Salary Cap

[BigF]

Should there be a salary cap for teams in the Premier League, ( and possibly other leagues)? Is our league tending to follow that of other countries where only one or two teams seem to ever win top spot?

[FactualFrank]

In today's game, it wouldn't work unless it was worldwide.

If it was Prem only, players would simply move to Italy, Spain etc. if it was European teams, then players would go to places such as China.

[thatdberight]

If it was Prem only, players would simply move to Italy, Spain etc.

So what?

[Darthlaw]

They’d get round it somehow.

[Chester Perry]

They’d get round it somehow.

like they do in Leagues 1 and 2 where they are only allowed to spend a a maximum % of turnover - owners just chuck money at the club in sponsorship and the like. Watch Salford use it to try and smash League 2 this year

[THEWELLERNUT70]

In a word Yes

[Bfc]

Yes, £10 per hour, which is probably more than the great Jimmy Mc was paid.

[boatshed bill]

if it were possible I'd limit the number of players that a club could loan out. This may stop them buying what they don't really need and possibly release on to the market players who could improve lower table squads.

[Chester Perry]

if it were possible I'd limit the number of players that a club could loan out. This may stop them buying what they don't really need and possibly release on to the market players who could improve lower table squads.

you may get your wish for the 2020/21 season

[cricketfieldclarets]

No. Why should there be? Should we cap salary in film, music, medicine, aviation or any industry for that matter? Golf, F1, Tennis?

[South West Claret.]

Well something has to be done about the constant rise of Satellite TV that most people agree is ruining the game, rather than putting a salary cap on players though what really needs doing is to encourage football fans for a start from subscribing to Murdochs non union empire. Do that and The price of the next round of bids to show games might well taper down, just my two penny’s worth.

[thatdberight]

No. Why should there be? Should we cap salary in film, music, medicine, aviation or any industry for that matter? Golf, F1, Tennis?

This would be internal to the industry and recognise that competition is vital for the industry to thrive. F1 does have some limits, so contradicts your point instead of making it and the other sports, as individual sports, aren't comparable.

[Claret-On-A-T-Rex]

I would pay footballers in line with their academic qualifications. If they left school with no qualifications then they should be paid minimum wage. If they have further education or a degree they would be paid more but at no point would they be paid more than a nurse and much less than a Doctor or someone who actually contributes to society. Footballers don't, when all is said and done it's just a game.

[cricketfieldclarets]

Viva la revolución - communism it is....

[cricketfieldclarets]

This would be internal to the industry and recognise that competition is vital for the industry to thrive. F1 does have some limits, so contradicts your point instead of making it and the other sports, as individual sports, aren't comparable.

Football is thriving more than ever. Watched more than ever. Supported more than ever. Safer than ever. etc. Its thriving alright!

[thatdberight]

I would pay footballers in line with their academic qualifications. If they left school with no qualifications then they should be paid minimum wage. If they have further education or a degree they would be paid more but at no point would they be paid more than a nurse and much less than a Doctor or someone who actually contributes to society. Footballers don't, when all is said and done it's just a game.

Are you in the health line of work yourself?

[dsr]

I would pay footballers in line with their academic qualifications. If they left school with no qualifications then they should be paid minimum wage. If they have further education or a degree they would be paid more but at no point would they be paid more than a nurse and much less than a Doctor or someone who actually contributes to society. Footballers don't, when all is said and done it's just a game.

If there is nothing to entertain you, what is the point of the doctors and nurses curing you - if all they are curing you for, is to work, eat, sleep, work, eat sleep, till you die? Entertainers are disproportionately well paid, but they contribute to society.

[Claret-On-A-T-Rex]

Are you in the health line of work yourself?

Nope.

[Claret-On-A-T-Rex]

If there is nothing to entertain you, what is the point of the doctors and nurses curing you - if all they are curing you for, is to work, eat, sleep, work, eat sleep, till you die? Entertainers are disproportionately well paid, but they contribute to society.

You're missing the point, or rather taking it to the extreme to justify your argument. Much of the structure of Western society is based on the argument that success, particularly financial success is based on education. This is what makes education worthwhile, what gives it value. Ask any professional footballer if they think they should be paid more than a Doctor and you'll be surprised by how realistic they are, in fact, nobody in their right mind would think a footballer should be paid more than a Nurse.

[COBBLE]

Impossible to impose it on individual players because they would become employees or owners of companies with all the options to minimise taxation.

[dsr]

You're missing the point, or rather taking it to the extreme to justify your argument. Much of the structure of Western society is based on the argument that success, particularly financial success is based on education. This is what makes education worthwhile, what gives it value. Ask any professional footballer if they think they should be paid more than a Doctor and you'll be surprised by how realistic they are, in fact, nobody in their right mind would think a footballer should be paid more than a Nurse.

To be fair, your idea that footballers contribute nothing to society is a fairly extreme viewpoint anyway.

Education is a means to an end, not an end in itself. I have a degree and I'm an accountant - does that automatically mean I should get paid more than, for example, the man who doesn't have a degree but comes to fix my roof? I wouldn't say so. My salary is based on how much money I can make for my practice; the roofer's salary is based on how much money he makes for his firm too. I get paid based on what I do now, not what I did thirty+ years ago.

Should I get paid more because I went to school longer? Should he get paid more because he works on a roof while I'm at a desk? No to both cases. There are no doubt faults in the idea of wages being paid by market forces, but there are faults in every other system as well.

[thatdberight]

You're missing the point, or rather taking it to the extreme to justify your argument. Much of the structure of Western society is based on the argument that success, particularly financial success is based on education. This is what makes education worthwhile, what gives it value. Ask any professional footballer if they think they should be paid more than a Doctor and you'll be surprised by how realistic they are, in fact, nobody in their right mind would think a footballer should be paid more than a Nurse.

Can you outline how this works in an economic, taxation and health policy please?

[bfcmik]

Why pick on footballers? Should we cap salaries and bonuses for stock/currency/commodity traders at financial companies? Should we strip Richard Branson of all his riches because he did not pass enough exams?

Should those who do not pass sufficient exams be disbarred from being company directors or entrepreneurs in case they make loads of cash? Or becoming a musician? Or an artist?

My belief is that if someone has a talent for anything then they should be able to get the going rate for whatever their talent level brings in to the organisation they perform for. I only wish I had had the opportunity!

[Claret-On-A-T-Rex]

Why pick on footballers? Should we cap salaries and bonuses for stock/currency/commodity traders at financial companies? Should we strip Richard Branson of all his riches because he did not pass enough exams?

Should those who do not pass sufficient exams be disbarred from being company directors or entrepreneurs in case they make loads of cash? Or becoming a musician? Or an artist?

My belief is that if someone has a talent for anything then they should be able to get the going rate for whatever their talent level brings in to the organisation they perform for. I only wish I had had the opportunity!

No, starting or becoming head of a successful company requires brains, even if it doesn't include qualifications, football doesn't.

[mealdeal]

No, starting or becoming head of a successful company requires brains, even if it doesn't include qualifications, football doesn't.

What an absolutely bellended argument you’ve made. Pay is based on the scarcity of the resource on offer not on ‘brains’. Some skills require academic ability to pass through the barrier to entry, others require talent that is natural developed or nurtured.

Many millions of people could theoretically qualify to become nurses, fewer could become doctors and even fewer top quality footballers. That’s why top footballers get paid more than doctors and doctors more than nurses.

To the extreme, only one person in the entire world can be Tom Cruise, so if you are a film director and you want to cast Tom Cruise in your new movie, then you have to pay him a lot of money. It’s demonstrably fair based on how many people can do a particular task, whether you like it or not.

[Claret-On-A-T-Rex]

What an absolutely bellended argument you’ve made. Pay is based on the scarcity of the resource on offer not on ‘brains’. Some skills require academic ability to pass through the barrier to entry, others require talent that is natural developed or nurtured.

Many millions of people could theoretically qualify to become nurses, fewer could become doctors and even fewer top quality footballers. That’s why top footballers get paid more than doctors and doctors more than nurses.

To the extreme, only one person in the entire world can be Tom Cruise, so if you are a film director and you want to cast Tom Cruise in your new movie, then you have to pay him a lot of money. It’s demonstrably fair based on how many people can do a particular task, whether you like it or not.

Brilliant, you won the argument.

So there you go, no there shouldn't be a salary cap in football, here or abroad or in any other sport.

[mealdeal]

Brilliant, you won the argument.

So there you go, no there shouldn't be a salary cap in football, here or abroad or in any other sport.

Thanks, I thought it was a pretty solid victory, although to be honest it wasn’t much of an argument to counter

[Claretmatt4]

And the best bit was the invention of the word 'bellended' . Superb work!

To answer the OP, maybe once but its far too late now. The fact is you get what you deserve and football is the most popular sport in the world by some distance. People want to pay a lot of money to watch it.

[thatdberight]

People want to pay a lot of money to watch it.

Not really. People are willing to pay a lot of money.

[Claretmatt4]

Not really. People are willing to pay a lot of money.

Doesn't really matter does it. Outcome is the same.

[SGr]

No there shouldn’t. Football is a profession, there should be no limit on how much a person can earn doing their job. And of course, the quality of the Premier League would suffer as a result. Stupid idea.

[AshevilleNCClaret]

It works very well for the NFL and NBA, but it can only work when there is one league that has all of the top talent.
While it technically does limit the amount a player can make, it keeps teams in check with their spending to create a more competitive balance from top to bottom.
The browns(nfl) went from 0-16 to almost in the playoffs in 1 year.
And yes, the nfl (patriots) and nba (warriors) do have dominant teams, but have not done it by outspending everyone else