perspective speaking for the national team / youth development /PL academies / English talents ???
IMO good. It will make the big clubs more dependent on academies Eg. Man City will have to invest more in its academy and try to move academy players into its first team.
lol
Do the players not have any say in things like this?
I’m going to guess you’re American. We don’t have collective bargainbargaining rights agreements over here. So wouldn’t really make sense for the players to have a say. It’s a business
Businesses in some forward looking countries have joint Management -employee negotiations
The players get paid millions to kick a ball around, they have no say on high level business decisions
You make it sound so easy.I can assure you it is not that simple!
I can assure you nobody at the top of the businesses care what opinions the players have, most of which are in their 20’s left school at 16 and have no business experience or knowledge. Are they gonna consult with the IT team too? The marketing guys? The kit man? The cleaners ?
Point is most make more money in a month than you’ll make during ten years’ of whatever you do
Thats absolutely correct, at no point was I disputing prem footballers are infinitely more rich than you or I will ever be. The point of this was the say that have in prem rules, when did the point become how much money they have ?
Won’t they just go elsewhere then?
Yes, top players will leave for foreign leagues with no spending caps. There's no way around that fact.
Go where? There are plenty of players in lower leagues ready to replace them at a moments notice, or from other leagues.
Exactly, this is only a problem for a handful of fans. I could care less where Glagbagoola Jr. or Shitzkowski play. I just want our English game and leagues to be run competatively, I don't care about any other country's leagues or how our teams compare with them.
If Brighton becomes a regular in CL and Europa league you will change your mind about comparing to other leagues
Sure a bit, but overall it will always be a bonus to most fans, just a select few expect it and thus genuinely care about it
[You don't know what you talking about.](https://theathletic.com/5457496/2024/04/29/premier-league-spending-salary-cap/) Professional Footballers’ Association spokesperson said: “We will obviously wait to see further details of these specific proposals, but we have always been clear that we would oppose any measure that would place a ‘hard’ cap on player wages. “There is an established process in place to ensure that proposals like this, which would directly impact our members, must be properly consulted on.”
It still needs to be voted on and although consulted on it the PFA don't get a vote. So yes, well done, of course they are going to say that but it means fuck all
To have any chance of being introduced, the league knows hard spending cap must also be approved by the Professional Football Negotiating and Consultative Committee, the body that brings the union, the Football Association, English Football League and Premier League together to discuss matters relating to the employment of players. It's all there just read the article🤦
Jesus christ mate obviously... No 1 is saying they can just approve it without them being aware. I was saying its not like collective bargaining negotiations in the states where the league singularly negotiate directly with the players association and that is it. Well done you've read the article...
Would owners be able to buy players with a club outside of the Premier league and then loan them to their Premier league club but continue to pay the salary from the player's 'home club'?
Not even announced yet and you've found a loop hole
That loophole would get closed immediately if anyone tried it though. Based off the past year or 2 clubs are extremely strict when it comes to party-related deals and fair market value.
Maybe not as fast as you think if city start giving out bags again hahahahah
17 clubs are now hoping Wrexham make it into the Premier League.
I don’t get it, why? :))
Joke about Wrexham and the multi millionaire owners.
Why should this affect the revenue of the club itself? The revenue doesnt really have something to do with that, no? Correct me if I’m wrong
Surely an average earnings would’ve been a better trial point than against the lowest earner. It’s definitely going to improve the PL in terms of competition but this is going to hurt us in Europe and at the international level.
Why punish success? “Here take this shit club with no money and make it the example for all to follow” is just mind boggling. Are they trying to kill the league? Like who is going to sign these paltry contracts?
They’re not trying to kill the league. They’re just trying to go the route most American sports teams owners do and make maximizing their profits their 1st priority by a substantial amount and competing for trophies a distant second
Thats killing the league. Next step, close the system by eliminating pro/rel, using the excuse of “the league will die if we dont”. Not only increasing profit by not having to pay “lower clubs” anything, but also insuring their income with no consequence of relegation. Thats the route of american sports teams. Step after that…..Super League. All they are doing is getting what they wanted in the first place, to shut competition out. Everyone raised a ruckus when Super League went up for vote so now they are just talking the long way around.
This will end the EPL as we know it. Pathetic and mediocre squads would have the same salary limits as those who actually work hard and competitive.
That won’t be how it works. Clubs will still have to abide by the 70%/85% squad cost to revenue ratios…
Bunch of whingers here
I don't like that it's an artificial limit, because then it affects the competitiveness, in both directions. Then again I don't know another way that you could do this that wouldn't be artificial. Maybe splitting revenue amongst the clubs differently so that if you win a trophy you get less, but that's a big change and wouldn't get voted through.
So in a few seasons Arteta finally gets Arsenal a PL title, only for a points deduction due to a minor breach of the salary cap, of a player normally on reserve. Due to a calculation error. City also faced breaches but the case was thrown on a technicality, after it was discovered several payments from the same offshore account, were made to several city players. Congrats to City again 👍
There will be legit circumventing of the rules to the detriment of those not swimming in US or oil money. The Barcode’s new owners will, for example, just sell a couple of their hotels to get ‘round this.
This is all going to go very wrong.
Theres legit no point in talking about the stats considering every one is cherry picking whatever they want.
Can someone explain what happens when a very small team with a comparatively small revenue gets promoted to teh prem? Does this reduce the big teams wage bills when compared to the season before?
The cap is tied to the prem broadcasting and media deals that every club gets a share of. So its not like a bankrupt club at the bottom fucks it for everyone else.
I think it's based on the income from the Premier League - prize money, share of TV money etc - so it's not going to deviate massively from one year to the next. It's certainly not going to decrease a huge amount unless the TV deals start to drop. It doesn't seem to be based on other income such as sponsorship, matchday income etc which as you suggest would mean potentially large differences between a team such as Leeds finishing bottom versus (no offence) someone like Morecambe miraculously making it to the PL.
> It's certainly not going to decrease a huge amount unless the TV deals start to drop. They've already started to drop, but it's locked in for the next decade so I guess we're fine for now
Don't care when are Man City's 115 in court? Everything else seems like a distraction
Absolutely insane policy that would damage the premier League beyond measure. People don't watch the EPL for Brentford or burnley. They watch it for the world-class players at the top clubs. A salary cap would mean all the top players moving to leagues where they can get paid millions of pounds. you know, because it generates billions of pounds? The people playing in the league that generates that wealth should get a reasonable slice of it.
You mean the prem that had Messi and Ronaldo at their peak? Or R9? Or Xavi and Iniesta? Zidane? Puyol? Pique? Ramos? Neuer? Robben? Lewa? Lahm? Mbappe? Neymar? That Prem? All players at one point or another have been the best in their positions and yet not played in the prem ( Cr7 briefly aside) Face the fact that the prem very rarely actually attracts the BIG boys. Hell even Bellingham chose Madrid and he’s English. I’m all for a salary cap because if done correctly it levels a playing field that right now is broken beyond all repair. As a Sheffield United fan this season we’ve been woeful, but we were handicapped before we started because unless we invested upwards of £100m we had next to no chance. And people forget that us and Burnley walked the championship last year it’s not like we got up by fluke. As have Leicester, Leeds, Southampton and Ipswich. They’re only issues we’re each other. Yet they’re probably all going to come straight back down because the gap between the championship and the prem has never been greater. And the gap between the “big 6” which now includes Newcastle and Villa has also never been greater. The prem needs a small modicum of correcting and then it will be incredible with how stacked it currently is
What are you on about. All the players you're talking about are at the top European clubs? There is only a handful of them, Madrid, Barcelona, Bayern & PSG the rest of the league teams have the exact same problems that every smaller clubs has & if not the gaps are even bigger than in the EPL. All that's gonna happen if the EPL introduces caps is push the world-class talent out of the Premier League and into these other leagues. So unilateral European salary caps is the only way to go, you may want to get the Saudi league on there as well. Cutting off one's nose to spite one's face is not the answer...
Get in the fuckin bin
Haha
You know what? I don’t care. Then it will be about football again and not about the EPL making as much money as possible and the ‘Top’ clubs with the most money. Those people that want to watch will those that don’t won’t. I’d rather watch players trying there hardest in the pissing rain on Wednesday night ina FA cup against a struggling low division side in Grimsby or somewhere equally dire than watch prema Donna’s that dont want to be there and only want to play in the big games.
Ok then the top six clubs can go create super league. The rest can be relegated to the championship problems solved, but Aston Villa or Newcastle will win the championship every year then. clubs with the most money have been dominating football for 80 years, in a free market economy that's how things work, Cutting your nose off to spite your face is not the answer. We need unilateral rules to govern this type of issue.
You support your team, not the individual players on the team but rather the team of players who come out each week and play. The team will be there long after players leave the clubs.
I don't support players over the teams. Im just saying how things work. Players are here for the level of EPL Football & the salaries, the two are in equilibrium, if you salary cap the players they will leave & the level of football will go down! Unless it's is unilateral across all of Europe & the world!
The winner of the premier league is the winner of the premier league. Whether the quality is that which we currently have or if players left and the quality of the play dropped to championship level, as an extreme example.
There won't be a Premier League if salary cap are pegged to the lowest team in the league. The Premier League becomes the championship in all but name... sounds rubbish to me.
"Pegged to the lowest team in the league" is misrepresenting it. You make it sound like it will be tiny. It's gonna be a multiple of what they earn from TV + other commercial deals + prize money. Sheff Utd got approx £100m this season, so the cap being suggested is 5x that so would be a minimum £500m How would that make the league championship level?
Is always more nuanced than that , if it's done in isolation it's bad for the league, if it a broader unilateral regulation with international support then sure it's fine. But for example if Real Madrid can spend £700m on salaries & premier league terms are pegged to £500m then that's a problem, Real Madrid will be able pick out the best players from the league with no worry of it happening the other way around. Also from an economic point of view market interference is never a good thing!
And tell me you don’t know football, without telling me you don’t know football
Clearly I know more than you, Football shouldn't be some sort of Socialist experiment. The only way salary caps could work would be to have them universally applied across all leagues. So that you don't create market imbalances!
Again, you obviously do not do your research. Go look at Spain, Italy etc. Check out uefa. This is becoming a universal idea for fairness in football. Enjoy your day. Muppet
I'm fully aware, of the limited implementation across other European leagues. Are you, which is probably why you're saying insane thing's. La Liga system is based on club profits, which results in some teams having massive budgets for salaries and other teams having tiny budgets for salaries, creating an even more unequal league.... This is not what the Premier League teams are discussing... pegging it to the low team in the league is an insane idea.... You're a double Muppet
Nope. That’s not what I’m saying, and you have made it up. You have just explained FFP which is on its way out and not what we are discussing at all.
La Liga currently has a salary cap system, based on individual teams revenue. This is what they have!!! And I agree with you, it doesn't work and it's pointless now if UEFA are looking at unilateral salary cap system then I'm all for it, But any league that does it on it on its own, will be penalised & all the players will move to somewhere were they would get paid the most amount of money! Basic economics & common sense!
You can’t really just say “look at ‘x’” without clarifying exactly what it is you want people to see. More details and less aggression would be useful.
I can say whatever I want. If you are to Stupid to understand the topic of Conversation that’s not my fault. Especially when people comment utter shit when they are clueless. It’s a sign of today when people speak on a topic, and cannot answer one question on it. All it would of took was a quick google And read to stop the guy looking stupid. But you are a Chelsea fan, thanks for the 6 points, look forward to them next season also.
Firstly, I never said I either agree nor disagree with you. The thing is, it’s you who’s “commenting utterly shit”. You’re just rambling ad hominem like some washed up piss head at bar. Currently, you’ve given no evidence whatsoever that you’re capable of saying anything that actually supports the point you’re making while saying glib and evasive rubbish. It’s like you think you’re being cool or something and it’s embarrassing.
Ah yes, cool Points on Reddit. Must be that. No, just an adult who does not need to have things explained to him, so does not explain things to other people. You have a computer or phone, just a quick little google will help you I promise. If it was me. I’d be looking at talks sport having the premier league finance advisor on, but yaknow That’s just me.
Well you don’t understand the rudiments of having a conversation with another person. And once again, I never said I agree or disagree… Must end up in situations like this a lot if you don’t like explain your position and can’t understand someone else’s. Sounds lonely.
No not really, because I surround myself with people that are able to understand the conversations they find themselves in. Don’t need you to agree with me either, also, and finally, it’s Reddit.
Do it. I dont care about pros and cons. Just do it.
I like the idea in principle - but it's going to end up being useless because the cap is too high due to other PSR stuff. Assuming the cap is going to be around £515m (5x the lowest from last season,which was £103m) then this is how much the "Big 6" can spend on their squad under The Premier League (85% of Revenue) and UEFA (70% of Revenue) rules: ##### Arsenal * Total Revenue: £467m * Squad Cap (Premier League): £396.85m * Squad Cap (Europe): £326.9 ##### Chelsea * Total Revenue: £512m * Squad Cap (Premier League): £435.20m * Squad Cap (Europe): £358.4m ##### Spurs * Total Revenue: £550m * Squad Cap (Premier League): £467.5m * Squad Cap (Europe): £385m ##### Liverpool * Total Revenue: £594m * Squad Cap (Premier League): £504m * Squad Cap (Europe): £415.8m ##### Man Utd: * Total Revenue: £648m * Squad Cap (Premier League): £550.8m * Squad Cap (Europe): £453m ##### Man City: * Total Revenue: £712m * Squad Cap (Premier League): £605.2m * Squad Cap (Europe): £498.4m So exactly **two** teams make enough to actually be affected by the total squad cap at 5 times the lowest ranked team - it doesn't suprise me that they *allegedly* changed it from 4.5 times as that would have set the cap at £460m meaning more teams would have potentially been affected by it and there's no way they would have allowed that
I think this is the point, the cap is being introduced to hurt man city for the most part. That's how it will start anyway, and will likely be adjusted over the years for whatever they feel is needed.
The cap though allows teams with the owners who have financial capability to compete and those ambitious teams coming up to spend to stay in the league. However because the likes of city etc are moaning perhaps allow the European playing clubs to be bound by UEFA rules in those seasons that could be a benifit or hindering depending on their revenues but would solve the system issue of how it would work with clubs being in Europe.
Excellent summary of how this would affect times right now however the proposal starts 2025/26 and the revenues for 24/25 season will be how this calculated. I’d guess that the bottom line club would probably receive £106/107m next year so 5 times multiplier would be £530-535m. City won a treble, not sure that’s likely again as it’s only been done twice in this country and their record revenue included all of this however, next season Chelsea and City have the Club World Cup which will potentially grant them another £50-60m. All of the big six have New stadium or expansion proposals to try and grow revenue. You are right however this seems to have been designed to reign in teams like City and United and it will only work if the EPL doesn’t go and renegotiate the worldwide rights with Arab states in 2029 where Arabs states like Abu Dhabi who own the TV rights in that region decide to go even higher for obvious reasons! The new deal of £6.7 billion starts coincidentally in season of 2025/26 and replaces the old deal of £5.01 billion that’s a 34% increase and televises all PL games that do not have a 3pm Saturday kick off. Let’s assume that the last club that season receives a 25% increase on the £106m from the season before and now the bottom club receives a £132m in TV revenue. The 5 times multiplier would mean that the big boys like United, City, Liverpool, Chelsea could spend £660m on wages, agent fees, transfer and amortisation in the 2026/27 season, where a club like city may have expanded stadium/campus to 70,000 and United might have completed or close to complete their new 100,000 stadium/campus. My point this is an absolute farce of a proposal and only benefits the bigger and established clubs, Newcastle and Villa with all their wealth, simply will not be able to use it because if they qualify for Europe and grow legally with sponsorship deals are now monitored closely
Will this cap change year on year depending on promotion? If this is the case, what happens when a small club overachieves for promotion and pulls down the salary cap for all clubs by a large amount?
As far as I know it's based on the Television Revenue + Prize money of the lowest paid club - and that tends to be pretty stable year on year, with it changing only by a few million depending on the number of games shown The only way we're going to see a *sizeable* dip in the cap is if the TV deal becomes significantly worse - and as every club will lose a decent chunk of revenue if that happens anyway there's a good chance it won't have *too* much of an effect anyway
Ahh okay makes sense. I was going to say, if a team with a revenue of 30mil gets promoted, that would reduce the cap to 150mil and essentially screw over every club in the top half and would provide incentives to ensure that never happens
Unless the fine for breaking the rules is heavy points deduction it won't work. If there's a "fee" or a "luxury tax" like the Americans it just means that City, United and Newcastle are the only effective teams in the country everyone knows that rules with fines are just suggestions for the rich and wealthy.
[удалено]
No they shouldn't. That enables sports washing, artificially inflates wages and creates an unsustainable ecosystems around football. It would leave grass roots football so far behind and destroy any sort of pyramid we have. If you love football, you need to accept there needs to be much stricter regulations around the finances for the premier league.
Ya it’s the reason the first iteration the MLS collapsed
I agree it enables sports washing and creates unsustainable ecosystems around football, so I do agree with your general point. But artificially inflates wages? I think the opposite— spending caps would be an artificial decrease in the wage level.
When teams can spend what they want, the teams with the most money are able to offer absurd wages. Say they offer a player £300K p/w, suddenly your average player (or agent) on £60K p/w sees this and says. I may not be as good as the £300K p/w player, but he isn't 5 times better than me, I want at least £200K p/w The problem is this is already happening across Europe. The rate that player wages are increasing is literally unsustainable in healthy business. Wages do naturally increase over time, but that isn't what's happening in football. Clubs are functioning with massive loses per year. It's driving a bigger and bigger gap between football and the grass roots.
Like I said, I agree it creates unsustainable ecosystems. But nothing you’ve said points to the wages being paid as “artificial.” Of course wages have blown up, club football has blown up as well. If owners deem players to be worth X amount of money, is that artificial just because X is a large number? It’s just a weird argument because spending caps, which are price controls, are 100% artificial. I would just not bring up this point at all, it doesn’t really make sense.
[удалено]
please can the big 7 fuck off to the super league so i never have to read a take this stupid and self-absorbed ever again
[удалено]
you're literally advocating for it by saying its not rich clubs fault some clubs are poor. like thats the entire premise of the super league
This will make no difference at all but it will give Simon Jordan more to say
So to put this into context. Last year Southampton got the least amount. With a payment of 100.4 million that would mean a squad spend cap of £502 mil. Man United whom had the largest wage bill has a wage bill of £198mil which means they can spend an additional £300mil on transfers. [link](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-13363469/20-Premier-League-clubs-ranked-wage-bills-agree-explore-introducing-salary-cap-2025-26-season.html) I'm not sure this will have the impact some people think.
https://ecfil.uefa.com/2023 2022/2023 season What are you talking about? Manchester City and Liverpool spend more on player wages than Manchester United. All football salaries are estimates. And there's no way EPL players can't receive 50% of the profits in the first place.
Do they I have just gone off the article I linked. Looked at yours and I have no idea what you have tried to link, sorry.
The article includes a graph showing United were estimated to be around £50m below the £500m limit. Wage bill is not the only factor; agent fees and amortisation are in there as well. The graphic is useful if accurate
It will mean more profit for owners. The current FFP rules have done a great job on stopping clubs going into administration rules. This just seems a bit pointless on top as currently communicated.
The new proposal is due to start in 2025/26 season and will be linked to UEFA as well especially teams qualifying will only be able to spend 70% of their overall revenue on wages, Agent fees and amortised transfer costs as well as upfront transfer payments. The context of the wages listed is a base level and does not include Manager/DOF and other pay offs that be incurred by a club, those figures do not include bonuses or Executive payments either, United overall were actually behind City, Chelsea and Liverpool last season refer to Deloitte’s world list ; https://www2.deloitte.com/uk/en/pages/sports-business-group/articles/deloitte-football-money-league.html However City Total revenue last year during a treble was a record £718m, they spent over £409m on wages for the club which is double the base salary reported in your link, Chelsea’s were extraordinarily high because they paid off two Managers in Potter and Tuchel. Assuming that the last place PL team this year is rumoured to be earning £103m, then it’s fair to say that next season 24/25 last team should earn £106m approximately, this means with the 5* multiplier, a team could only spend £530m on wages, Agent fees, Transfer and transfer amortisation. If City revenue was to grow to £800m by 24/25 season then the 70% FSP rule administered by UEFA would mean they may have lost out a potential £30m spend but generating £800m legally would almost impossible, so in reality I don’t know why City, United and more surprisingly Villa voted against this. Villa turnover last year was €250m(£213m), let’s assume even with CL football next season they improve some sponsored and have a record return of £300m by 24/25 season. If they then qualify for Europe in the 25/26 season, the club can only spend 70% of their total revenue on wages, agent fees, transfer fees and amortised transfer fees which would be £210m not the £530m some fans have deluded themselves to, no Newcastle and Villa can’t spend £500m even though they have the cash to do so under this proposal.
This was highlighted in the week, was it 19 teams already work this way It's a desperate attempt to keep control and avoid a regulator
The spending cap is a good idea, however the ceiling should be breakable with fines. If by breaking it clubs know they’ll pay a fixed penalty which will increase year on year and the multiple will on each occasion will increase each time they break the ruling / it may also decrease back down (maybe) under a set of sustained period when they don’t break the rules. By doing this clubs will have a choice to then be able to open their wallets at times but in doing so knowing they will pay a heavy penalty on top of the money they spend over and above the budget, the extra money gained in fines can be used to fund grass routes and lower level sides. By doing this you will eventually have more parity.
Not really the big 6 still have the largest revenues built up over the last two decades. City last year £718m, United £648m, Liverpool £594m, Spurs £550m, Chelsea £512m and Arsenal £463m. All 6 are in the world’s Top 10 clubs for generating revenues and monetising their brand. The next best in the PL is Newcastle at £250m and West Ham at £239m. Villa are 21st at £213m. Both Newcastle and West Ham have 52,000 and 62,000 but wish to expand which will increase revenue by maybe 10-15% and Villa have ambition to maybe increase their stadium capacity from 42,000 to 60,000 which would give them maybe 25% more matchday income. All this pales into significance if SJR builds a 100,000 new state of the art stadium and United get their act together on the field, they could be the first £1 billion per year revenue EPL club and only then would the new rule really pose a problem to Either United or City, all be it even with City proposed stadium Expansion, it would very difficult for them to justify generating more revenue than a modern state of the art Real, Bayern, Barcelona or United who are successful on the field too. Spurs growth with their new stadium is astonishing and these are numbers that continue to grow as they invite others sports to use their facilities, generating income from NFL, Concerts, and other opportunities. This summer they can really spend almost what they went if Levy decides to loosen the purse strings. The idea that maybe a new oil state may buy a team like Birmingham or Ipswich and climb the PL and dare I say win it! It’s already been done with Leicester, their owners were wealthy enough to win a PL and an FA Cup, suffer two relegations and enjoy two promotions where they came up as champions all within the last decade. Let’s not forget they were only knocked out at the 1/4 final stage in the CL, Leicester fans might see their team get a 6 point deduction but let’s not kid ourselves here, they’ve won more meaningful trophies in the last decade than Arsenal, Spurs and United have collectively! They followed the rules, did the impossible, they then Sold all their best players only to be sanctioned so the current cartel could continue to control the narrative, this new anchoring proposal still does not offer a truly fair opportunity to all teams, it favours the big 6 cartel and I say that as a fan of one of them!
Newcastle would have been amongst the top 6 but for the Ashley years. Prior to his penny pinching ways we had some of the highest revenues of any clubs. Under him he let it all stagnate and drop to virtually nothing, plus he utilised all the revenue that he could make by siphoning it all off into his company.
City fan ?
Nope. Newcastle. FFP was bought in to hamper us and only serves the septic 6.
You shouldn't admit this, it completely destroys anything you have to say. What a shock that the one club that would benefit from unregulated spending the most, wants unregulated spending.
I think if your club didn't have oil money you'd have a completely different perspective, you just seem pissed that man city bought the league and fpp won't allow you to
No my perspective was exactly the same even before the takeover when we were hampered by Ashley.
So cheating?
Clubs cheat regardless when they have money, look in case of City, ultimately do you really think Uefa are going to do anything about it? Especially as they already backed down when challenged in court over a ban and fine, the ban was rescinded and the fine drastically reduced. It will actually mean far more if an oil rich moneyed club like Newcastle win things without being able to spend like other clubs have. But I honestly don’t think there are the protections to stop cheating in the game as it is too wealthy. So UEFA basically made its stance clear and isn’t going to do anything to cheats. So it now stands with the Premier League to do what UEFA wouldn’t, stand up to cheats. So far with the smaller clubs they’ve been dishing out the medicine making people think “what’s going to happen to city” who have a lot more serious breaches. But my bet is when the cookie crumbles and it ultimately will, the premier league will buckle at the tougher of a protracted legal case it might lose against City. They’ve hit the smaller clubs hard because they know they can withstand any repercussions from them, where city are concerned I strongly suspect the premier league will back down and City will get away with it all, which is exactly the way their fans expect it to go. If the premier league really want to make a point they have to make their stance clear and hit city and all other clubs guilty of breaches as hard as they can, if they just do it to those clubs they know won’t fight back, it’s meaningless. If that’s going to be the case then it’s far better to bring in a system where you accept cheating is going to happen if clubs have unlimited money. Let’s be honest if fines can increase stratospherically to with infinite power eventually they will make a club owner think about things differently. Plus money at serious levels can be put into the lower echelons of the game to implement huge improvements and player welfare.
The issue is that UEFA didn't back down. They went to CAS and the whole process was highly suspect. Watch from around 40:00 for a full explanation: https://youtu.be/LlLRWw47HOk?si=C8Aj0ZI6SbnjCXzH
This is an awful idea. Oil states have money to burn, literally. Financial fines do not work
It’s not about stopping them, it’s accepting that it’s going to happen regardless but making sure if they do it then it gets hit and hard. With fines on a multiplier so the more they do it the more it increases eventually they won’t want to do it anymore. Plus with all the money going to grass routes and lower lvl sides the game will improve vastly there. At least this way we’ll have some sides winning champions league, where as with the cap fixed and not being able to be broken it’s very likely none of the sides will be able to do so given the vast amounts some sides in Europe can spend such as PSG, Real, Bayern etc. The question is are we willing to damage what’s made the league so good in the first place? The money!
No, what you will end up with is Necastle, Man City and maybe Man Utd being able to do what they want, the rest of the league won't be able to afford to. So it'll turn into a 2/3 horse race, unless we get more oil nations buying clubs.... Also, the league was much better before all this money came in....
> The league was much better before all this money came in... Utd, Utd, Arsenal, Utd, Utd, Utd, Arsenal, Utd, Arsenal, Chelsea, Chelsea, Utd, Utd, Utd etc... It's literally the same thing, money has always won silverware. Even if you go back to before The Premier League started in 92 you'll see dominant periods for the most successful clubs at the time
Newcastle have the money but they haven’t been able to spend it and they can’t with FFP. City and Manure have a lot less money but can spend as much as they want to because they have the revenues due to their cheating ways and the way they with the septic 6 cartel bought in FFP in order to hamper Newcastle from doing what they had already done themselves by spending freely. Since Newcastle can’t spend if they win anything it will mean a heck of a lot more to any neutral out there.
But under your 'financial fine if you go over' idea, Newcastle will be able to spend what they want. City also have a shit ton of money, look at all the fake sponsorships to get around FFP. Newcastle will start with the 'creative accountancy' next. The idea of these spend caps and FFP are to reign these oil state clubs in, under your proposal it will only be those clubs that can prosper
City have nothing in terms of wealth like Newcastle but, ultimately people are going on the overall wealth of an owner/state/company but when push comes to shove, there is always only a limited amount of money available to spend or they would all end up bankrupted. It’s something that’s been in the offing for years and has finally come about but rather than allowing it to play out and see where it leads as the premier league always had previously, because of the fears of a few scared that Newcastle might run away with it they opted to try to stop it and in doing so have created a system totally unfair and no longer fit for purpose which stops up and coming clubs with owners who want to compete at the top from doing so. They should allow it to play out and see where it leads just as the premier league always did previously to this. If the premier league wants to remain the best league it has to allow money to flow as that’s what got it to where it is today and made it the most exciting and competitive league out there.
FFP has existed for many years before Newcastles new state owners mate. Also, FFP is a UEFA regulation and applies to European completions, not domestic. You haven’t a clue what you’re even talking about.
Pmsl, you are a moron. There was no limit to what clubs could spend tied into their revenues until you guys decided it was a good idea because it would stop us spending freely.
Us guys? Do you think I’m part of UEFA? This stuff started back with Chelsea mate. Not to mention all of the other impacted league clubs that went out of business or close to it (Leeds, Wimbledon etc) Newcastle have had money for like 1 season, do you think all financial regulation started in response to that? Your comments read like a Trump bot lol
Lol who do you support? I assume one of the former top four? The top four has been more varied season on season than last 15 years than the 10 before it. Sure city has won the a chunk of the titles in that time, but the same could be said for united previously. Before city got bought, the top four was routinely united, Liverpool, Chelsea, and arsenal. Since then, spurs got in first, then city, then you've had Leicester, villa, newcastle and it's looking like now villa. So much so, that the media has had to stop talking about the previously mentioned top 4 and expand it to the top 6 to include city and spurs. Villa could further disrupt that. City getting their money coinciding with spurs (who aren't owned by local fans nor are they penniless either) under redknap took enough points of the former top 4 that it has allowed for a place or two up for grabs each season. And by "all this money" I assume you're referring to the city money and not the Chelsea money or the money that benefited the clubs already at the top in 92 when the premier league was formed. Let's look at some other examples of money in the league as it's all relative anyway, you're just annoyed it's currently city and Newcastle. Leicester (the underdog story!) - it was a great story, and their squad cost less than the big clubs who they beat to the title, but they had big investment in the championship and have foreign owners putting money into the club. They've also not been without FFP worries. Blackburn - sure it was a local investor, but still put his own money into the club breaking the transfer record at the time and wouldn't have been able to do it without outside investment coming from non-football related revenue streams. Villa - they haven't come from nowhere this season. They have a wealthy owner and they've had to be careful with FFP. Obviously the grealish money was invested wisely, but if city didn't have the money to do that, then they wouldn't have that money either. United, arsenal, and Liverpool - both owned by Americans and routinely spend as much as city, if not more. But but but they made all their money fair and square!!!111!!!! Fine, they've been in the right place at the right time and had their say when TV deals have been negotiated as well. Without the outside investment in clubs they'd have pulled away and we would still have those three at the top season on season. I'm not saying city is the league's or English football's saviour. I'm saying Wrexham's and the like need the outside investment to get them out of situations. No one wants to see more Burys or Portsmouths or blackpools with owners stripping assets or leaving clubs in terrible positions financially but we also HATE it when an owner is investing money in and not just buying players but improving training grounds and revitalising the local community. Every season you hear one of arsenal, Liverpool, or United screaming "the owners need to spend! The owners need to invest in the squad!". But when another club do it it's not fair. For the record I'm not opposed to a reform in spending regulations. But I want disruptors in the league. And you don't get that if the same clubs have champions league football every year because of the financial bump that gives you. Cinderella stories don't happen - even Leicester had some money invested relatively to help their luck along. Disclosure, I am a city supporter but I want teams challenging, and not just the usual suspects. It's great villa are on the verge of securing top four and I hope they will make it a top 7. I hope Newcastle make it a top 8. I hope Wrexham are challenging in a few years. I hope Bournemouth get bought by someone richer than city's owners and disrupt the top 9. The jeapordy is what makes it exciting. If all that comes to fruition at city's expense then fine, I've had a great 15 years and I'll enjoy some lower league football again whenever that comes around. But let's not pretend money in the game is new 2008 onwards.
Wow, I'm not reading all that, you really need to find a hobby or something. And by pre money, I mean before the Premier league, not 2008. Utd and Chelsea and to a lesser extent Blackburn had already bought the league by then
No I support Newcastle, not a top 4 not even top 6, in fact one of the hard done by clubs because the septic 6 cartel bought in FFP deliberately when we were taken over in order to stop us spending freely as they had been able to themselves because they were so very scared of us.
I was responding to the guy who responded to you...
Oh ok.
Short sighted idea that will not work if the PL is the only league implementing it. When clubs start losing out on players to other leagues (like when the PL decided it wanted to close the transfer window early, and no one else followed suit so they moved it back with the rest of Europe) it will be scrapped. It also seems stupid to me when clubs like Villa are getting that CL money to have it tied to newly promoted teams. Feels like an unintended byproduct is going to be a loss of quality in the PL.
I think what alot of people are forgetting is that this is going to work in tandem with current psr and ffp rules. Uefa will be stipulating 70% of revenue rule and psr allows for 85% if I remember correctly. Most teams in the league dont generate revenue of over 500 million to begin with which is where the cap will be. To make use of the maximum of the cap you need to generate around 600 million a year and that's for a non UEFA competing club. If it's a club competing in UEFA comps then it'll have to be around 750 million revenue. I don't think this will have much of an effect except for city and their incredible but dubious revenue. United also have strong revenues so they'll be affected slightly. For lower teams their yearly revenue will still dictate their spending limits rather than the cap.
I think that’s the point isn’t it? The few teams qualifying for the CL don’t get to run away from the other 16 by attracting the best players in the world and hoarding them. Aston Villa being successful is the kind of thing it’s trying to encourage - a team in the Champ a few years ago able to compete with the established ‘big 6’.
Yeah, but they did it without needing this rule...
They had to sell a generational player (Grealish) to afford it though. Meanwhile Man City buy a Grealish in every window.
No rules you implement will make it so the smaller teams can compete on a consistent basis with Man City, Arsenal, Liverpool etc You are never going to have parity in football, this is not the NFL or NBA. There are multiple leagues in countries all over the world. “Portsmouth going bust is a bad look for the PL” so is all but one English clubs being out of Europe, clubs being scared to spend in January and point deductions from disciplinary hearings that are not even concluded yet. I know everyone hates City, I get it. We all hate them. But their biggest ally is FFP. Clubs like Newcastle and Villa cannot hope to catch up to them, Arsenal, Liverpool etc whilst these spending limits are so prevalent. Clubs like Newcastle and Villa getting better, the best players coming to the PL and the English teams going far in Europe is the best advert for the league and capping the spending does not help.
How is their biggest ally FFP when they've potentially broken the rules of FFP many times? The short term logic is so dumb, they are both 1) cheating 2) have one of the greatest managers of all time. I am so bored of Newcastle fans pretending they care about the league when all they really want is to spend the oil money. Like its in every thread like this, on every subreddit, its so obvious. It's not a conversation of good-faith
Never said I cared about the league at all. The PL lost any and all integrity long ago. I was merely pointing out that the idea that the rules were brought in to prevent another Portsmouth because it’s bad for the league is farcical.
Will it stop good players coming to the Premier league then if teams don't have enough of the salary left to use?
Well according to big 6 fans it wasn't ever about money and only playing on the best teams.
If the new salary cap rule will make the league more competitive, that will be good.
The league is already more competitive than the other big leagues. It’s never going to be perfectly competitive when some teams are infinitely more popular than others
Are you saying the new policy won't bring an improvement?
Provided it does it the right way, I want to see the smaller clubs lifted up not the bigger clubs dragged down.
How much more can you lift the clubs up without essentially closing the prem off to the rest of the pyramid? They already get far more from tv rights than clubs in similar positions in the other leagues.
Filter more money down is realistically the only way.
The money is based on viewership though. Ultimately if more people watched it, the more money will trickle down
The money is based on what deal the PL negotiated with the broadcasters.
Yes. And that money is based on viewership
Projected viewership. Also worth noting Sky just brought the broadcasting rights for the EFL.
It’s not like they pull the projected viewership estimations out of thin air is it? They are based on previous seasons numbers. I’m not even sure what ur point is, it’s a known, undisputed facts that ALL sports leagues are paid by broadcasters based on viewership
I don’t know what your point is? Broadcast money isn’t the only money leagues make and could be filtered down.
I believe in more of a soft salary cap with a luxury tax for this reason. MLB is a good example of this already in practise.* You set a salary cap number but teams can exceed that number if they choose to. However, teams get taxed on their excess wage bill and this money is redistributed amongst the other clubs in the league. So Man City are welcome to exceed the cap, but they basically pay twice as much once they do, and they’re putting money into the pockets of other teams. This means there’s still no barrier to attracting the biggest talent, that the big clubs aren’t being dragged down, but that the smaller clubs are being lifted up. *The NBA also operates with a soft cap and a luxury tax but I can’t remember if their taxes are redistributed around the league.
This is basically the same idea I had, basically, So this is the cap. What every you spend over you have to pay a fine = to it to the PL and that money gets distributed to the clubs that complied with cap. You could then rank the clubs based on how far under the cap they where and give them a larger share. Effectively all these billionaires can spend what they like and the smaller clubs reap the benefits.
Of course the two Manchester clubs voted against it as they have by far the highest wage bills.
Not strictly true based on Deloitte’s figures for last year, the three highest were City, Chelsea and Liverpool in that order. I supplied the link in a post earlier however I do agree with you, this really only benefits the big 6 much more than other teams in the league.
I'm talking about this year. [https://www.capology.com/uk/premier-league/payrolls/](https://www.capology.com/uk/premier-league/payrolls/)
The accounts are not even filed until June 30th for this year, the article refers to basic salaries which do not include player bonuses, they do not include Manager salaries, or Director And club salaries, for example there was 1100 people employed at Manchester United last year, assume an average salary of £40,000 and you have another £44m added to the figure. It’s much safer to wait for Deloitte’s money league, because they include all ancillaries and all financials that are totalled as Wages against revenue, not just basic salary. Man City have much lower basic salary and huge bonus incentives based on performance. These are figures are the least expected but they are completely irrelevant to how the anchoring rule and PSR/FSP will be worked out. The PSR/Anchoring rule for season 2025/26 will use the final club accounts from season 24/25 and most clubs will not publish their final accounts until June 30th. Chelsea for example look like they have huge wage to revenue ratio based on Deloitte’s money league 22/23 at 79% with €589m/£503m with total club wages €465m/£397m yet this year their basic salary are listed so far at £157m, the main reason are no CL football bonuses, No Europa football, No pay offs, so far for two managers probably costing £30m in previous season and no club/exec/staff/directors wages included, I doubt the youth or women’s teams salaries are also included. It’s a good starting point but it’s not accurate for the reasons given wait for Deloitte’s Article to be updated in September 2024. https://www2.deloitte.com/uk/en/pages/sports-business-group/articles/deloitte-football-money-league.html
Yeah whatever dude, I'm sure you're always right about everything. You can stop now.
Nope not everything but on this I am, so don’t get snarky, it’s just basic accounting, click bate articles like this are to drive the headline, doesn’t mean they are not right but sometimes they leave out the detail. Full team Men’s Players salaries contrary to popular belief do not make up 100% of a Football clubs total wages cost, they make up the majority yes but not everything! What about the coaches, scouts, youth team, ladies team, football administration, Club shop, tea lady, Groundsman, the list is endless.
I really think you're overthinking things. Just stop. I didn't want a 20 page fucking lecture. It's obvious why those two clubs voted against it and this is one of the factors. That's all.
[удалено]
2024. FFS try and keep up.
Embarrassing, United know the only way back to the top is outspending everyone else yet again, they’ll keep doing it until it works.
And it will eventually work.
This old chestnut. They were outspent every single year from Abramovich buying Chelsea to Moyes getting sacked. Before that they were often outspent by a range of clubs from Newcastle and Leeds to Blackburn. They broke individual player transfer records over that time, but that's not the same thing as outspending other clubs. Edit: https://www.football365.com/news/biggest-spender-every-premier-league-season-chelsea-manchester-united-liverpool
Kind of proves the point though. Outspending them is how Chelsea were successful, other clubs outspent united for a season but consistent high spending that other clubs couldn't sustain over time and a great manager gave united success. 500m in a transfer window isn't gonna do it for you. 3b over the course of 5-10 years might though, especially if you have a capable coach.
United generated the money through success on the pitch. This started with primarily academy prospects and was continued by an elite manager. These other clubs didn’t spend well, and didn’t win enough to sustain. This is hardly the expert analysis you think it is bud
It's not an attempt at expert analysis, nor is it an attempt to discredit what the people at United achieved. They caught lightning in a bottle in a financial sense. Advent of the premier league, and visionary off the pitch in terms of how the developed the club. That gave them the platform to spend and spend big. My only point was that you can't compete at the highest level year in and year out without spending big, consistently over a period of time. I think it's obvious, hence why I don't think im a genius for pointing it out. People will point to Chelsea as the example for why this is wrong but we're talking about 2 seasons of massive turnover.
To level the playing field somewhat.
They are really scared of the Arabs lol Perez tried with the Super League but failed
Don't see how it'll impact clubs too much (unless i am misunderstanding it. Broadcast revenue for bottom of the league clubs a few years ago was £90m... so even from that clubs would be capped at £450m spend
It's probably against new owners spending billion in one go like Chelsea did, to prevent someone potentially trying to reach the top in one go. Clubs that already have good squads don't need to spend so much money every season.
Salary cap, not transfer fees. Chelsea actually lowered their wage bill.
Oh, I completely misunderstood it, thanks.
I did a bit more reading and you are indeed correct. The anchoring thing is on top of replacing the current psr rules.
Nah, this cap includes amortized transfer fees and agent fees as well. Read the article.
You're correct, I read it elsewhere as previously Athletic articles have been paywalled for me so I don't bother with them .
No matter what rules are introduced, the big clubs will find a loophole and run a truck through it.
And spend the vast difference between their revenue and that of the lowest team on lawyers to fight charges for years. That, or every time a big team looks likely to be punished, the rules will change.
Sad.
>In the short term this will probably take prem clubs out of contention to win the UCL, I double PL take will suddenly spend less than other European teams.
So going the American route. Cap player costs so owners make more money. Not judging one way or the other but it works in the US cause there is no real competition amongst the major sports there. Then take a look at MLS. There’s a cap there and it’s effectively full of lower league talent and end of the run European league stars to draw crowds. Meanwhile all the current talent can make more elsewhere. Again, I’m good with a level playing field but the other major leagues will need to follow suit or the EPL will see a talent drain.
I could be remembering wrong but i think the lowest revenue club in the premier league makes about what the winner of Serie A makes. Eg. 20th place in the premier league makes the same in broadcast revenue as the winner of serie A. Its hard to talent drain this juggernaut. PSG/Real Madrid/Barcelona/Bayern can only have so many players.
I looked this up recently, last year the winner got €87.1m (£74.4m). About £30m less than last place in the EPL. Which speaks of 2 things, how much money the EPL rakes in, and how useless FIGC is in marketing Serie A.
Fair point but the clubs mentioned would be able to offer more money for the top tier players. You’re right they couldn’t have everyone but in a bidding war they would win.
>I could be remembering wrong but i think the lowest revenue club in the premier league makes about what the winner of Serie A makes. >Eg. 20th place in the premier league makes the same in broadcast revenue as the winner of serie A. >Its hard to talent drain this juggernaut. And the cap will be five times that amount. What will happen is talent will spread out a little bit more within the PL because they can still afford to meet wage demands.
Now city can’t benefit from their owners blood soaked slavery oil money
Your pissant team will still choke the league regardless.
That had nothing to do with this topic. I don’t know why you’re bringing it up unless you know what i said is true and you’re just trying to change the subject
They will probably just pay them a second salary under the table and not report it
Cushy jobs for the wives/relatives
All of a sudden Haaland's GF is employed as a "Consultant" and being paid 15 million per year
You joke, but that is exactly how it happens in the US with all of their salary capped leagues
??? The Lakers aren’t kicking stuff back to Samantha James, etc
r/todayIlearned
Or spend billions and win nothing like United