Register

Already have an account? Login

Praxeum Slappin Da Bass Monn 1,141 pts

Should there be a global transfer fee and wage cap to combat top four monopoly?

Posted by Praxeum over 5 years ago · 7 replies

Yet again it seems the top four in England will be Arsenal, Chelsea, Man Utd and Man City, in Spain the top two will be Barca and Real, etc...it's clear that the top teams stay consistently at the top and that other teams have little chance to break into that monopoly.

As always, money plays a big part. Man City have replaced Liverpool as the default top four participant because of infinite money, and a few years back when Chelsea was formed they transformed a top three into a top four.

The only way around it, as I see it, is to introduce wage and fee caps. If there was an upper limit on fees and wages, the decision would no longer be solely an economic one. Say for example a transfer fee could never amount to more than £20m in total (including add-ons, agent fees, bonuses, etc), and a player's salary could never be above £80k/week after tax.

With such a cap introduced globally, all financial doping would seize to exist. There would still be clubs trying to break the system of course, but you can't design a system based on what the criminals will do to exploit it.

Clubs wouldn't be able to price everyone else out of the market and get sugar daddys in for instant success. Clubs like Chelsea, PSG or Man City would have had to build success like the rest of us.

Players would no longer make a decision based on the size of the contract. The decision would be more about if the club is a good fit, playing opportunities, club location, personal relationships, and so on.

In addition, clubs would no longer have to spend ridiculous money. Gone are the £84m Gareth Bales and £300m-valued Lionel Messis.

And we could get back to playing fucking football.

7 Comments

Ix Techau Evil Mastermind 14,276 pts
Posted over 5 years ago by Ix Techau

I would go one step further. I would increase player power as well, removing the ownership a club has over players. The current system is borderline slave mechanics. The fact that a club could demote a player to the reserves for years as punishment for wanting to leave is ridiculous.

Players should be able to "quit" after first year of employment, i.e buy out their own contracts
You can't quit your job if you're a football player. If you want to try something different, if you're unhappy, etc...you're bound by ownership to a contract. Players must be able to quit, whilst also making sure the money spent by the club is fairly returned. Allowing a player to buy out his contract means it's fair for both parties.

Contracts should be one-sided guarantees of employment from the club, not slave contracts resulting in clubs owning a player
To further employment stability, contracts should be the club's guarantee that you will be paid X money over X years, and the club can't back out of that (unless buying you out of the remainder of your contract).

All transfer offers should be forced to be accepted at a monetary level based on years left of contract
If Arsenal buy Alexis Sanchez for £30m on a five-year contract, his yearly value is £6m. If Liverpool bids £24m after the first year, that bid should be automatically accepted. Doesn't mean Sanchez have to go, but he should be given the opportunity to look through his options.

Imagine sitting at your office desk job and being tied to a five year contract which means that if you express unhappiness to management they can demote you to a mailroom job for the remainder of your contract. Nowhere else in the civilised world would that be accepted.

Morleys Mesut Özil > You and your mum, chief 4,431 pts
Posted over 5 years ago by Morleys

I think it's fine as it is. Even more player power would be detrimental to the game and the visions of squad's.

Ix Techau Evil Mastermind 14,276 pts
Posted over 5 years ago by Ix Techau

I think it's fine as it is. Even more player power would be detrimental to the game and the visions of squad's.

How? It means that in order to keep a squad together, you need to build a good dressing room atmosphere and treat players like human beings instead of just contract slaves for squad depth. It's not about power, it's about your right as an employee not to end up in the reserves for wanting a new challenge. I know it never happens like that, but the problem is a club could do it, if they wanted to.

Morleys Mesut Özil > You and your mum, chief 4,431 pts
Posted over 5 years ago by Morleys

Hard to be considered a contract slave when you earn upwards of 50k p/w for training for 3 hours a day weekdays then playing a 90min match on weekends. Football and most other sports just aren't the same as regular jobs.

Ix Techau Evil Mastermind 14,276 pts
Posted over 5 years ago by Ix Techau

Hard to be considered a contract slave when you earn upwards of 50k p/w for training for 3 hours a day weekdays then playing a 90min match on weekends. Football and most other sports just aren't the same as regular jobs.

Sure, but how much you earn and how many hours you work has nothing to do with the terms of a contract. Besides, no other job on the planet would force you to be available 24/7, and no other job would restrict you from taking holiday days at a time of your own choosing.

So yeah they earn a lot, but they also have pressures and unique rules that don't apply to most people. In any event, just because it may seem like a luxury job (even though it takes years of hard work to end up at the level you're talking about), doesn't mean clubs should be able to own you like a slave.

Morleys Mesut Özil > You and your mum, chief 4,431 pts
Posted over 5 years ago by Morleys

Also doesn't mean the clubs should be able to make a loss/not as much as they should make which is out of their hands just because a player is throwing a hissy fit.

No-one forces players to sign contracts you know. And most professional footballers probably have more days off than most normal people who are employed. Only in teaching would they get anywhere near the same time off.

Ix Techau Evil Mastermind 14,276 pts
Posted over 5 years ago by Ix Techau

Also doesn't mean the clubs should be able to make a loss/not as much as they should make which is out of their hands just because a player is throwing a hissy fit.

Buy-outs. If you buy a player for £30m he shouldn't be able to quit a year later without some form of economic compensation, which would realistically come from the player's new club.

No-one forces players to sign contracts you know.

If they want to play football, they have to sign a contract. So of course they're forced, in the sense that it's necessary to work.

And most professional footballers probably have more days off than most normal people who are employed. Only in teaching would they get anywhere near the same time off.

During the season they usually get two days off a week, and then around 30 days off in the summer (end of May to mid-July is about 30 working days). Comparable to most jobs, I'd say. I have 25 holiday days where I work, and that's after bank holidays...so probably 30-32 in total.

They have to work bank holidays, can't take vacation when they want, have to work christmas/new year, have to travel around the world at any time, have to adapt their free/spare time to their line of work (no smoking, even if you're on holiday), have to always be performing at the highest level, are under scrutiny from millions of football fans, have photographers following them, have their personal life detailed in the press...

You are not logged in!

Join Arsenal Report today to improve your experience using the site with thread subscriptions + custom profile with cover image and favourite XI + the ability to post comments, polls and AMA questions.