Euro: do soccer leagues need a salary cap

[Deficient Mode]

That's economics.

No, it's ideological delusion. Consumers have little power in a "free" market.

 

[Live in the Now]

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.

The reason why should be very obvious. The players are the ones out there every day training and giving their life to wear the shirt. They are the ones that leave fans with the moments they remember for their whole life, they are the reason we are all on this forum right now.

If you want to take a more abstract approach, professional football creates a new class of rich people who can make money regardless of what background they came from. Those people are far more likely to put the money right back into the economy, so it is better for all the people in the communities that they're the ones getting the money.

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.

If anyone thinks that some of those owners hang on for 20 years and claim they're bleeding cash the whole time, then believe they've actually been signing up to lose money for 20 years of their life, they are very gullible.

 

[bleedblue1223]

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.

I agree with the corporate welfare side for stadium financing, that is a complete joke.

 

[bleedblue1223]

No, it's ideological delusion. Consumers have little power in a "free" market.

They have the power to determine what products to spend money on or not. If they don't spend money on the product, then the product goes out of business. There is no problem if a group of other consumers decide to support a product and keep it profitable that other consumers would not support.

Sports is different because consumers act with emotion and they become irrational, but that's ultimately on the consumer acting irrationally spending money on a product that they otherwise wouldn't spend money on.

 

[Theokritos]

It is the club owners who provide us entertainment, not the players.

That's why we all enjoy TV broadcasts of the club owners' business meetings and why thousands of fans even pay money to attend those meetings in person. Meanwhile, hardly anybody is willing to pay to see the players in action... No doubt, it's very evident who provides us entertainment.

 

[Deficient Mode]

They have the power to determine what products to spend money on or not. If they don't spend money on the product, then the product goes out of business. There is no problem if a group of other consumers decide to support a product and keep it profitable that other consumers would not support.

Sports is different because consumers act with emotion and they become irrational, but that's ultimately on the consumer acting irrationally spending money on a product that they otherwise wouldn't spend money on.

Name one time a corporation the relative size of say, Liverpool FC, went out of business because customers tried to boycott their product.

The only irrational thing here is to extend free market ideology to every aspect of our lives including entertainment - and to pretend that's normal.

 

[phisherman]

Name one time a corporation the relative size of say, Liverpool FC, went out of business because customers tried to boycott their product.

The only irrational thing here is to extend free market ideology to every aspect of our lives including entertainment - and to pretend that's normal.

We've seen teams go out of business in North America. They just end up being moved to another city. Then the fans cry and want their team back.

 

[bleedblue1223]

Name one time a corporation the relative size of say, Liverpool FC, went out of business because customers tried to boycott their product.

The only irrational thing here is to extend free market ideology to every aspect of our lives including entertainment - and to pretend that's normal.

Seriously? I mean if you agree with boycott as in spending their money elsewhere, then there are plenty of examples. One of the top of my head is Circuit City with consumers deciding to go to Best Buy and online to places like Amazon.

Consumers in regular businesses are not emotionally tied to the place where they buy their electronics and other regular consumer items, but with sports teams, they are emotionally tied. If sports was like regular business, you'd see poorly run clubs go down, but fans don't jump ship based on performance like they will on regular goods and services.

In the sports world, you'll see teams move for good or bad reasons. The St. Louis Rams in my hometown are an example. They were an absolute terrible team, and the fans didn't show up like they did when they were good, and weren't going to put as much public money in a new stadium, so Kroenke moved them. He had every right to do it, ultimately most of the fans in St. Louis didn't care and moved on. We still hate Kroenke, but we weren't a big Rams town anyway.

 

[bleedblue1223]

The only irrational thing here is to extend free market ideology to every aspect of our lives including entertainment - and to pretend that's normal.

So you don't like free market, you don't like salary cap, then what do you want?

Status quo of only the traditional big clubs can spend big and not upset the balance of power?

 

[Theokritos]

So you don't like free market, you don't like salary cap, then what do you want?

The reverse question could be directed at those who like the free market but have no problem restricting it when it fits the plans of NHL owners. But don't you dare suggest market regulations in favour of the general population...

I'll stop it right here before it gets too political.

 

[phisherman]

In the sports world, you'll see teams move for good or bad reasons. The St. Louis Rams in my hometown are an example. They were an absolute terrible team, and the fans didn't show up like they did when they were good, and weren't going to put as much public money in a new stadium, so Kroenke moved them. He had every right to do it, ultimately most of the fans in St. Louis didn't care and moved on. We still hate Kroenke, but we weren't a big Rams town anyway.

But that's the North American sports landscape. You can't move a Liverpool FC to Manchester and call them Manchester Liverpool FC like how Kroenke moved the St. Louis Rams to LA.

Plus the fan base is different in Europe compared to North America. European teams were built from the ground up. You don't really see that in North America so that's why there are a lot more bandwagonners in North America.

 

[bleedblue1223]

The reason why should be very obvious. The players are the ones out there every day training and giving their life to wear the shirt. They are the ones that leave fans with the moments they remember for their whole life, they are the reason we are all on this forum right now.

If you want to take a more abstract approach, professional football creates a new class of rich people who can make money regardless of what background they came from. Those people are far more likely to put the money right back into the economy, so it is better for all the people in the communities that they're the ones getting the money.



If anyone thinks that some of those owners hang on for 20 years and claim they're bleeding cash the whole time, then believe they've actually been signing up to lose money for 20 years of their life, they are very gullible.

Should the money that consumers spend on iPhones go directly to the developers of the technology? Should we want them to get a greater share of revenue as compared to the CEO or shareholders? Should companies become non-profit and provide the profits to the developers?

No one is saying that the owners are struggling or bleeding cash the whole time. You are arguing with a ghost on that one.

 

[Deficient Mode]

Seriously? I mean if you agree with boycott as in spending their money elsewhere, then there are plenty of examples. One of the top of my head is Circuit City with consumers deciding to go to Best Buy and online to places like Amazon.

No, that's not what I mean by boycott. People spend their money on Amazon because it's cheaper, not because Circuit City pissed them off. Finding a cheaper option is just the pressure of living in a society where the cost of living continues has risen dramatically but inflation-adjusted income hasn't changed. Finding a cheaper option is compulsory for most people.

And you're right, sports teams aren't comparable to corporations. People are loyal to them. They won't watch a different league because they have been priced out of their own club, or can't afford a tv package. In a huge number of cases, people are attached to the club, not the sport itself. That's why it's stupid to apply a model of "the consumer decides" to sports.

So you don't like free market, you don't like salary cap, then what do you want?

Status quo of only the traditional big clubs can spend big and not upset the balance of power?

No, the system we have now is flawed, but a salary cap doesn't fix any of the real problems with it and only adds to them. What I don't want is for anyone to tell me that it's ok for long-time fans to be priced out of their favorite club because the market has decided that someone else is willing to pay more for their seat; to justify the owners' actions as they negatively impact the fans.

 

[bleedblue1223]

The reverse question could be directed at those who like the free market but have no problem restricting it when it fits the plans of NHL owners. But don't you dare suggest market regulations in favour of the general population...

I'll stop it right here before it gets too political.

I fully admit, that professional sports economics is a very unique situation because overall there is a goal of some sort of parity or some sort of want for more than just a few clubs to succeed and win. In regular economics, it's really just survival of the fittest, so the equivalents of Real Madrid, Barca, Man U, etc. will dominate and new startups flush with cash similar and good ideas like an Uber can rise like a PSG.

 

[bleedblue1223]

No, that's not what I mean by boycott. People spend their money on Amazon because it's cheaper, not because Circuit City pissed them off. Finding a cheaper option is just the pressure of living in a society where the cost of living continues has risen dramatically but inflation-adjusted income hasn't changed. Finding a cheaper option is compulsory for most people.

And you're right, sports teams aren't comparable to corporations. People are loyal to them. They won't watch a different league because they have been priced out of their own club, or can't afford a tv package. In a huge number of cases, people are attached to the club, not the sport itself. That's why it's stupid to apply a model of "the consumer decides" to sports.

No, the system we have now is flawed, but a salary cap doesn't fix any of the real problems with it and only adds to them. What I don't want is for anyone to tell me that it's ok for long-time fans to be priced out of their favorite club because the market has decided that someone else is willing to pay more for their seat; to justify the owners' actions as they negatively impact the fans.

Fair enough, I at least see where your coming from now.

 

[bleedblue1223]

But that's the North American sports landscape. You can't move a Liverpool FC to Manchester and call them Manchester Liverpool FC like how Kroenke moved the St. Louis Rams to LA.

Plus the fan base is different in Europe compared to North America. European teams were built from the ground up. You don't really see that in North America so that's why there are a lot more bandwagonners in North America.

Well, sure, but I wasn't trying to say it was the same.

I think that's a misconception. You see bandwagonners on both sides. I'm a Chelsea fan, and there is a very legitimate point for there being a lot of bandwagonner fans for them. Or a bunch of bandwagonners during Leicester's run.

 

[phisherman]

Well, sure, but I wasn't trying to say it was the same.

I think that's a misconception. You see bandwagonners on both sides. I'm a Chelsea fan, and there is a very legitimate point for there being a lot of bandwagonner fans for them. Or a bunch of bandwagonners during Leicester's run.

But you're arguing for a North American concept to be applied to a non North American sport landscape.

And the bandwagonners for Chelsea, Leicester, etc. are North Americans! Think of how relegated teams can still survive in the rest of the world vs. North America.

 

[Evilo]

Playing devil's advocate for a minute here :

1/ Montgomery's bus company.
2/ So many bandwagoners among fans, and hardly only north americans.

 

[bleedblue1223]

But you're arguing for a North American concept to be applied to a non North American sport landscape.

And the bandwagonners for Chelsea, Leicester, etc. are North Americans! Think of how relegated teams can still survive in the rest of the world vs. North America.

Which would be? I'm not advocating for a salary cap. What I'd want is as free a market as possible. I want a rich owner to come in and create as many super clubs as possible. I'd rather have more clubs have crazy money than limit the ones that do have the money.

The same way that minor league teams exist. The same way that the non-elite college teams attract big fans.

Acting like there are no band-wagon Euro fans is just silly. Of course bang-wagon fans exist in Europe, but it's just silly, so not worth having a discussion on.

 

[Evilo]

https://www.lequipe.fr/Football/Act...dement-tout-acharnement-contre-le-psg/8335374
So UEFA's president was quoted in L'Equipe as saying he needs to punish PSG to be popular with Bayern, Juve and the two spanish giants.
He's denied it to Marca this morning, but L'Equipe states tonight that they maintain their stance and that he's really said it.

And apparently, I'm the one who's naive

 

[Stray Wasp]

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.

Oh wow.

If you believe that, I beg you not to research the subject. The writings of David Conn from the UK's Guardian newspaper in particular you'd do well to avoid at all costs.

I fear the truth may explode your head.

 

[YNWA14]

The reason why should be very obvious. The players are the ones out there every day training and giving their life to wear the shirt. They are the ones that leave fans with the moments they remember for their whole life, they are the reason we are all on this forum right now.

Most players play for money. They get well compensated to play a game that a lot of us pay to play. As much as it is true that they're the ones playing the game realistically all they've needed to do is practice a lot at something, be atheltic and talented and play. There's so much more to the entertainment of the fans than just that, and the facilitation takes a lot more work.

If you want to take a more abstract approach, professional football creates a new class of rich people who can make money regardless of what background they came from. Those people are far more likely to put the money right back into the economy, so it is better for all the people in the communities that they're the ones getting the money.

I think there's a misconception that rich companies just sit on their money like Smaug. Not that they aren't out to get rich, or make money, but a lot of the time the more profitable a company is the more likely they are to invest in other ventures, create jobs, etc. and the more money they have to spend on say one employee (use Neymar as an example) the less money they have to do that, or the more cut backs they're going to make to improve their brand.

Realistically speaking a rich footballer isn't going to be creating a lot of jobs. They're going to be spending their money on expensive things like cars, houses, gambling and an extravagant lifestyle, and that money mostly goes to...other rich people.

So as far as I'm concerned I really don't care who gets the money at the end of the day (and let's not act like the players would be getting peanuts under a salary cap, their earning potential might be lower but still far more than say...a doctor, and that's without endorsements, etc.) if I'm still getting to watch LFC, and they aren't fleecing us. If a salary cap would make the league as a whole more entertaining I'd be all for it. But again, there are too many moving pieces in European football for it to be viable.

 

[Evilo]

Oh wow.

If you believe that, I beg you not to research the subject. The writings of David Conn from the UK's Guardian newspaper in particular you'd do well to avoid at all costs.

I fear the truth may explode your head.

Indeed. Just look at United. US taxes -> Chevrolet help -> United sponsoring -> Owner's Caiman bank account -> commission to Chevrolet CEO's own Caiman account (fired the day of the sponsorship deal signing).

 

[bleedblue1223]

Oh wow.

If you believe that, I beg you not to research the subject. The writings of David Conn from the UK's Guardian newspaper in particular you'd do well to avoid at all costs.

I fear the truth may explode your head.

It's not stealing if they own it. If Roman takes Chelsea profits and treats it like a dividend, that's fine. Now there are some sketchy things that owners do, like take loans out and use that money for personal use, but that's not what I'm talking about.

 

[Live in the Now]

Most players play for money. They get well compensated to play a game that a lot of us pay to play. As much as it is true that they're the ones playing the game realistically all they've needed to do is practice a lot at something, be atheltic and talented and play.

I won't tell my own story about what happened to me from playing sports, but one of my friends and teammates growing up now plays in the NFL and has won the Super Bowl multiple times. There is SO much more to the players mindset than the way you've distilled it.

The obscene riches that players sometimes receive obstructs what they've given up in order to play. The idea of their wages being capped when there's so much money flowing through these sports bothers me immensely. If anyone deserves to profit from the game it's them first and foremost.