The Sweeper: Premier League to Put On Salary Cap?
Big Story
West Ham owner David Sullivan sees the light according to the Guardian, calling for a salary cap to be introduced to the Premier League:
West Ham United’s co-owner David Sullivan has reignited the debate over a salary cap in the Premier League, saying it may be the only solution to the “madness” of current top-flight wages.
Sullivan, who along with David Gold bought 50% of West Ham last month for £52.5m, said the salaries were “bad for football” and hit out at the imbalance created by the spending power of the billionaire owners of Manchester City and Chelsea.
“Maybe the ultimate solution would be a salary cap,” said Sullivan. “I’ve always been against it but I’m starting to swing towards it, as they have in American football. Other than that I just don’t see an end to it – of wages out of all proportion to the turnover of the clubs. Somehow there should be some sort of control.”
Well, that couldn’t be because it sucks to be paying Kieron Dyer £60,000-a-week, could it?
This kind of thing needs a little more thought to it than Sullivan’s general sense that Something Must Be Done, and it will need momentum from many more owners and from leadership at the Football Association to coordinate with the Football League (which has a salary cap related to turnover in the lower two divisions, but not in the Championship).
It does seem, though, that the tide is turning as English football clubs realise the hole they have dug themselves with uncapped spending. It will need some support from the big clubs to push this forward….If only there was a leading executive at a leading English club with some experience of running a soccer league with a salary cap….
Quick Hits
- Portsmouth’s ownership changed hands today, but it looks like Hong Kong-based Balram Chainrai is only looking to stick around until he can sell the club on. And the Telegraph helpfully recaps Pompey’s four owners in six months. Well, at least Avram Grant wasn’t caught going to brothels. Oh, wait.
- Can you get goosebumps waiting for MLS season to begin watching an unexplained promo video for a defunct team? Uh, maybe….
- Shit goes from shit to shitter for Notts County.
The Sweeper appears every weekday, and once at the weekend. For more rambling and links throughout the day every day, follow your editor Tom Dunmore @pitchinvasion on Twitter.
Seems to me that grownups shouldn’t need an allowance.
That said, I am tickled at even the possibility of an American idea being adopted in European soccer. Next up: postseason playoffs and then an All-Star Game.
Playoffs were adopted by the Football League for promotion in the 1980s. They’ve come to be accepted, though there was quite the outcry at the time. Don’t think we’ll ever see them used to determine champions, though.
I think a salary cap would be a great idea for fans and ownership, but it would undoubtedly lower player salaries across the board, which I would be reluctant to support (and I’m sure they won’t either). I would also be concerned that there could be much more flux at the highest levels. If everyone is on an equal playing field money-wise, it would be terrible for football if a club like Manchester United got relegated. In American sports, salary caps tend to make success cyclical. A team will be bad for a few years because of a bad signing, but then great for a few years because they got a superstar at the right price. I think the UEFA rule of Financial Fair Play may help alleviate some of this, since you can spend what you bring in, and clubs like Manchester United, Liverpool, etc. bring in a lot more cash than those with smaller stadiums, followings, etc. It is terrible to see the poor ownership choices putting some great clubs under massive debt, and it shouldn’t have to lead to salary cap, but apparently being the worst money manager/CEO in the world is a requirement for running any Premier League club.
Matthew — my guess would be (as is sort of intimated in Sullivan’s post) that a salary cap in the Premier League wouldn’t be a hard cap like in MLS, but a proportion of turnover (some might say this would automatically favour the bigger teams). I think in the Football League, the cap on wages is at 60% of turnover, though perhaps someone could confirm or correct me.
Allow for unlimited spending with a luxury tax, hence a billionaire owner that goes over a % of his revenues as far as player spending send 500,000 for every million to the rest of the teams.
Ironic that the NFL will most likely be without a salary cap next season, no?
>If everyone is on an equal playing field money-wise, it would be terrible for football if a club like Manchester >United got relegated.
Why? I think it would be fantastic for the English game to become unpredictable as it once was. The salary cap had many flaws, limiting it to a percentage of turnover would make it harder than ever for smaller clubs to compete as even if they found a sugar daddy, they wouldn’t be able to spend crazy money to bring their squads in line with the top clubs. Clubs would also find ways to be creative in how they pay players, too. And a salary cap would have to be Europe-wide with the same limit imposed on clubs in England, Spain, Germany and Italy.
I think a better and more easily enforceable short-term solution would be squad limits, say 25 senior professionals. This would prevent the top clubs from hoarding talented youngsters from across the world and if they encountered an injury crisis, they would have to give games to their own youth team products. Perhaps this could be followed by limits on both permanent transfer and loan transfers, though this would undoubtedly be contested by the EU as restriction of movement on employees.
Squad limits and a Luxury Tax. Strangely, baseball’s system would probably work best.
And every time I’ve heard the broadcast of an English promotion playoff, the announcers say something along the lines of “Well, it’s not completely fair, but it really is exciting, isn’t it?”
Point being: never say never. I’m sure in 1980 the concept was completely a non-starter. But you never know. We Yanks occasionally have workable ideas.
A luxury tax may be the easiest to implement, but there still needs to be limits in place to prevent teams from borrowing themselves into oblivion. Limiting net transfer expenses based on club profitability could be one way to shore up the teams finances and bring back some competitive balance.
Their is a way to ensure Salary caps by stelth, simply make it a requirement of PL/CCC membership that football clubs can’t borrow more than the equivilant of1% of their turnover…
In terms of relegation some ManU and Spurs fans will tell their favcourate season was the one they spent in the old Div2/
Looks to me that grownups should not need an allowance.
That told, I’m tickled at even the possibility of an American thought being adopted in European soccer. Next up: postseason matches and then an All-Star Game.
I think a better and more easily enforceable short-term solution would be squad limits, say 25 senior professionals. This would prevent the top clubs from hoarding talented youngsters from across the world and if they encountered an injury crisis, they would have to give games to their own youth team products. Perhaps this could be followed by limits on both permanent transfer and loan transfers, though this would undoubtedly be contested by the EU as restriction of movement on employees.