- Jan 17, 2015
- Reaction score
- Mino Raiola & Jorge Mendes
He's absolutey right. Man City are aggressively breaking the rules and therefore its not a fair competition. chelsea didn't have to sell Luiz or Schurle to fund purchases. They did it due to FFP.
FFP isn't something that was unfairly dropped on clubs. It was built up over a few seasons. I hope the Football League sticks by there guns and refuse QPR entry into the league next year when relegated. That'll cause people to take it more seriously.
Why is 'retrospectively stripping' even a discussion?! Sounds a bizarre thing to say. Should we also discuss retrospectively altering every league table to the '3 points for a win' scoring system. Chelsea have never broken any FFP rules.
How in the world is FFP actually "Fair" ?? It will keep the stronger teams strong and rich, but teams in the middle and lower level will always stay there.
I've always found it difficult to judge the success of FFP, because I don't really know what its aims are.
Is the aim to ensure a degree of fairness and prevent certain clubs from taking advantage of their greater spending power? Or is the aim to ensure the sustainability of clubs? Or both?
Is a transfer budget and salary cap viable in football? I know American sports and their transfer/salary cap is limited to the major leagues (well, the NFL and NBA anyway) which contain only 30-32 teams and are therefore on a much smaller scale to football, but it works so well.
Teams can only afford a few elite players and every team in the league is able to compete for free agents, based on how much salary they can afford. The result is parity and the leagues do not suffer without completely dominant brands (like Manchester United or Real Madrid), instead the leagues are growing in popularity, because they are far more competitive and engaging. Of course there are teams that already have history and probably make more money through other streams (Lakers, Celtics, Cowboys, etc.), but this enforced measure of parity has brought them back to the pack.
FFP seems like a bizarre half-measure. Why just balance the books? Are FIFA scared that the sport won't attract sugar daddies to the sport if they bring in a proper measure of fair practice? The NFL and the NBA still attract billionaire investors, so I don't see the game of football losing that injection of cash just because they wouldn't be able to dominate.
It would be harder to enact, as there are more leagues and many more tiers to consider, but why wouldn't it work better than FFP? And why does no one ever bring it up?
Whilst I dont' like these money men clubs regardless of levels (the lower leagues have had them for years, long before the prem did)
It is extremely double standard of Chelsea to moan about it considering they were not in the elite group without doing the same......reminds me of bloody Whelan who moaned like anything about the mass spending against his poor Wigan when in the top flight but blatantly forgot how wigan got into there in first place (him being one of the first silly spending owners)
it'll never do much anyway, I'd much rather a player wage cap come in one day.......why players need £250,000-300,000 a week is beyond me.
There's always been investment in the top flight, too. Rich people have always wanted to be involved in the game. Either for their own ego or genuinely wanting to 'give back'.
And its not about how much players 'need' it's about how much clubs are willing to pay them based on a market rate driven these days more by tv rights and sponsorship that gate receipts. Did Tom Cruise 'need' £75m last year? If people are going to pay to watch, then it's no surprise that the biggest pay packet will go to 'the talent'. It would be great if ticket prices came down, but it would be great if agents didn't take in millions and millions per deal, too...
The question really with a wage cap is how do you cap it? By % of turnover? An overall cap? They all have problems.
your right it is hard to stop, but then when does it stop.....300k a week, 400k, 500k....a million a week??
problem is wages then rise across board and drifts down to the levels with no Tv money to support it.
I do find it ironic the same people who detest bankers and politicians for any money they make are quite content with the money pop stars, tv/film or sports people make which is frankly well above what they deserve......but them areas are past point of no return really.
They all have problems, but I think the benefits of a salary cap completely outweigh the drawbacks of the current system and highlight the inefficacy of FFP. As Scruff mentioned, it would need to be enforced worldwide to work, making it a complex (and probably unworkable) endeavour.
In other sports, the salary cap is based on the league's revenue streams and adjusted on an annual basis (depending on an increase/decrease in revenue). Obviously in football there are far more leagues than American sports, so a compromise might be to evaluate the revenue streams of the major leagues (Premier League, La Liga, Serie A, etc.) and come to a salary cap based on that. The sport would become eminently more watch-able and greater competition in the top leagues would surely (eventually) benefit the world game financially.
Of course, for this to happen, the world's most powerful leagues would also be brought back to the pack, which they would vehemently protest. So, we'll be left with the same archaic system with pathetic half-measures introduced to give the game the appearance of equity.
If UEFA or FIFA had any balls (or ethics), they would do something like this.
I don't think it's ironic at all. Footballers are not placed in a position to serve the public, they aren't in charge of our finances, nor are there a significant number of cases of financial deceit, as there are with bankers and politicians who are entrusted with the economy. Footballers have benefited from free market capitalism, but they don't have the power to manipulate, hide or control information for their own gain.