Euro: do soccer leagues need a salary cap

[bleedblue1223]

Many big clubs are fan owned, so certainly that is not true.

Those are the shareholders, and the shareholders elect the board to run the club, like the Packers in the NFL. It's definitely not widespread though, it happens.

In those scenarios, it's still the shareholders money and it's operated like a publicly traded corporation instead of a private business.

Fact is, the consumers still have no more input on the money after they trade it for a good or service.

 

[phisherman]

All the salary cap does is protect incompetent owners.

 

[bleedblue1223]

All the salary cap does is protect incompetent owners.

It does promote parity, but it has plenty of pros and cons, just like the current system in Euro football has its pros and cons.

 

[Deficient Mode]

It's no different from a regular business. We are the consumer of a product, we enter voluntary transactions to enjoy the product they produce. We don't have any more rights or privileges when we buy an iPhone, it's no different when we buy tickets to sporting events or buy a jersey or anything else. Fans are simply the consumer, we pay money for a product that we enjoy, and that's the extent of the transaction.

Just how owners pay the players for the value that they bring.

Anything left over is up to the owners/shareholders discretion. Without owners their would not be a product. Without fans their wouldn't be revenue, without players, their wouldn't be a product, and without the owners, there wouldn't be the infrastructure needed to run the club and sport.

Oh man. I'm sure no one here has any criticisms of regular business, too.

 

[bleedblue1223]

Oh man. I'm sure no one here has any criticisms of regular business, too.

The idea that anyone has a say in their money once they spend it is idiotic.

I didn't say that there are no criticisms or that everything is perfect, but like I said it's idiotic to act like owners embezzle and steal money from things that they own.

 

[Havre]

It's no different from a regular business. We are the consumer of a product, we enter voluntary transactions to enjoy the product they produce. We don't have any more rights or privileges when we buy an iPhone, it's no different when we buy tickets to sporting events or buy a jersey or anything else. Fans are simply the consumer, we pay money for a product that we enjoy, and that's the extent of the transaction.

Just how owners pay the players for the value that they bring.

Anything left over is up to the owners/shareholders discretion. Without owners their would not be a product. Without fans their wouldn't be revenue, without players, their wouldn't be a product, and without the owners, there wouldn't be the infrastructure needed to run the club and sport.

You are getting it all upside down.

What you are describing is 1. A recent change in Europe (which most fans do not like - at least not the European fans). 2. Only true for small% of clubs at the top.

To say we are "consumers" of a "product" produced by owners. Jesus. It seems like we need a rule saying any fan of a European team would have to live 5 years in Europe first. Fans used to own teams in Europe. Extremely unfortunate that this has somewhat changed.

 

[phisherman]

It does promote parity, but it has plenty of pros and cons, just like the current system in Euro football has its pros and cons.

I think the draft does more of a job to promote parity than a salary cap. If there was no draft I doubt Connor McDavid would join Edmonton even if there was a salary cap for example.

 

[Evilo]

without the owners, there wouldn't be the infrastructure needed to run the club and sport.

That's not quite true. Owners come and go. Here in Europe, clubs are bigger than owners.

 

[Live in the Now]

Fact is, the consumers still have no more input on the money after they trade it for a good or service.

Oh, except they do. This is not like North American sports where it's a cartel of owners that make the rules for each other and share a pool of money with each other so they don't go broke. Football owners do not have the option of giving the fans something they don't want and not worrying about losing money.

Because all the revenue comes from the fans, they have input and the power to get their way. Any mechanism where teams would be prevented from spending money on players only benefits the owners and their ability to make money; a situation fans would not remotely be okay with or continue to support with their wallet. A football club (besides ones where the owners play FM) does not have the option to give fans no input.

 

[Deficient Mode]

The idea that anyone has a say in their money once they spend it is idiotic.

That's not the point. The point is more of it is going to the owners if you cap the percentage of revenue that goes to players.

If consumers had no power, the owners could still charge the same prices for tickets even if they're paying the players less. At least in England. Fans definitely have a ton of collective impact on pricing in Germany.

 

[bleedblue1223]

I think the draft does more of a job to promote parity than a salary cap. If there was no draft I doubt Connor McDavid would join Edmonton even if there was a salary cap for example.

Both are do that. The salary cap forces the smaller clubs to spend through revenue sharing and the salary minimum, and it prevents the big clubs from hoarding talent. Like the Red Wings were able to accomplish in the years before the salary cap.

They both have an impact on parity, no debate here.

 

[bleedblue1223]

That's not quite true. Owners come and go. Here in Europe, clubs are bigger than owners.

Yes, and the new owner provides the benefits that the previous owner did. Of course owners come and go.

 

[phisherman]

Both are do that. The salary cap forces the smaller clubs to spend through revenue sharing and the salary minimum, and it prevents the big clubs from hoarding talent. Like the Red Wings were able to accomplish in the years before the salary cap.

They both have an impact on parity, no debate here.

Look at the NBA if you want to see if the salary cap means anything for parity.

 

[Live in the Now]

If consumers had no power, the owners could still charge the same prices for tickets even if they're paying the players less. At least in England. Fans definitely have a ton of collective impact on pricing in Germany.

We also just watched earlier this decade when Liverpool supporters organized a mass boycott because the owners were stealing money from the club to pay their bills. Thousands upon thousands of letters were sent to banks detailing the club's financial situation and telling them the owners should not be given a loan.

The idea that owners can do whatever they want with the money they're given is fortunately not true in Europe or South America.

 

[bleedblue1223]

Oh, except they do. This is not like North American sports where it's a cartel of owners that make the rules for each other and share a pool of money with each other so they don't go broke. Football owners do not have the option of giving the fans something they don't want and not worrying about losing money.

Because all the revenue comes from the fans, they have input and the power to get their way. Any mechanism where teams would be prevented from spending money on players only benefits the owners and their ability to make money; a situation fans would not remotely be okay with or continue to support with their wallet. A football club (besides ones where the owners play FM) does not have the option to give fans no input.

Are you under the assumption that all NA make profit and don't have to worry about losing money?

A salary cap would help the bottom teams be more competitive against the big spenders, so those fans wouldn't be entirely against it. A consumer has their voice heard by not spending money on the product. If you don't like what the owners are doing, then you don't spend money on it. Once you provide them your money, they can do whatever the hell they want with it as long as it's legal. If you don't like what they do, then don't give them more money.

 

[bleedblue1223]

Look at the NBA if you want to see if the salary cap means anything for parity.

They don't have a hard cap, it's much more like baseball. The majority of the NBA teams are over the cap.

 

[Deficient Mode]

We also just watched earlier this decade when Liverpool supporters organized a mass boycott because the owners were stealing money from the club to pay their bills. Thousands upon thousands of letters were sent to banks detailing the club's financial situation and telling them the owners should not be given a loan.

The idea that owners can do whatever they want with the money they're given is fortunately not true in Europe or South America.

Yes, the fans certainly have more influence over how their clubs are run in England than in the US, but there also wasn't nearly the same collective movement against e.g. rising ticket prices as there has been in Germany

 

[bleedblue1223]

That's not the point. The point is more of it is going to the owners if you cap the percentage of revenue that goes to players.

If consumers had no power, the owners could still charge the same prices for tickets even if they're paying the players less. At least in England. Fans definitely have a ton of collective impact on pricing in Germany.

I'm not even advocating for a cap, I just don't understand some of the reasoning. I'd prefer a completely free market style. The part that I don't understand is why people don't like what happens with City, Chelsea, PSG, etc.

Where did I say they don't have power? They have power in what they are willing to spend. If enough people are willing to spend a certain amount, then that's all that's needed.

 

[Live in the Now]

Are you under the assumption that all NA make profit and don't have to worry about losing money?

All except the absolute worst don't really have to worry about losing money. Revenue is shared between the owners.

And frankly, considering it isn't public information that they lose money or not, I am surprised that everyone takes them at face value when they say they lost money.

 

[bleedblue1223]

All except the absolute worst don't really have to worry about losing money. Revenue is shared between the owners.

And frankly, considering it isn't public information that they lose money or not, I am surprised that everyone takes them at face value when they say they lost money.

Well then that just a false presumption that you are taking. Revenue is shared, but it is not a guaranteed profit machine.

 

[YNWA14]

That's not the point. The point is more of it is going to the owners if you cap the percentage of revenue that goes to players.

If consumers had no power, the owners could still charge the same prices for tickets even if they're paying the players less. At least in England. Fans definitely have a ton of collective impact on pricing in Germany.

...and therein lies the conundrum. Parity vs. principle.

However, at the end of the day why does it matter if the money goes to the players or the owners? Just curious. I mean, realistically speaking you're paying to watch your team, or be entertained. I'm sure for the fans of teams like United, City, Real Madrid, etc. it's great because they've always got the best players and most money regardless. The few players that make those teams definitely benefit financially.

That said, wouldn't it be great if a team like Bournemouth could compete with United on any given year because players could make just as much money there as they could at United and so on?

Personally I think that players are overpaid anyway, and owners are going to make money regardless. In the interest of parity, if they could implement a revenue sharing system that allowed all the teams to be able to spend to the max of the cap I think it would be good for football in general. Teams would have to sell their players less, we'd be seeing a better level of international football for the same reason since I think there would be less incentive for domestic players to go abroad for money and such, etc.

 

[Deficient Mode]

I'm not even advocating for a cap, I just don't understand some of the reasoning. I'd prefer a completely free market style. The part that I don't understand is why people don't like what happens with City, Chelsea, PSG, etc.

Where did I say they don't have power? They have power in what they are willing to spend. If enough people are willing to spend a certain amount, then that's all that's needed.

lol that is an absolute sham of power. As it is in the US.

 

[bleedblue1223]

lol that is an absolute sham of power. As it is in the US.

That's economics.

 

[East Coast Bias]

Well then that just a false presumption that you are taking. Revenue is shared, but it is not a guaranteed profit machine.

It is if you figure all the stadium financing deals in too. Low price land, tax breaks, low interest bonds, to downright stealing tax payer money.

American sports teams are cash cows.

 

[phisherman]

You think owners fought for the salary cap to promote parity? It was always about making more money.

And if you want to look at the ultimate salary cap look at the NCAA.