Bob Kraft - are you listening?

[honourablegeorge]

Here's your salary cap, or as close as you'll get.

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/article7078148.ece?token=null&offset=0&page=1

[Epic Swindle]

Won't happen. There's too many leeches in the game making far too much money.

[mm2259]

It'll never work because if I was Mansour I'd just get a load of Abu Dhabi companies to sponsor the club for a total of £400m a year and then spend what I want on transfers. When people have so much money and are prepared to spend it any authority is going to find it difficult to stop them.

[Arazel]

Will this just not be worked around by buying them "gifts" throughout the season?

[Hassony]

It's strange that America, who are the biggest capitalist country in the world, yet they want their sports run on a socialist basis.

[CaptainXabi]

It's strange that America, who are the biggest capitalist country in the world, yet they want their sports run on a socialist basis.

1. America is not the biggest capitalist country in the world, at least not any more. I would argue the BRIC countries are more capitalist at least.

 

2. The reason American sports do this is because the leagues are relatively powerful, and the leagues benefit from more equality. The NFL, for example, has had 6 or 7 Super Bowl winners in 10 years. That is a pretty phenomenal level of equality, and makes fans more interested. As a fan, you know that if the Saints and Cardinals can put together Super Bowl-worthy teams in 3-4 years, your team definitely can with a bit of luck. That drives support and interest. And it works. If I'm not mistaken, the NFL is the highest grossing league in any sport in the entire world, despite having a relatively limited fanbase (there's the capitalist part).

 

Basically it's a tradeoff of maximizing league profitability, and then distributing that, versus individual club profitability.

Edited March 27, 2010 by CaptainXabi

[Rimbeux]

It's strange that America, who are the biggest capitalist country in the world, yet they want their sports run on a socialist basis.

 

 

They understand that the whole package needs competitive balance to keep their audience watching, it's very capitalist in the aims. We have an over-riding mentality among match going fans that has a lot in common with trainspotting, the whole act of 'going', it's a completing thing that doesn't revolve around winning.

 

It's also one country (two in a couple of cases) and not competition across as many as in UEFA for example with different association and national laws to get past. League, Union and Cricket all have salary caps.

Edited March 27, 2010 by Rimbeux

[anfield11]

1. America is not the biggest capitalist country in the world, at least not any more. I would argue the BRIC countries are more capitalist at least.

 

2. The reason American sports do this is because the leagues are relatively powerful, and the leagues benefit from more equality. The NFL, for example, has had 6 or 7 Super Bowl winners in 10 years. That is a pretty phenomenal level of equality, and makes fans more interested. As a fan, you know that if the Saints and Cardinals can put together Super Bowl-worthy teams in 3-4 years, your team definitely can with a bit of luck. That drives support and interest. And it works. If I'm not mistaken, the NFL is the highest grossing league in any sport in the entire world, despite having a relatively limited fanbase (there's the capitalist part).

Basically it's a tradeoff of maximizing league profitability, and then distributing that, versus individual club profitability.

 

 

See, I see this as just the opposite. I see it as a bunch of mediocrity. I'm not picking on American Football [why do they call it football exactly]. Sure a team can build an win a Super Bowl [stanley Cup] but then can fade to oblivion [slight exaggeration] just as quickly. In football [where they do use their feet] it's very hard to unseed the top sides, but it's not impossible and the supporters can always hang on to maybe becoming successful. I live near Toronto and the Maple Leafs had a history once. They have a huge following, always sell out, their ticket prices would make LFC look like a give away and huge TV contract. They invest nothing in the side and are 53 years since a title.

[aka Dus]

The Draft system means the American sports have the best possibility of operating as a perfect market as you can probably get in professional sports. More power to them.

 

And Platini's plan is based on how the French league works. So it's not perfect and yeah, there are loopholes that will be tested. But that's absolutely no reason to dismiss it out of hand and say "it will never work". The right level of regulation and administration by the overseeing authorities could do a lot for football and we as fans should be predisposed towards these possibilities IMO.

[anfield11]

The Draft system means the American sports have the best possibility of operating as a perfect market as you can probably get in professional sports. More power to them.

 

And Platini's plan is based on how the French league works. So it's not perfect and yeah, there are loopholes that will be tested. But that's absolutely no reason to dismiss it out of hand and say "it will never work". The right level of regulation and administration by the overseeing authorities could do a lot for football and we as fans should be predisposed towards these possibilities IMO.

 

 

Sounds all a bit communist and socialist to me if you read what you just wrote and put it into any other business scenario.

[aka Dus]

Sounds all a bit communist and socialist to me if you read what you just wrote and put it into any other business scenario.

 

????

 

I think one of the key aims UEFA has here is to create a set of regulations that mean football clubs are run a little less like a business, no? And if the French League has such rules, and the richest sports league in the world (NFL?) has such rules, what other 'business scenario' is relevant in this context?

 

And general equilibrium theory (which is what the draft system is, in economics terms) is neo classical economic theory. It might sound a bit socialist to someone who gets their opinions from Fox News I suppose.

[anfield11]

????

 

I think one of the key aims UEFA has here is to create a set of regulations that mean football clubs are run a little less like a business, no? And if the French League has such rules, and the richest sports league in the world (NFL?) has such rules, what other 'business scenario' is relevant in this context?

 

And general equilibrium theory (which is what the draft system is, in economics terms) is neo classical economic theory. It might sound a bit socialist to someone who gets their opinions from Fox News I suppose.

 

 

Sorry, you got that wrong. I don't even watch American news....Canadian is far better. I don't know what Platini's ideas are, but I think it's perfectly reasonable that clubs live within their income [which would feck Chelsea and Man Citeh for a start]. Beyond that, if you build a better stadium, obtain better sponsorship/shirt deals, sell more stuff and have a great scouting system what's wrong with you achieving better results on the field if it also means that by running a very effective business model, you are able to buy the Torres like players of the World?

 

The North American system isn't all it's cracked up to be. Being near Toronto, I can also say about the Toronto baseball team. Won back to back World Series in the early 90's and you couldn't get tickets for love nor money. Now you can walk in the place to huge spaces. Sure they may within the next 10 years be a winner again and fill the place, only a short time later to slide into mediocrity and struggle to half fill the ground. Of course the ultimate reward for the fan can be having their Franchise moved to another city thousands of miles away.....LFC to Bristol?!? Or you get a "Commissioner" like in hockey that won't allow a Phoenix franchise losing wads of dough to move to a Canadian City where it would thrive.

 

Be careful what you wish for!!

[aka Dus]

Sorry, you got that wrong. I don't even watch American news....Canadian is far better. I don't know what Platini's ideas are, but I think it's perfectly reasonable that clubs live within their income [which would feck Chelsea and Man Citeh for a start]. Beyond that, if you build a better stadium, obtain better sponsorship/shirt deals, sell more stuff and have a great scouting system what's wrong with you achieving better results on the field if it also means that by running a very effective business model, you are able to buy the Torres like players of the World?

 

The North American system isn't all it's cracked up to be. Being near Toronto, I can also say about the Toronto baseball team. Won back to back World Series in the early 90's and you couldn't get tickets for love nor money. Now you can walk in the place to huge spaces. Sure they may within the next 10 years be a winner again and fill the place, only a short time later to slide into mediocrity and struggle to half fill the ground. Of course the ultimate reward for the fan can be having their Franchise moved to another city thousands of miles away.....LFC to Bristol?!? Or you get a "Commissioner" like in hockey that won't allow a Phoenix franchise losing wads of dough to move to a Canadian City where it would thrive.

 

Be careful what you wish for!!

 

I am struggling to follow what your point is, sorry.

 

But Platini's plans effectively equate to your first paragraph. Make of that what you will of your communist tendencies.

 

Platini's plans have nothing to do with treating the football clubs as franchises. It's possible that the NFL etc are only serving as inspiration for some regulatory ideas for Uefa and the entire NFL governance model won't be wholly copied, but that's just my feeling...

[Gomez]

It'll never work because if I was Mansour I'd just get a load of Abu Dhabi companies to sponsor the club for a total of £400m a year and then spend what I want on transfers. When people have so much money and are prepared to spend it any authority is going to find it difficult to stop them.

 

That was my first thought. Abramovic already does this with CSKA

[RP]

1. America is not the biggest capitalist country in the world, at least not any more. I would argue the BRIC countries are more capitalist at least.

 

 

 

The US is still the biggest economic power on the world - and so it is 'the biggest capitalist country in the world'.

[fyds]

The US is still the biggest economic power on the world - and so it is 'the biggest capitalist country in the world'.

More importantly, philosophically and in terms of self image they see themselves as the pre-emininent capitalist system in the world, and their sports system is at odds with this. You couldn't imageine a salary cap designed to institute 'fairness of competition' sitting comfortably in any other walk of American life.

[anfield11]

1. America is not the biggest capitalist country in the world, at least not any more. I would argue the BRIC countries are more capitalist at least.

 

2. The reason American sports do this is because the leagues are relatively powerful, and the leagues benefit from more equality. The NFL, for example, has had 6 or 7 Super Bowl winners in 10 years. That is a pretty phenomenal level of equality, and makes fans more interested. As a fan, you know that if the Saints and Cardinals can put together Super Bowl-worthy teams in 3-4 years, your team definitely can with a bit of luck. That drives support and interest. And it works. If I'm not mistaken, the NFL is the highest grossing league in any sport in the entire world, despite having a relatively limited fanbase (there's the capitalist part).

 

Basically it's a tradeoff of maximizing league profitability, and then distributing that, versus individual club profitability.

 

 

What does BRIC stand for?

 

The US is still the biggest economic power on the world that is praying that China don't pull the plug on their massive debt - and so it is 'the biggest capitalist country in the world'.

 

 

Edited

[mm2259]

What does BRIC stand for?

 

 

Brazil, Russia, India, China

Edited March 28, 2010 by mm2259

[CaptainXabi]

See, I see this as just the opposite. I see it as a bunch of mediocrity. I'm not picking on American Football [why do they call it football exactly]. Sure a team can build an win a Super Bowl [stanley Cup] but then can fade to oblivion [slight exaggeration] just as quickly. In football [where they do use their feet] it's very hard to unseed the top sides, but it's not impossible and the supporters can always hang on to maybe becoming successful. I live near Toronto and the Maple Leafs had a history once. They have a huge following, always sell out, their ticket prices would make LFC look like a give away and huge TV contract. They invest nothing in the side and are 53 years since a title.

Interesting way of looking at it.

 

I don't see it as encouraging mediocrity. Salary caps aren't that low. You still have to spend quite a bit of money to be good, and once you become good you'll be fairly good for a few years at least. It just prevents it from being a complete spending shootout, and rewards smart decision making. For example, the Washington Redskins' owner Dan Snyder would spend double the salary cap without blinking if he could in order to win. Jerry Jones of the Cowboys would too. As it stands, you have to be willing to spend money, but you also have to make smart decisions in building your team. That's what separates the teams in the Super Bowl from the Cowboys and Redskins.

 

Also, I think the draft system generally works pretty well. Sure, the poorer teams get the best young players. But there are mitigating factors. First, young players typically aren't that good compared to experienced ones. Every once in a while you get a real protege like Sidney Crosby who comes into the league and is one of the best players immediately. But usually even players that eventually become very good take a while. At the same time, the length of contracts that can be given to young players is limited in most sports and any team can always always trade money or an existing player for a draft pick. In other words, if you really want a player and are willing to pay for it, you will get him.

 

Re: the Maple Leafs, I think that's more indicative of the mess the NHL is in than anything. NHL salaries are way too high for the amount of money the league generates and TV revenues are on the decline - I think that's one of the reasons their ticket prices are high. Also, the Maple Leafs have a revenue of approximately $160 million - that's the most for any hockey team but that's still $50 million lower than the lowest NFL team.

[New York Red]

I see nothing wrong with salary caps at all. In fact, if you couple it with a luxury tax it works really well and it prevents the horrible imbalances that occur when you have teams like Chelsea and Man City spend above what the economics dictate.

 

The draft system just cannot work properly when you have promotion and relegation unless you have official relationships between the teams in the upper and lower divisions.

[Hassony]

The draft system will never work in football outside MLS (not sure it works that great there either)

[CaptainXabi]

The draft system will never work in football outside MLS (not sure it works that great there either)

It doesn't work well for MLS either. I think the draft system only works if you have a really strong college sports framework to go with it. Otherwise, it's a waste of time. In baseball, although they have drafts, the minor league system is much more important and that's pretty much akin to having reserve squads.

 

I don't think drafts would translate well to the Premier League at all, but salary cap and luxury tax potentially could.

[mm2259]

 

I don't think drafts would translate well to the Premier League at all, but salary cap and luxury tax potentially could.

 

A salary cap could work if it is applied to all leagues that come under the aegis of UEFA. If it was introduced by the Premier League only you would almost certainly be kissing goodbye to the top players and any hope of European succes. It won't work if it's tied to turnover as very wealthy people can massively influence revenues.