should a salary cap be introduced in soccer too?

would it make leagues more competitive?

there already is one in soccer, football on the other hand doesn't

No, it will make every team reliant on one or two world class players.

There won't be. Hopefully in the future their won't be one either...

Sure why not. Might level the playing field in the long run. Might.
In reality it will probably mean tons of free cars and houses for the players.

VivaStPauli wrote:Sure why not. Might level the playing field in the long run. Might.
In reality it will probably mean tons of free cars and houses for the players.

And separate sponsorship deals

Of cours there should be. That's the reason why NHL is so competitive and interesting

What is soccer

Straya all over this thread...
Salary cap, soccer...

Salary caps do not mean equal competition or level playing fields, for so many reasons, the same teams will still dominate and the same teams will still come last every season with or without a cap

NFl, NBA, MLB and NHL have it.... and it's made the leagues a lot more interesting.

But you need true revenue sharing for it to make sense. You also need the clubs to hire a commissioner for the league they play in.

It's like the Euro... nice idea, but nobody in Europe is willing to make the sacrifices unless they're forced to. Government/leagues are completely incompetent too.

sportsczy wrote:NFl, NBA, MLB and NHL have it.... and it's made the leagues a lot more interesting.

But you need true revenue sharing for it to make sense. You also need the clubs to hire a commissioner for the league they play in.

It's like the Euro... nice idea, but nobody in Europe is willing to make the sacrifices unless they're forced to. Government/leagues are completely incompetent too.

Didnt the Miami heat or someone buy all the good players last season

of course the chelsea fans are against a salary cap

fatman123 wrote:Salary caps do not mean equal competition or level playing fields, for so many reasons, the same teams will still dominate and the same teams will still come last every season with or without a cap

[citation needed]

i can't be bothered to look up the stats for other leagues but the nhl regular season has been won by 4 different teams in the last 5 years and the leading teams are constantly shuffling

i'd be all for a cap but it's never going to happen, there's too much money involved in football for wholesale changes

It depends on what you're looking for. A salary cap will encourage greater parity across the league. Look at the majority of north american sports. They almost all have salary caps. As a result of this (and other factors), nearly any team can compete in any given year.

On the other hand, part of what makes football great is the history and prestige of many clubs. All of a sudden those powers would all be limited in their ability to exert their wealth and influence. It completely changes the dynamic within the league... sure dynasties can occur, but they are rare and fragile. Its a very, very different dynamic.

che wrote:of course the chelsea fans are against a salary cap

fatman123 wrote:Salary caps do not mean equal competition or level playing fields, for so many reasons, the same teams will still dominate and the same teams will still come last every season with or without a cap

[citation needed]

i can't be bothered to look up the stats for other leagues but the nhl regular season has been won by 4 different teams in the last 5 years and the leading teams are constantly shuffling

i'd be all for a cap but it's never going to happen, there's too much money involved in football for wholesale changes

Every time the salary cap debate comes up and i make a post some tool comes in with the "Chelsea fan against the cap line "

Take a look at 1926-1932, 1951-1966, 1976-1983 and 2007-present and all that was with a salary cap, so theres your "citation"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NRL_Premiers

Now before someone comes up with the "salary caps promote growing your own youth players" line, watch this video



and even with all the supposed even distribution of talent the cap brings, theres a club who havent won the league once in their fifty year history

fatman123 wrote:

Every time the salary cap debate comes up and i make a post some tool comes in with the "Chelsea fan against the cap line "

because it's true?

if there was a salary cap in place in 03 chelsea would still be the tottenham-level club they were back then... no shame in admitting it brah

Take a look at 1926-1932, 1951-1966, 1976-1983 and 2007-present and all that was with a salary cap, so theres your "citation"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NRL_Premiers

i don't care what happened in the 70s or the *bleep* 20s, the economic conditions and global reach of talent were completely different

as for 2007+, what i'm seeing is 7 different clubs in the top 2, of which one was stripped of the title because of salary cap violations... now for comparison there were four different clubs in the epl top two, of which two (or possibly three) would have clearly violated any salary cap rule

there were three different clubs in la liga top two, 4 in serie a, and six in the bundesliga... now, the top european league with the most parity is the bundesliga but it still had less different teams in the top two since 2007 than whatever NRL is, and you're arguing that a salary cap doesn't promote parity?

jesus h christ

in any case, 6 years isn't a big enough sample size for this since one team's period of dominance can easily last that long with a salary cap, but just by looking at the winners in the link you posted it's obvious no football league has been that competitive since 2000... but thanks for arguing my point

and even with all the supposed even distribution of talent the cap brings, theres a club who havent won the league once in their fifty year history

so what? the point of a salary cap is to increase parity and give other teams a bigger chance to win, not "you're shit but it's your turn to win the cup this year"... maybe without a cap there would have been 5, 10, or 15 teams that haven't won in 50 years

do you honestly believe football leagues would not be more competitive if man city or barcelona were not allowed to pay their players 5 times more than midtable teams?

che wrote:i don't care what happened in the 70s or the *bleep* 20s, the economic conditions and global reach of talent were completely different

as for 2007+, what i'm seeing is 7 different clubs in the top 2, of which one was stripped of the title because of salary cap violations... now for comparison there were four different clubs in the epl top two, of which two (or possibly three) would have clearly violated any salary cap rule

Why should the year matter? At the end of the day you had all these teams in a league competing against eachother under a set salary cap and yet one or two teams dominated for a prolonged period of time, why should the dollar value of the cap or the period in time it took place impact on anything, there was a salary cap and dommiaance by one team for a prolonged period of time, thats it.

As for the 2007+ thing, dont look at second place so much, we use a finals system and the Roosters, Warriors and Eels all fluked their way into the grand final, look at the winner and the mior premier (first place at the end of the regular season) and its dominated by the same three teams.

As for the club who were stripped of their titles, let me give that some context for you, at the time (and to a large degree still now) they were the NRLs Barcelona. They had the best players in every position and played a unique brand of football that was good to watch and impossible to beat, and to this day every other team in the comp is trying to copy them. Most importantly though, nearly their entire team had come though the youth ranks (watch that vid i posted before), and even with their cheating of the cap they still lost many of their best players to other clubs and overseas. This team never reached its full potential because of the salary cap, despite this team being built form the grass roots level.

che wrote:there were three different clubs in la liga top two, 4 in serie a, and six in the bundesliga... now, the top european league with the most parity is the bundesliga but it still had less different teams in the top two since 2007 than whatever NRL is, and you're arguing that a salary cap doesn't promote parity?

jesus h christ

If a team can win the league 10 seasons straight under a salary cap then tell me how it does promote parity?

As for the bundi having more teams in the top two since 2007 look above, although another thing is, the salary cap contributes to this because once a team wins the grnad final all their players values rocket and it forces many key players out. For example, when the Dragons won it in 2010 many of ther players were in the last year of their contracts and due to winning the grand final they lost a huge chunk of their roster and really theyre only recovering from that now

in any case, 6 years isn't a big enough sample size for this since one team's period of dominance can easily last that long with a salary cap, but just by looking at the winners in the link you posted it's obvious no football league has been that competitive since 2000... but thanks for arguing my point

Again ignore the runner up colloumn, just look at winner and minor preimer. Although you are right about 6 being small for a sample size the Storm and Sea Eagles are still domianting the league, like i said the Dragons are on their way back and for some unknown reason the bulldogs are one win from six starts, but on paper still have one of the leagues best teams, theyll finish strong for sure, so the trend over that six years will continue into the future without doubt. The way things are going the roosters (who were great form 2000-2004) will challenge this season and into the future too

and even with all the supposed even distribution of talent the cap brings, theres a club who havent won the league once in their fifty year history

so what? the point of a salary cap is to increase parity and give other teams a bigger chance to win, not "you're shit but it's your turn to win the cup this year"... maybe without a cap there would have been 5, 10, or 15 teams that haven't won in 50 years

do you honestly believe football leagues would not be more competitive if man city or barcelona were not allowed to pay their players 5 times more than midtable teams?

The thing with salary caps is everyone assumes every club can afford to fill their cap to the max, when in reality only the rich clubs can, Cronulla have won nothing in fifty years because they havent been able to afford to fill half their cap untill this season, whose to say that Chelsea and Stoke are going to have the same wage bill with a salary cap? And the salary cap is only that, a salary cap, it doesnt cap the quality of facilities, the investment in youth etc etc, rich clubs are still going to have countless advantages over pooer oppenents with or without a cap

Using Barca as an example, would it be fair if a salary cap wouldve forced at least half of Messi, Xavi, Iniesta, Puyol, Busqets out of the club a long tome ago as well as forcing Barca to sacrifice several of their up and coming youth players before thye even got a crack at the first team?

For me, thats my biggest beef with the salary cap, it tears great teams apart, i already mentioned with that Dragons team of 2010, anther recent one is the Broncos of 1997-2000, they were a great team full fo young players, but once their contracts expired and they demanded the money they were worth the club had to let most of them go and Brisbane fell out of the elague ellite.

So my question to you is this: is it fair to attempt to acheive parity by punishing clubs for being successful? Because thats exactly what a salary cap will do, it breaks up groups of great players and distributes them amongst all the other clubs

Works for league wont work for football on such a high level. If we did have a salary cap, what would it be 50-80 mil, not all teams can afford that, it only works in the NRL because the NRL pay more then half the salary cap to the teams every year. I don't think federations can afford to fork out 400-500mil a year to help all clubs.

All this and most league clubs still rort the cap.

Also to add why NRL isn't a good example is because they use a finals system, it's just like a cup competition in the end, any team who has a good run will win it, unlike a comp were 1st place wins.

I don't think it should. If a club has the money, then why should they be restricted in terms of how they use it?

The difference between big and small clubs should remain.

Salary Cap >>> F*cking FFP.

fatman123 wrote:

Why should the year matter? At the end of the day you had all these teams in a league competing against eachother under a set salary cap and yet one or two teams dominated for a prolonged period of time, why should the dollar value of the cap or the period in time it took place impact on anything, there was a salary cap and dommiaance by one team for a prolonged period of time, thats it.

for starters, because the top talent 40 years ago would have been concentrated in 3-4 clubs because only they would be able to afford the infrastructure and fan outreach anyway, much like european football

secondly, like i said, a salary cap isn't meant to guarantee an equal playing field for everyone, it decreases the difference between the richest and the poorest, hence increasing competitiveness of the poorest

As for the 2007+ thing, dont look at second place so much, we use a finals system and the Roosters, Warriors and Eels all fluked their way into the grand final, look at the winner and the mior premier (first place at the end of the regular season) and its dominated by the same three teams.

you absolutely do have to look at the second place, and the third, and the last, because the difference between them is what a salary cap addresses, not whether team A is having a dominant three years or not

As for the club who were stripped of their titles, let me give that some context for you, at the time (and to a large degree still now) they were the NRLs Barcelona. They had the best players in every position and played a unique brand of football that was good to watch and impossible to beat, and to this day every other team in the comp is trying to copy them. Most importantly though, nearly their entire team had come though the youth ranks (watch that vid i posted before), and even with their cheating of the cap they still lost many of their best players to other clubs and overseas. This team never reached its full potential because of the salary cap, despite this team being built form the grass roots level.

and? that's exactly the point, the salary cap requirements prevented an extended period of dominance by a single team

If a team can win the league 10 seasons straight under a salary cap then tell me how it does promote parity?

like this:

For example, when the Dragons won it in 2010 many of ther players were in the last year of their contracts and due to winning the grand final they lost a huge chunk of their roster and really theyre only recovering from that now

dominant team loses players --> dominant team becomes less dominant --> dominant team is easier to beat --> more competition... not exactly rocket science

The thing with salary caps is everyone assumes every club can afford to fill their cap to the max, when in reality only the rich clubs can

no, you're the only one assuming that, like i said around 7 times already, a salary cap isn't a way to hand the trophies to crap teams, it's a way to decrease inequality

whose to say that Chelsea and Stoke are going to have the same wage bill with a salary cap? And the salary cap is only that, a salary cap, it doesnt cap the quality of facilities, the investment in youth etc etc, rich clubs are still going to have countless advantages over pooer oppenents with or without a cap

which is good, because teams with good incentives would still be more attractive for players than teams with poor incentives, it just decreases the value of money as an incentive

So my question to you is this: is it fair to attempt to acheive parity by punishing clubs for being successful? Because thats exactly what a salary cap will do, it breaks up groups of great players and distributes them amongst all the other clubs

make up your mind then, either a salary cap does nothing to increase competitiveness or it distributes great players around the league, since the two are mutually exclusive

on that topic yes, i agree that it destroys great teams, because that's exactly the point of it... it would force clubs like barcelona and man city to actually think about their signings and long-term management instead of throwing money at everyone for them to sit on the bench... nhl and nba clubs have been dealing with this just fine, they keep a group of core players and rotate the supporting personnel... barcelona and city would still be able to keep messi, xavi, iniesta, silva, aguero et al if their backups were either homegrown or good value players... instead, dzeko, fabregas, mascherano and nasri would be able to play for other clubs for a similar amount of money, increasing the competitiveness of the other clubs, or they could take a massive pay cut to sit on the bench

ŷ

fatman123 wrote:

sportsczy wrote:NFl, NBA, MLB and NHL have it.... and it's made the leagues a lot more interesting.

But you need true revenue sharing for it to make sense. You also need the clubs to hire a commissioner for the league they play in.

It's like the Euro... nice idea, but nobody in Europe is willing to umake the sacrifices unless they're forced to. Government/leagues are completely incompetent too.

Didnt the Miami heat or someone buy all the good players last season

. They actually has only 3 contracts left that summer. They set themselves up so that they could buy them all under the salary cap. Huge gamble.... because if it failed, they were screwed lol. NY and Brooklyn did the same thing and they just recovered this year because they lost out to Miami.

Lakers have the same thing set up for summer of 2014. they only have 9 mil in contract commitments after 2014 and the salary cap is around 60 mil.

Im not sure it would do much good. Something needs to be done honestly, but a hard cap wouldn't work.

It could kill some leagues and drain them of talent. with less money going around, a deciding factor might be to play in a country where you will be taxed less. I could see that becoming a big problem for England.

Because lets say you set a cap that is half of what the bigger teams spend, thats seriously crippling them, but even with all that restraint most teams at the bottom of the league STILL couldn't afford that.

I think relegation has more to do with parity than money spent really. In american sports theres a cap, but theres also no relegation. Teams can afford to be terrible FOR YEARS..save up revenue, bring in young cheap players. Being bad is actually strategic, some teams throw seasons in the gutter, because they will be rewarded for bad records.

That never happens in football, no team is ever rewarded for being bad at any point, and that is the main difference. For example, in the NFL, a little while ago, Peyton manning was out for a year with the colts. He basically was the team, a game changing player and they couldn't win without him. But he was older, and because of that season he was out, they got the number one draft pick and replaced him with a younger, game changing quarterback that they can now build around again. In fact they were instantly competitive again, making the playoffs.

In football, if a similar situation happened, they would have been relegated, and would have had to start from scratch. Because once relegated, you need to rebuild to be competitive in the lower league, and get promoted again, then once promoted you have to yet again rebuild to compete against the bigger clubs, who have been there for decades bring in mass revenue.

Maybe one thing that could work possibly is some from of steamlined revenue sharing, that gives more money to promoted clubs, and gives a bonus to teams depending on where they finished on the table. So a club in 17th would get a big bonus, and the higher you finish on the table, the less money you get.

No. The players are the ones who create by far the most value. Why should desk sitters have more money available to give to themselves?