Why A-League salary cap should be increased

Ian is absolutely right on this. Two marquees should be the limit for a while yet (Although potentially the FFA should make both marquee slots available to foreigners, rather than just one). However I think in a few years time the foreign quota of five could be increased to six or seven- this season foreign recruitment has generally been excellent (Adelaide United in particular have unearthed some top player in Jeronimo, Ferreira an Carrusca, SFC have found Yau, and so on).

Ian......salary caps are a bit more effective in a sport that has no competition for players and wages. No one is arguing for financial irresponsibility but Football operates in a more competitive wage environment than AFL. I can understand that you are happy for Football to remain small here and we all watch AFL and the EPL(just like Sheeds) but I'm not, I want high quality, real football. We may never be able to ocmpete with Man U but we should be able to compete with the AFL or the NRL but it requires some investment. Del Piero doesn't play for Sydney United by the way.

Yes, the funny thing is that Alex Ferguson is better known in Western Sydney than Sheeds.

We are all supportive of the Manchester United game. Even Kevin Sheedy is supportive - he has invited Sir Alex to visit him in Sydney: http://www.afl.com.au/news/2012-12-12/men-united

I think the Man U tour shows the interest in football in Western Sydney. Now this may or may not help the A-league, but what it does show is that we here in Australia will pay to see the best players. One of the great AFL teams will be in Sydney that night as well, with some of the best AFL players in the world, can see them matching the interest in Man U. As I've always said never assume the following of football with the following of the A-League.

I'm not sure why I am bothered because I already know your answer. But let me end with this Man U gets $3M for the game. Already 80K at $150, all sold out has covered this costs,let's not talk about the corporate investment, the overseas tourists, the media attention right in the middle of the RL season in Sydney at SOO time, nothing gets a look in during SOO time in NSW & Queensland. Good luck in trying to get others to believe that you care for the game.

Punter, Leeds bet big on player salaries to make the Champions League, after which the clubs future as one of the Big Clubs would be secure. It didnt work, and the club went into a death spiral. There are various people - notably Titus and Nordster - saying that Australian clubs should repeat this mistake with the Asian Champions League, that the various A-League clubs should spend on players to try and ... repeat what happened to Leeds United. Regarding sponsorships being linked to the various high-priced veterans, I say "show me the money". Tell me which sponsorships and for how much money. Dont just say it, prove it. Name names. Point to numbers in accounts. I see a Melbourne Victory who are back to their long term crowd average, who have the same level of sponsors and so on. I see a Sydney United team that are going through the same process with Del Piero. It was money thrown against a wall with Kewell, and bluntly it's good for MV that his salary has gone off the books. Yes, its warm inner glow, to see some used-to-be-great on the field ... but the actual long-term impact ? Not much, especially not when compared to equity in a ground or equity in a social club (Apia Leichardt survive. Woolongong Wolves havent ... the social club is the difference). Regarding "With the salary cap, the TV deal will cover most of that, so difficult for excessive salary spend", it isnt at all difficult when you are allowed to overspend on a single overpriced, off-cap has-been ... and as well, they all need to watch out for that generic "football club expenditure". I mean, dig into some AFL clubs, and ask yourself "does a club need to spend twice as much on trainers as it does on players ?" (if Fussball bothered to understand anything about the AFL, he'd be far more effective at attacking it. Just saying). Likewise " Likewise with the Man U tour or the Beckham bid, their salaries will be already be covered" - this is like Richmond playing in Cairns. The big club makes sure they get paid a guaranteed amount, and a percentage of the profits, and the locals get scraps. And gullible rubes lap it up. Long. Term. Sustainability. Clubs building asset bases. Clubs building, well, clubs. The league making sure that Williamson's "The Club" isnt repeated. Not everyone who tells you what you want to hear is your friend.

The author said: "It is ultimately the players who are the products of this growth but they will continue to get the same slice of the pie. " Are the players the products of this growth, or factors in the growth? What has Manchester United got to do with the salary cap? Perhaps someone can clarify, but doesn't United basically walk away with the loot? The TV rights deal didn't increase by 200%, it increased by 100% (and even then, that's debateable, we have never actually been given the full story on the deal). The author concludes: "More money is out there if people are willing to spend it. " Come again?? TC

OK Ian, i'll play the game with you. Melb Heart, now the new TV deal will cover their salary cap, so how will they be the next Leeds utd & cripple football? Gold Coast demise & well documented, it was badly run definitely lack of cash flow was not the issue. Nth Queensland, crashed & burned mainly due to the GFC, a new franchise, where the investors were hit by the GFC & renege. The FFA ran it on life support, with minimum cost looking for new investors before casting it aside. There was a dodgy investor from Asia, who the FFA with due diligence dismissed. With the salary cap, the TV deal will cover most of that, so difficult for excessive salary spend. Notice & I will use your 2 examples, the marquees like Harry Kewell & the great man Ale Del Piero were only offered to the teams that could generate income via corporate sponsorships, crowds & owners that can afford it, Melbourne & Sydney. In both cases but more so in Del Piero situation, the argument was more on the long lasting affect of his signing, more than the value of his cost. Del Piero has already paid for himself many times over with the corporate investment, the attendances not only in Sydney but everywhere he plays, the shirt sales & most importantly the publicity he has generated. Likewise with the Man U tour or the Beckham bid, their salaries will be already be covered. The FFA would not approve a marquee signing to a club that could send that club to insolvency. They, the clubs would need to show, ala CCM with John Singleton's bid for David Beckham, how they would pay for marquee before FFA allowing for it.

"None of the A-League clubs are richer. They’ve all got no history, no assets" I only know about MVFC's finances & you are talking nonsense, which is not surprising, since you do this ever day to try to interrupt & hijack every football discussion.

Well you would have small clubs and big clubs like you do all over the world. The small clubs would hate the big clubs with a passion and sing songs and drink beer and feel pride in players that they developed that went onto bigger things. You are born to your club and you can change them no more than you can change your parents, it's your lot in life and you make the most of what you can. The big clubs would be smug and superior and compete against Gamba Osaka, FC Seoul and Shanghai Shenhua. Having small clubs would mean teams like Orange and Gold Coast and Bendigo and Tassie could form a second division and occassionally make it to the top flight, maybe even win a cup comp that will be handed down in tales to successive generations.

Punter, Here is two dollars. For the moment, I'll buy your argument that I hate, loathe and fear soccer. Now, the single best thing that now has me rubbing my hands in glee are last years collapse of the North Queensland and Gold Coast sides. More of that, thank you ! More cases of players who may or may not get paid ! More clubs going through 'will they be here next year, can a buyer be found ?'. More uncertainty as to whether sponsorship or TV contracts can be honoured. Given that, I would be in *favour* of clubs desperately spending money they dont have on a Harry Kewell or an Alessandro Del Piero. I would be in *favour* of letting clubs repeat the experience of Collingwood and Richmond in the VFL early 1980s, when they both went insolvent due to excessive salary spend - Melbourne Heart as the next Leeds United, yes, thank you ! That will cripple soccer nicely ! I would likewise be in *favour* of clubs being owned by dodgy overseas owners, as their arrest/sispicious death/unexplained cash flow crises put their pet club on a selling spree. I would likewise be in favour of clubs not owning any hard assets that will get them through the bad times. See why your argument doesnt make sense ? Because its 100% against all the things I recommend.

The nature of the A-League is such that at worst a club will only be down for 2 seasons and every fan knows that, because of the salary cap, their side can potentially get their act togehter and win the league in the future. Besides the A-League is a very competitive league and the teams are generally always so close. Have a team consistently at the bottom for 5+ years with no hope of ever winning anything and then let's see where their crowds are at

CCM are winning the league and average 10 000 if they weren't winning they would probably still get 8 000 along, same with Brisbane, Adelaide etc The only time these teams get big crowds is when Sydney or Melbourne come to town with star players. Having big clubs helps the overall league and increases the quality of the league overall. Having small clubs that are bigger than the big clubs doesn't help the league overall and doesn't do much to help those teams either. Don't get me wrong, I think we need a salary cap for now and until we have promotion/relegation but I don't think that the idea that all teams must be equal is necessarily true.

It's a professional world now. Clubs need crowds and sponsorship revenues to pay the bills and they won't come if only a couple of teams have any chance of winning the title. They no longer run off the meat raffle at the local clubhouse. Teams down the bottom lose money and a team that's always down the bottom will be in big trouble. We've already lost enough A-League teams over the last few seasons. The EPL is very different. The EPL isn't it's own league in isolation but the top in a system of leagues so if a team does poorly it doesn't sit at the bottom for years, it drops out of the division. For some teams even being in the EPL is an achievement. There are also various other things to keep up the interest like European spots, Cup (domestic and European) competitions and relegation. Until the A-League has those (it has one of those with the ACL) and I'm skeptical that a relegation system will even work in Australia, then it needs an even competiion.

This is where we differ Ian & thankfully so, my views good or bad are aimed at the good of the game, I don't think yours are.

The VFL and Rugby League had uncompetitive teams in the past and they had a few teams that dominated for long periods. It wasn’t a problem back then and it certainly hasn’t hurt the EPL which has just signed off on a massive 5 Billion pound, 3 year TV deal? What’s changed in Australia? The advent of NATIONAL competitions where new teams and new leagues were introduced and clubs formed in non traditional areas. The only way these leagues can prosper is if they go ‘socialist’ and give everyone a chance to win. With no history or loyalty these new teams wouldn’t survive without help. I understand this is how it has to be here in Australia but it’s a sign of weakness not strength.

+1

Because that locks them into a death spiral of being the easybeats people dont want to show up to, watch or sponsor. Look at, for example, the Gippsland Falcons, or a number of other under-funded easybeat teams in the old NSL. Or look at Hawthorn between, say, when they came into the VFL and 1960 or so. Or look at, say, Penrith in the pre-salary cap era in the NSWRL. Heck, look at amateur rugby union in Australia. A competitive league is good for the code.

Whats stupid about abolishing the floor and allowing the clubs to spend the tv money where they see fit, based on their own strategic imperatives at the local level? Gives them much more flexibility to remain viable and sustainable on their own terms, Stupider would be to impose a centralised wage structure...the norm in australian sport