While the FFA’s changes to the A-League salary cap provide promise moving forward, particularly the marquee, loyalty and mature-age allowances, questions still remain over the cap’s effectiveness.
At its most basic level the salary cap is designed to ensure an equal competition and save clubs from financial ruin. That is fair enough, but neither has been achieved.
And when changes to the cap move more towards benefiting the larger clubs and leaving the smaller clubs behind, the system’s effectiveness lessens.
For all the FFA’s work in creating a level playing field it has had little influence. Only the Newcastle Jets and Central Coast Mariners have been able to break the ruling party of Melbourne Victory, Sydney FC and Brisbane Roar. Their fleeting success can not be directly linked to the implementation of a salary cap, but rather good management and recruitment.
Even with wage restrictions the bigger clubs in bigger cities remain more likely to be successful. That is not a bad thing, it is just football. Worldwide there are big and small clubs and seeing minnows perform above their calling is part of the sport’s beauty.
This is not a call to scrap the cap, exactly, but rather to create discussion about its benefits and faults.
The new changes to the A-League salary cap, despite who they benefit, are thankfully mostly positive.
The loosening of marquee restrictions, allowing two foreign marquees instead of enforcing at least one Australian marquee, makes perfect sense. Not only have clubs been unable to convince top class Australians to finish their careers at home, but they have also had their hands tied when retaining a winning formula.
Melbourne Victory’s recent dilemma fitting Fahid Ben Khalfallah, who rightly demanded a pay rise after a stellar debut campaign, and Archie Thompson, a club stalwart who also warranted another season in the A-League, will now be avoided.
Victory managed to find a solution without the cap changes but Brisbane Roar were not so lucky at the end of the 2013-14 campaign. With Thomas Broich taking up the sole foreign marquee spot the Roar were forced to let go of Besart Berisha, for free.
Yet this change only really assists the bigger clubs with the bulging bank balances. Not many A-League teams are able to afford one marquee, let alone two, and this initiative, while necessary, is not a win for the minnows. The Mariners have never had an international marquee.
Financial sustainability is the major argument put forth for maintaining the cap. Though the FFA would better serve football’s growth by identifying and attracting responsible owners – something they have failed to do with Clive Palmer, Nathan Tinkler and most recently the Bakrie Group.
Implementing a cap but failing to ensure franchise licenses are handed out to appropriate owners defeats the aim of financial sustainability.
Perth Glory’s rise to A-League premiers and possible champions would have been a fantastic boost for football. Adding another club to the winners’ list could have propelled Western Australian football back to previous heady heights.
Yet the salary cap only prevented a new champion from emerging. This is not a defence of Perth’s mismanagement, rules are rules, but without a cap we could have another club capable of challenging the status quo. Adelaide United and Wellington Phoenix have shown how to do it within the cap restraints, of course, but letting a club spend big to compete is not necessarily a bad system.
The increase of the cap floor – with clubs now required to spend a minimum 90 per cent of their wage allocation instead of 85 per cent – is one pitfall from the new changes. It does not really make sense if the FFA are intent on assisting clubs break even.
If a smaller club like the Mariners wants to save money through wages then why not let them? The club struggles to attract corporate sponsorship and investment, and likely also faces a battle to attract top stars. Forcing them to overpay average players just to appease the salary cap floor seems counterproductive.
Giving smaller clubs the opportunity to save cash when investment is low and spend more when investment is high makes more sense. The introduction of banking goes some way to giving clubs more flexibility, but probably not enough. The placement of a floor is required to ensure clubs remain competitive and do not tank seasons, but 90 per cent is unnecessarily high.
The loyalty player and mature-age allowances, however, are fantastic additions from the FFA. The A-League has to continue to strengthen its ties with the National Premier Leagues and giving clubs incentive to recruit from the second tier of Australian football had to happen.
This will also shift even more attention and relevance towards the FFA Cup, with NPL players pushed further into the shop window while competing in the tournament.
Similarly, introducing an extra $200,000 to reward loyal players, such as Thompson, will assist clubs maintaining team culture.
But do these salary cap changes further help turn the A-League into an equal playing field and prevent clubs from heading into the red? Based on the winners’ lists and the history of failed ownerships the answer is an emphatic no.
Ditching the cap may not be an immediate option but it has to happen eventually, especially if the big A-League clubs are to increase their overall competitiveness in Asia.
The FFA’s changes are mainly positive, though they will not bring about a more even competition. Forcing clubs to spend, as well as limiting their spending, is not the long-term solution.
Follow Janek on Twitter, @JanekSpeight
Domitian
Guest
Despite the criticism that Clive Palmer gets I actually thought that he, as an owner, had some good ideas. As he saw it, it was a business model that insured financial loss for smaller teams. I believe his idea was that he could invest in junior development which, following the minimum wage rules, could see a salary bill of little more than $1 million dollars. He could then use the savings to invest in the clubs own infrastructure and player development. If the junior development was good enough then there is no reason that the team couldn't play well and have a dedicated following.
Post hoc
Guest
agree 100%
Post hoc
Guest
The issue for that is, "what is revenue?" Melbourne City "owned by CFG, who in turn is owned by Abu Dhabi United Group, ok Emirates can you front up $30 million as front of shirt sponsor (purposefully ridiculous amount to illustrate) so that $30 million is now revenue for the club so playing roster under that system is at least $10 million. I am not against the idea, a soft cap like that might just be a better model. I think as mentioned earlier, the FFA appear to be tinkering so as to slowly reduce the restrictiveness of the cap, but we are only 10 years old, a little bit of patience is needed, I would say in 3-5 years time you will see maybe a third marquee, which would result in a 20% of a match day squad (11+4) being outside the cap.
Fussball ist unser leben
Roar Guru
@Stevo "Fuss, I don’t know where you have played football" I played State League senior football in Victoria in the 1980s. Never - not even once was there are Grand Final in the leagues I played. Just the standard league system with Home & Away competition. There was also a Cup Competition, but it was mid-week and with University & work commitments I can't recall playing in the knock-out cup. I'm almost certain the NPL (Victoria) doesn't have any finals. Also, pretty certain the teams that finish top of the table in NPL1 (East) & NPL1 (West) get automatic promotion to NPL; the teams that finish 2nd on the table will have a play-off to determine the 2nd team to be promoted to NPL.
CG2430
Guest
It matters not. Central Coast cannot tap other lucrative revenue streams like the big clubs can; money they could save on wages means the remainders from the TV dividend could be spent on other expenses - the clubs have to pay for more than just the players.
The artist formerly known as Punter
Guest
Stevo, My daughter's team won the GF last in her women's div 5 competition, they stayed in Div 5 this year. The premiers went up. This year they have won the premiership & about to hit the semis & GF, irrespective of how they go in the semis & GF, they will go up to Div 4 next year. This is what Fuss is trying to say.
Midfielder
Guest
RBB Good points especially about the club management. My reading of the tea leafs is some folk are getting ahead of themselves we are still in a very fragile place with the possibility it could all still fall over. Recent actions by the PFA, some commentators assume or act like we are in a well funded long established competition... Further many commentators believe they have more smarts or a better model that the current FFA management. For me what FFA are doing and the structure they have in place is right for the time and environment we are in today... the model will change over time when revenue and longevity allow more risks and changes to be made. For me I always believed at around the 15 year point we can make some changes and around the 20 year point major changes can occur if needed... If I was asked what is the single biggest issue today I would say many in Football are over estimating our position ... we still need to tread carefully to grow the game ...
Fussball ist unser leben
Roar Guru
"An English mate of mine was stocked we played each other three times." Your English mate should cast his eye north of the border. The Scottish Premier League also plays a league system involving teams playing each other 3 times - some teams play 17 home matches; some play 16 home matches. Then the league splits into Top 6 & Bottom 6. To decide the Champions of Scotland the Top 6 teams play each other ONCE, for a total of 38 matches for the season. I've no idea how they decide who plays 3 home matches & who plays 2 home matches during this 2nd phase. So, what's occurring in the ALeague is not totally alien to the football community.
marcel
Guest
My understanding is that the salary cap is 100% funded by the FFA...
oly09
Guest
But the fact teams don't play each other an even amount of times does mean it could never fairly be determined on the league table alone. An English mate of mine was stocked we played each other three times. Does give a massive advantage if the teams you play away twice are having poor seasons.
AR
Guest
"I admire Ange hugely, but self-interest requires him to say the trophies his teams won are more valuable." So Ange Postecoglou is lying to protect his record? Seriously?
oly09
Guest
No one is disputing the fact it's the third highest crowd in the FFA Cup. I just think that CCM's A-League crowds are a better indication of their fanbase than a one-off FFA Cup game. Thanks for the figures though.
AZ_RBB
Guest
You almost got it. Allow me to simplify. In order of legitimacy in accordance with the Laws of the Game 2012 (West Sydney Amendment) 1. Straight H&A season. 2. ALeague H&A season 3. ALeague Finals series. All legitimate. Just some more than others.
Stevo
Guest
Fuss, I don't know where you have played football, but my son has played since he was 5 years old, and now 20. Every year he has played there were always grand Finals, even now in the Senior team he plays in. Always been Grand Finals. For example at the club end of season awards, his teams have always been presented as Premiers and Grand Final winners, or Premiers and Grand Final Runners up, or 2nd place and Grand Final winners etc. As Coach for a number of seasons through Under 13's to Youth teams, I received medals for both as well.
Fussball ist unser leben
Roar Guru
So, the first 27 matches played home & away under normal 90 minute match conditions is tainted ... But, a 3 match knock-out competition featuring 6 out of 10 teams & played over potentially 120 minutes with penalties is legitimate way to create a Champion team?
AZ_RBB
Guest
What must be remembered in this whole debate is the fact that we don't have a true home and away season, therefore the legitimacy of the Premiership is somewhat tainted. At least compared to the straight H&A we see in other leagues around the world. I still rate Premiership over Championship but both have their place due to the regular season system.
Fussball ist unser leben
Roar Guru
"Anything less than a 3 point margin of victory as Premiers Plate could be attributed to the unequal fixtures, rather than being better of 27 rounds." 2014/15 season SydFC won a total of 50 points from 27 matches. Home: 16 points Away: 34 points Maybe SydFC got an extra 3 points by playing an extra match away from home?
Brendo
Guest
Its a good question. "Set $$$" Caps are designed to equalize. If every club can only spend the same amount of money on players then in theory it comes down to clubs who can get the most out of their players (as on balance all club's squad would be equal). However the problem with a set $$$ cap is that is has to be set at the lower end of the scale or it will quickly drive the poorer clubs to the wall. As the poorer clubs will be paying a higher percentage of total revenue in player wages. Even then the richer clubs will end up with a surplus of money which they will use to tip the balance in their favor (ie better traning facilities, better coaches). The AFL is a good example of a set $$ cap and the problems it generates. ie Constant top ups to poorer club, initiatives to divert revenue to poorer clubs, capping club spending in other areas. Of course the A-league isn't a pure Set $$ cap as it also allows two players to be paid outside the cap. They in effect want their cake and eat it too as the Marquee system erodes the equalization measure and allows clubs that can allow it to use the extra cash on players. Although the set $$ cap does enforce some financial responsibility it is not the best style of cap system for this. If Financial responsibility was really the aim of the cap then we would see the value of the cap tied to the club's total revenue. ie If Melbourne Victory had revenue of $14M in the 2014/15season, therefore there cap is 30% of that figure $4.2M. CMM had revenue of $8M therefore there cap is $2.4M. As you can see this type of cap in not a equalization cap but ensures that clubs do not overspend trying to out compete the richer clubs. Of course this type of cap favors the richer clubs even more than the set $$ cap and there is a perception problem with this type of cap (CMM fans would feel the league is screwing them over) but the truth is this type of cap would be much better for the stability of the league than the one we have currently.
Kaks
Roar Guru
I'd hate to admit it, but I agree with Fuss here. The numbers back it up as well
Steve
Guest
Meh - uneven league anyway (in terms of the number of games home and away each team plays each other). Anything less than a 3 point margin of victory as Premiers Plate could be attributed to the unequal fixtures, rather than being better of 27 rounds.