Should a salary-cap system be imposed by the Federation International de Football Association (FIFA) on professional European Leagues to promote fairness and positive values?
Professional football is as much a ruthless business as sporting entertainment. It seems that, unless a club is owned by a multi-millionaire, it makes it exceptionally difficult to compete. The lack of competition within leagues highlights the need for a salary-cap system.
This system would involve all professional European clubs (under FIFA Statute) having limited money available for player transfers. Arguments supporting this system suggest that it would promote fair competition, club loyalty, prevent predictable outcomes to games and promote positive values.
Comparatively, the argument against the proposed salary-cap system suggests it would unfairly limit a player’s value, prevent the highest possible quality football and reduce money influx to clubs through limited sponsorship deals.
Arguments supporting the proposed salary-cap system acknowledge the problems associated with the current transfer system. At present, the transfer process in professional European football leagues has no monetary limits, allowing clubs to buy and sell players for profit without considering implications on football as a whole.
The ‘galactico’ era at Real Madrid epitomised football’s current state which is turning into an unsympathetic industry run by millionaires. During this era, the best players in the world were wooed by the club, such as Zinedine Zidane (for a record £46 million) , Ronaldo and David Beckham.
According to the ‘galactico’ philosophy, the paramount objective was to have as many quality players as possible, also endorsed by Mourinho’s managerial era (2004-2007) at Chelsea Football Club, where he spent (under billionaire owner Roman Abromavich) £225.76 million .
The current system forces clubs to have a “win at all costs” mentality. Because of this system, a clubs managers and owners are being forced to treat players as products. If the product does not produce results, the product is sold.
Furthermore, if a product does produce results, it does not necessarily mean a footballer’s place in the team is guaranteed. Financially weaker clubs are being bullied into selling their most skilful assets to financially stronger clubs – referred to as “poaching” by UEFA president Michele Platini.
Platini argued a salary-cap system would “…stop the exploitation of young players” and “…stop footballer’s salaries from spiralling out of control amid concerns that the clubs’ ever-growing wage packets are threatening the viability of many teams and widening the chasm between the haves and have nots”.
In this respect, Platini is an example of someone supporting the proposed system. Although “…an individual salary-cap would be very difficult to enforce under European law” ; a Europe-wide salary-cap would be possible if it achieved strong support from FIFA and the European Union.
Amongst the frenzy of the current transfer period (June 1st – August 31st) , the true underbelly of “the beautiful game” is coming to the fore. That is, football values – of both the clubs and players – are questionable, outlining the necessity for an alternative system.
Liverpool Football Club have sold Peter Crouch to Portsmouth Football Club, ignoring his plea to “do everything” to stay at Merseyside. Furthermore, Football Club Barcelona told Ronaldinho (mid-contract) he was “surplus to requirements” which prompted his exit to AC Milan (for 25 million euros). This highlights the uncompassionate nature of the current system, in which “club football has no honour”.
The argument supporting the salary-cap system suggests it would encourage clubs and players to consider moral obligations in an attempt to modernise traditional employer-employee relationships from being focused on profit and success to being focused on the development of football as a whole.
Samuel Eto’o, presently the subject of numerous transfer rumours surrounding his imminent departure from Barcelona, is an example of support for the current system.
He stated “Europe’s highest profile players are worth every penny of their colossal salaries” , and that “salary capping could ruin the game.”
Eto’o also suggests “the money divide between the big and small clubs can cause problems,” however, “the introduction of a wage limit would not be fair for those players who are a commercial success.”
Eto’o stated: “If you are able to generate a lot of money for your club… you are in a position to earn a share of that, teams should pay accordingly to the popularity and performance of each player.”
Although this argument has some validity, it is too narrow in its perspective as it does not represent the majority of people affected by the current system.
To determine whether the proposed salary-cap system would indeed be beneficial for the game, it is necessary to analyse the FIFA mission statement which is to “Develop the game, touch the world, build a better future”.
By introducing a new salary-cap system, football can embrace this philosophy.
If it was introduced, the game would be developed through strengthening and promoting humanitarian values. This would be achieved by giving weaker teams the opportunity to win competitions, such as the elitist Champions League, currently reserved for financially stronger teams, such as Manchester United Football Club, estimated by Forbes as the “most valuable sports franchise in the world at $1.8 billion”.
According to SBS football analyst Les Murray, the Champions League final (Chelsea versus Manchester United, 2008) will be “a contest of riches, a showdown between two teams assembled by money, without the slightest regard for what is good, what is best for football and what is sporting.” This is an example of an argument supporting a salary-cap system, as it suggests there are problems with the current system.
Upon evaluation, football would benefit from the proposed salary-cap system, as it would encourage more passion from traditionally weaker teams and promote a broad range of competitions in a fair and competitive manner.
Football’s future can either be founded upon current ‘galactico’ policies, in which wealthy clubs have an unquestionable advantage, or, founded upon a new salary-cap system, where the virtues employed would indeed “use the power of football as a tool for social and human development.”
The future of the game can be beautiful, advocating global passion for the game and fair competition whilst upholding the rights of weaker clubs, under the proposed salary-cap system.
dasilva
Guest
I don't know Millster. I like the idea of success buying more success. Clubs like Arsenal and Manchester United earnt the right to have more money due to good coaching getting results. Its their success that allowed them to have more money for them to maintain success. Clubs like Chelsea and Manchester City has no previous history and no track record of championship success. Then a rich billionaire comes in and buys the club which then makes them immediately (or almost) immediate success. It kinds of cheapens the achievement of the likes of Arsenal and Man. U over the years (although Man. U sold out anyway). The thing is sports is different to the rest of society. There's always a bit of romance about sport that you can't equate with business. One thing is the idea that this is first a local team and it's primary achievement is to win trophies and money is just a means to an end and not the point of the clubs existance (that's why I'm pro-member only clubs like barcelona and madrid rather then private ownership). Also I don't believe in rewarding mediocrity so that's why I oppose salary cap. However having billionaire taking over a club is also rewarding mediocrity. The club achieve nothing to reach any height and rewarded by a billionaire investor as the club isn't that expensive to buy compare to a big club which then buy success. I don't believe that is meritocratic either. There has to be balance between laissez faire and a socialist system.
Millster
Guest
Phutbol - I understand your view but you will know if you've read my stuff over the past year that I cannot agree. Being "the most stable in the game" is not to me a great accolade and indeed the Bundesliga - while being stable as you say - is a good league but not one of the 3 or 4 super-leagues in the world. Absolute standard is sacrificed for viability. At the heart of it, I don't see the philosophical objection to someone spending money to build and buy a club faster than would happen 'organically'. If someone has a desire to pick up a club, inject funds and players into it, and lift the bar for the rest of the league to try and match then good on them. Inevitably some clubs that cannot compete on-field or off (e.g. in funding) will fall by the wayside but guess what, that's life. A system that keeps them there is one that holds the whole league back to their level (financial or otherwise). But as I said before I have a particular laissez-faire view, and others take a much more socialist line, and its a philosophical argument that I think will endure for the rest of time...
Phutbol
Guest
Maybe so Millster, but they wouldn't be paid so much that it would potentially bankrupt the business. And it isnt the senior execs that have run it into the red, its a bad business, business model, or management that does that. The expensive exec is there to turn it around. Compare that to clubs that would otherwise be solvent racking up huge debts buying players to try to win trophies or compete with richer clubs which then results in the club busting. I believe it may have even happened in our now defunct NSL. I have seen it stated in various opinion pieces that german clubs are among the most stable in the game and very rarely (or never) go bust because of the cap system. The basis would have to be last years turnover, but thats the point - build the club to champion status, dont just buy it. I suppose rolling 12 month periods could be done but would be exceptionally difficult to monitor. I'm not saying its a perfect system, and I certainly wouldnt know the intricacies or how it would be implemented, but at least it brings a semblance of balance to what is otherwise becoming a game decided by who is richest. Has to be a better option.
Millster
Guest
Phutbol - Your last line is wrong. Senior managers often get paid by market value. In fact you often have to pay the most for someone skilled at turning a business around AT THE VERY TIME that you are making a loss. Its called a strategic investment. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Also there is the timing issue. I presume the basis would be the % of last years turnover. What if there is a major change? I don't remember what year Abramovic came into Chelsea but I'm damn sure its turnover the previous year (based on performance, star power, merchandise, etc) wasn't what it was once he came in and strarted doing things. So do you want investors to be hamstrong from really building a player roster due to mediocrity before? How do you get that 'launch pad' if you can't exceed certain limits from previous years when you're current guys werent even in charge?
Phutbol
Guest
I agree with the % of turnover idea for a cap. It allows the bigger clubs to spend more, but wont put the smaller ones either out of business trying to compete, or at a ridiculous disadvantage. Most importantly it stops hyper-rich individuals from lobbing in and buying trophies eg. abramovich etc. This kind of cap also can reward individual players per the 'Eto'o argument' because a superstar who earns the club more money can potentially be paid more as turnover increases. setting a reasonable spending limit based on turnover is not restricting a players value or a clubs potential, because what the club makes should reasonably be the guide for (or the restriction on) how much a player is worth for being the best. It shouldn't be based on how rich the owner of the club is and how much $$$ they are willing to burn to win a trophy. The senior employees of any other businesses dont get paid so much that the business itself runs in the red, they get remunerated in line with what they are worth AND what the business can afford.
Ian Noble
Guest
True Tah You have a super club competition in Europe with the Champions League, created I suspect to prevent "the group of 14" top European clubs declaring UDI and creating their own super league. This has been on the cards for some time but as lessened as the revenue streams from the Champions League and the EPL for English clubs have increased. Salary caps in the main don't work and are open to abuse and are difficult to manage. In rugby it has worked within the GP because the Premier League management has excellent monitoring procedures, although they have had to increase the ceiling to £4Mpa for this year. Why? because the game is more popular and revenue streams have increased and the market place has increased the demands of both the off shore players and the increasing number of English players who have decided to pursue a career in rugby. One major benefit has been thats no doubt that the GP are more discerning, particularly with off shore players, as they can not compete with the French clubs who have no salary cap. Personally I hope the salary cap continues in rugby as it will increase the number of English players, but if the performance of the GP clubs in European tournaments is poor and the French win everything then pressure will increase for the cap to be blown apart!!
Westy
Guest
It is the world game. This is fairytale stuff.
Slippery Jim
Guest
How did this article appear under rugby? Anyways, I agree with Millster. A big NO from me too...
dasilva
Guest
What about 60% of turnover cap which is used in germany. Clubs that do well aren't disadvantages and are allowed to used more money but it will limit the spending of billionaires owner.
True Tah
Guest
Pippinu, C Ronaldo may be a great futbol player, but if he did say that, he clearly wouldn't understand much about world history.
Pippinu
Roar Guru
Was it C Ronaldo that likened the present transfer system in the World Game to slavery?
Koala Bear
Guest
Oh… hang on… I live in a country bizarre enough to celebrate a horse race where we do just that… Millster, is it me or is there something we don't understand .?.. First of all a discussion on final 8 series, now a FIFA salary cap .. Geez I hope I will not have to respond to a world-wide draft selection process for rookies.. :D People, let market forces prevail.. ~~~~~~~ KB
True Tah
Guest
Got to agree with Millster, it would be too hard to police, gosh can you imagine the sort of schemes the top Italian clubs would come up with the circumnavigate the salary cap, would make the Bulldogs look like a bunch of amateurs!! Ultimately I think what will happen is a European Super Club comp with the top Big 4 (possibly 5) Pommy clubs, the Old Firm, the top Spanish, Italian and German clubs - Im not sure about Austrian, Norwegian, Croatian, Russian, Lithuanian, French, Dutch, Greek and Swiss clubs because Im not sure if they're in the same league financially as the others. The critieria for a super club league - well instead of having a salary cap, why not have a salary floor - the club must spend say 200 million euros/pounds on players per year to be eligible for it?
Millster
Guest
Too right. It was harsh Darwinian means that saw us evolve from amoebas into organisms that can have this very discussion over an internet that we designed. Within reason, why the hell we would want to reverse the very dynamic that has proven over a few million years to result - albeit often cruelly - in such progress is just totally beyond me. Especially in the relatively 'safe' confines of the sporting environment which I might add is an OVERTLY competitive one where the whole aim is to win. If we take these socialist views to extremes why don't we just handicap players, or weigh the best ones down with lead so they can only run as fast as the muppets. Oh... hang on... I live in a country bizarre enough to celebrate a horse race where we do just that...
Pippinu
Roar Guru
Being anti-socialism usually means being anti-regulation. Is the World Game completely free of regulation? Of course not!! Real Madrid could easily afford to assemble the best 11 players in the world - why does't it manage to do so?
Michael C
Guest
Redb - when it all appears too good to be true - - -normally it is. Millster - Remind me never to ask you to pass the gravy.......... "No!! get your own!!!" There's different forms of 'socialist' doctrine, there's different applications of 'socialist' ideal - - - all socialist dogma need not be evil - - - but you seem to be a black & white philosophical type person on this issue which seems to guide your opinion.
Redb
Guest
Yeah its about time they figured out a more sophiscated approach rather than this slack system that operates now. It has all the hallmarks of the American banking system. :-) Redb
Millster
Guest
No No No No No and a big anti-cheer from me. My views are well known to most so I won't repeat them but this suggestion is horrendous to me. Matt raises a good point too that salary caps are the opposite to compassionate on players, and do nothing for player loyalty - in fact they incentivise clubs to axe anyone who they have developed into a position of having any significant market worth. Winston Churchill put it best when he said "socialism is a philosophy of failure, a creed of ignorance, and a gospel of envy. Its only inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery". For sport I'd substitute the word misery for mediocrity - for punishing success and stripping leading players and clubs of the rewards of their excellence. I could not be more strongly and deeply opposed to such a suggestion. (Thanks though for a lengthy and well-written and researched piece; even though I object vehemently to your opinion, this is exactly what this site is about)
Michael C
Guest
Matt - re the loyalty factor - it probably wouldn't work for soccer as there are too many alternate bidders. The RL world is too big in a sense via just the NRL and Superleague. The AFL world is just right, there are no outside bidders - - and at that level we do more commonly see premiership teams top players take pay cuts so as to keep the nucleus of the squad together so as to aim at achieving not just a season of greatness but an 'era'. For so many reasons I'd love to see it work in world soccer - - - but, I really don't think you could regulate that market. I'd love to be proven wrong.
Matt
Guest
I'd love to see it happen, but doubt it. The big losers would be the superstar players and the millionaire owners, who I'd imagine have a LOT of influence in the world. Also, I'm a little sceptical of this train of though regarding salary caps: "...it would encourage clubs and players to consider moral obligations in an attempt to modernise traditional employer-employee relationships from being focused on profit and success to being focused on the development of football as a whole". If anything Salary Caps also reduce the loyalty of clubs and players, because a clubs cannot afford to keep a player on their books due to cap restrictions and they are then forced to move on? All a salary cap gives is an excuse for the club to get rid of a player. I'd imagine that if a caps was succesfully placed on the EPL then owners of the bigger clubs would actually turn a pretty nice profit for a few years though!