- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
About the only positive to come from the Perth Glory salary cap saga is the discussion it has raised about the future of the salary cap in the A-League.
The cap was initially installed to ensure competitive balance within the fledgling competition, while minimising the potential losses suffered by clubs, keeping both them and the league relatively viable.
While the cap has done its job in ensuring a close competition – five different champions in 10 years attests to that – measuring its effectiveness in limiting club losses is far more open to debate.
All clubs have been in the red over the journey, some a lot more significantly than others. Financial woes have been well documented at the Mariners, Jets, Adelaide, Brisbane, Perth and – perhaps most condemning of all – the disasters that were Gold Coast United and North Queensland Fury.
Despite this, the league is continuing to grow at a steady pace and is far more financially stable than a decade ago.
With a new TV deal on the horizon, reportedly worth double the current one, now is the time to assess the salary cap’s worth in the current climate, with particular focus on the game’s future growth.
The two main arguments against removing the cap are that it will ruin the competitive balance of the competition in favour of the bigger clubs, and potentially compromise the relative financial stability of the league. This line of thinking seems to adhere to the low-risk, long-game approach – aiming for incremental growth of the league as has occurred over the past decade. It would ensure that smaller clubs stay viable and remain competitive with the big guns.
The other option is to toss the cap aside and see what happens. The first thought is that it would be very good for larger clubs from the capital cities, enabling them to attract and retain higher calibre players, while lifting the standard of the league in general.
In this scenario, it would obviously be bad news for smaller clubs and make it far more difficult for them to compete. But the question must be asked, is this truly such a bad thing?
For starters, this is a fact of life in every major football country around the world. Big teams from big cities tend to dominate. Beyond the fact that it makes us unique (MLS aside), why should we be any different? It would seem that we are choosing to greatly hinder the growth of the game by retaining the cap in order to keep a couple of small clubs competitive. Is this really what we want?
If we continue as we are, in another 10 years, can anyone see teams like the Mariners or Newcastle regularly raking in crowds of 15,000 plus? It seems doubtful. But if you look at the other end of the scale, there is massive potential for growth.
What would Melbourne City be capable of unrestricted? Or Victory? Or either of the Sydney clubs, Brisbane or Perth for that matter? How would their crowds look if they could hang onto and build a team around their best players?
If the reins came off, would the growth of the biggest clubs make up for the lack of competitiveness from the smaller clubs? I think it definitely would, and seems to play into the FFA’s wish to ‘fish were the fish are’.
The risk is that in attempting to compete, clubs could run into financial difficulty. In reality however, this is no less likely without a cap than it is now, as clubs are already able to spend big on marquee signings.
This only leaves us with one sensible option: once the new TV rights deal kicks in, it’s time to scrap the cap.
Are you the ultimate team manager? Pick your own superstar team and go head to head with other football fans for glory and cash prizes on Draftstars. Imagine what you could be buying instead. Set a deposit limit.