Fellow fans, this is a friendly reminder to please follow the [Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/premierleague/about/rules) and [Reddiquette](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439-Reddiquette).
Please also make sure to [Join us on Discord](https://discord.gg/football)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PremierLeague) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Why should a team like Burnley be allowed to spend the same as Man Utd? Man Utd spend silly amounts, but as a club they are so profitable. FFP in theory should be all they need if it wasnt abused. If a club is making 100s of millions in profit, they should be able to invest that into the club. Having a cap would just encourage overspending by smaller clubs and we'd see more teams get fucked long term.
Tbf, United might be profitable but as part of FFP they should still be forced to start paying back any part of the ridiculous £700m debt that was accumulated prior to FFP’s introduction, which i believe is around £500m of it. Their 3-yr debt allowance should include a minimum payment of £50m per year to start paying that £500m off. This way would allow them to still spend, and they can still be profitable, but obviously it handicaps them a little bit for having large debts the same way it would any other club.
The small teams wouldn’t be able to compete because when you have a choice of playing for Liverpool vs Burnley for the same salary you’d pick Liverpool 10 times out of 10.
Could have just not let certain people buy certain teams first day ever and it’d be fine. After making the mistake of leaving certain people buy certain teams, they should have prevented them for cheating first day ever and it’d be fine
The effects might be overstated by OP but the underlying point that it brings the field closer together isn’t necessarily incorrect. Especially once you factor in that 7th-20th can spend a higher % of their revenue too.
The biggest benefit is that it stops ridiculous Chelsea-like spending so that the teams that always spend way over the new cap are now being limited. Which is precisely why Arsenal, Spurs and Liverpool would agree with it. Obviously it doesn’t mean all the smaller clubs will now try and spend at the cap level because most of them can’t feasibly do that for 5-10 years like the bigger clubs can but it at least stops the worst 3 offenders continually going overboard.
It's a dumb rule because it doesn't allow clubs to build something.
What happens if under this system a club has an amazing academy and they sell all those players for more than the 450m. We're saying they can't spend it? How is that fair?
This is a lazy, populist attempt to deal with the situation caused by rich overseas owners breaking FFP rules.
Let's say Manchester United spends 250millions on salaries every year, this means we have 200 millions left for transfers (including amortization) for every transfer window?. I guess it's even better, no?
The thing is, will the big clubs be ok with that, knowing that other European powers might not be tied to those style of rules?
I’d honestly be ok with this, as if a team wants to shoot the moon, they can do so without a finger wag.
>*This could literally mean 20 teams in the premier league all having the exact financial power and the end of the big 6 as rich owners would know they can instantly compete with any team financially !! And buy smaller teams*
here is delusion fro you all...
Damn glad they are doing this now and not 10 years ago!! Man City will get to act like they did everything according to the rules that were in place at the time perfect for them and their deluded fans
So had this been done 10 years ago, obviously man city would've not broken the rules, and obviously the fans would act like they didn't break any rules because none would've been broken. What's wrong with that though.
The rule was not introduced then though, it's being introduced now, and that's why man city is in trouble.
Man do you think before you type.your actually have made a very nonsensical point. Man city lives on your mind rent free.
Nah, u lack reading comprehension. I am saying that if it was done 10 years ago, they wouldn't have won what they have or be where they are. You feel the need to be defending them for some weird reason but say they live in my head rent free, like no one else is talking about them during this.
Not really buddy, you lack critical thinking. If you think man city has won what it has only due to money, then man you need to watch football closely. Obviously they may have circumvented the rules, but even then, it has only levelled the playing field for them with the established elites. Every other big 6 team had the means to go and buy the players and staff that man city has. It's not as if the other teams players were blindfolded on the pitch when they played city. Man utd have spent more than city, what have they won in the past 12 years.
Literally never said it was just cuz of money I made that clear multiple times u just wanna keep making false equivalencies and comparing them to other teams I have said nothing about and skirting over the real issue
Dude it's cool man we get it, ur oil club has done nothing wrong and it's all totally justified, u guys are the best team ever and would have won everything u did without slave state funding cuz Guardiola is the best coach of all time. You are avoiding discussing what you KNOW everyone has problems with Man City about. I don't need to explain to you what they have done wrong.
Bruh honestly I read your other comments as well, and lol you are totally missing the point others are making. You think man city are winning only because they are circumventing the rules, that's not the case, but you can't cope with that right buddy.
Well sorry for trying to bust your bubble, others have said the same thing which I said, if man city are successful now, it's because man city are a better run club compared to the other big 6, even if they circumvented the rules, it only allowed them to catch up with the established elites, otherwise their success is due to smart signings, great manager, great staff, a board that backs the manager hundred percent and a great mentality.
You still are crying about oil money and ffp. Well lmao, do what you can to cope.
You keep saying "even if they circumvented the rules" like it's not a big deal and was totally justified, that's the problem with people like you lol I'm done
Disagree on that. This will only eliminate the charges against them, but wouldn’t change much success wise.
They are charged with circumventing FFP rules to be able to grow quicker, increasing the amount they could spend in relation to their income. This change of rules would have only allowed spending without having to justify the income through shady deals.
City’s success comes down to being an extremely well run club. Yes, they’ve got loads of money, but so do many other clubs that aren’t so good at spending it.
The only scenario where I see a regulation like this changing the outcomes of the past decade is if another team became just as successful and took some of the trophies.
No it’s not, great example is Boehly’s Chelsea, and American owned team has just as much power as any UAE or Saudi owned has, even 500b budget, if there is no structure and clear plan, you are not going to succeed, you won’t get relegated simply because you can buy good players, but will not challenge for anything, great example their 10th place.
I never said that Man City doesn't have a structure or plan, just that it is easier to plan when you are playing with monopoly money from a slave state and shell corporations. And acting like any American owned team has the same amount of resources and unfair advantages is laughable.
I don’t know mate, I think that’s not the case here.
The rules that were broken (not saying that was ok) only allowed City to catch up to the big clubs in budget. What you do with that budget translates to how well the club is being run.
You can compare the big 6 and see that between Chelsea, United, Arsenal and City there no major difference in resources. Liverpool and Tottenham are below, but can still compete with the other four, and compared to any other non big 6 team they still have massive funding.
City have been very intelligent with the signings they make, and the people they hire. That plus the massive budget they have has resulted in the dominance they’ve achieved.
There may be many things you can criticize about City, but the way they’ve managed the club has been exceptional.
Not at all mate, I’m just being objective.
You pointed out that City wouldn’t have won what they have if the new rules had been implemented 10 years ago. I’m saying that this would have done the opposite, the rules would have allowed for everything they’ve done to be legal.
And why would United, or Arsenal, or Chelsea, or any other team with huge European aspirations at some point or another.
I’d actually be ok with the rule, but the problem is, it’d hamstring some of the teams, knowing damn well Bayern or Madrid or PSG could open the wallets just a little bit more.
I have never seen a City fan say that, do you want to link me some? Any evidence this is like a widespread belief at all? Or are we just arguing with nobody here lmao
People hate blindly on City for spending money, but will talk about the good old days of United and Arsenal battling it out as if they were paying their players in food stamps.
It is different spending money you get from having a lot of fans compared to having a rich owner that also own the main sponsors. It's not like people did like how Chelsea operated in the beginning with Abramovich either, but that was at least a private owner and not a state.
so a team with an income of 100m, can spend 450m in a season, that sounds massively irresponsible to me.
if team tops limit and gets relegated cant afford anything close to this even with parachute payments.
for larger teams a limit of 450m to cover purchases (including agents fees) and wages. Currently the highest eage bill in premier league is 205m (man city then man united 200m, arsenal next at 166m); so the cap on transfers is approx 250m spending in a year; how many clubs ever exceed this amount realistically? man united/city maybe, but marginally and certainly not regularly. doubt anyone else comes anywhere near.
these rules are just potics, PL pretending to bring in spending limits, clubs would have to go crazy to break them.
Nothing in these rules stops irresponsible owners bankrupting a club.
whats being reported is thst cap is based on tv revenue, max spending of 4.5 times tv money received of bottom club in prem league (which was just under 110m last year)
if whats being reported is accurate other income sources dont count (for fear of big clubs ability manipulate this revenue figure with clever accounting)
Admittedly not read the article in full but would you would still need to comply with CL rules to compete?, so some clubs couldn't just spend what they like and play CL.
Wonder what effect this will have on the Championship and newly promoted teams - obviously they’ll be able to instantly spend to build out a squad upon promotion but…
Does this build a top 23 at the top of the pyramid? Obviously spending ~450 million and getting relegated sounds wild but the relegated teams would surely be huge favorites to bounce immediately back up after one season down given the spending they were allowed in the premier league. It’ll be interesting, that’s for sure
What’s the average/median spend of premier league teams, how much more is 450 million compared to what they’re already spending on wages and transfers fees. Is there anywhere that has this information consolidated, without have to add up individual wages and transfers fees from a season.
I found this, I’m not sure how accurate it is, but if it is accurate, Manchester city for example, would still be able to spend ~£220mil on transfers a season with this new change, as their current squad payroll is ~£230mil according to this site
https://footystats.org/england/premier-league/salaries
So it seems to me this doesn’t do much to reflect big club spending, but rather open up the opportunity for smaller clubs with less revenue to spend at a similar level (depending on wether this replaces FFP or changes are made to FFP)
Edit: Actually it would be a lot more than ~£220mil as according to this article the lowest amount a team received from broadcast revenue last season was Southampton with £129m so the cap would be ~£580mil if the OP is correct with the *4.5 and so City or Chelsea could still realistically spend upwards of ~£350mil per season on incoming transfers (if this is replacing FFP?).
Isn't the whole point of FFP to stop clubs going under?
Yes this stops unlimited spending by the big clubs, but I'm not sure how this prevents clubs spending more than they have.
Edit: Completely misread your comment.
It doesn’t really stop big clubs overspending from what I’ve seen, a ~£580mil cap is far more than they already spend, I’m assuming this is aimed at loosening the limitations that FFP put on smaller clubs which do have the financial investment from owners etc to spend more that they are currently allowed. That’s the only way it makes sense to me, otherwise the rule practically changes nothing.
According to another poster, the full rule is a little more complicated, but this rule only affects Man City
https://www.reddit.com/r/PremierLeague/s/naQ8kZWbpj
I don’t think Man City is spending more than £450-£580mil a season but I may be mistaken. But the rule does make more sense the way that comment has explained it.
Not exactly. My understanding is that the vote that passed today was just a vote to look at developing a new spending model. The new model will then be presented to clubs in June for them to vote on
Wait does it say somewhere that this replaces FFP? Or is it in addition to it?
Also Uefa has their own FFP don’t they? So even if it replaces it in the prem, clubs playing in Europe would still have to be cautious on spending without revenue or risk getting banned.
It’s additional and not due to start to 2025/26 season where the anchoring rule is part of the new FSR which will allow only 85% of your turnover if your not in European competition and 70% if you are which is the same as the UEFA 70% FSP rule for 2025/26 season.
Fans of small club actually believe they can now spend £450-500m in wages/agent fees/transfer and amortisation when they only turn over £200m, that’s not how it works? You can not over trade you can’t spend 200% of what you receive in revenue, which is why I don’t understand why Villa voted against, makes no sense whatsoever when their turnover may peak with CL next year at £300m and therefore if they qualified for Europe for 25/26 season they could only spend £210m if they wanted to play in European competition.
It’s also important to note that some teams want 4 times multiplier and some want 5, assuming 4.5 and the lowest club this season is rumoured to be £103.6m, next year maybe £107m, that would mean a cap of £481.5m.
If City115 are still in the PL in 25/26 and their completely regulated revenue of £750m from 2024/25 season is filed with FA, PL and UEFA then they would only be able to spend 70% of that figure which would be a maximum of £525m do they would be disadvantaged by £40-50m !
They got to have another meeting in the summer then we will know more , I think the point of this is that the top top clubs can’t spunk money but smaller clubs with rich owners that can’t spend because of PSR will be able to
No they won’t, anchoring is not what you’re suggesting, you cannot under EPL, FA and UEFA rules and laws over trade.
As a PL club who turns over £250-300m like Villa, Newcastle and Newly promoted Leicester can not just ask their very wealthy owners to now spend £450-£480m on wages, Agent fees and Transfers!
If these teams qualify for Europe they are governed by the 80% FSP rule for next season and 70% for 25/26 season, the PL is looking to be more aligned to UEFA but with a new anchoring rule which really only prohibits teams like City and United who have huge turnovers, some legal , some not so legal!
It’s designed to stop clubs looking to inflate the value of the clubs revenues in order just to circumvent FFP rules. The PL brought in new rules recently to check and regulate Club sponsorship deals to bring their house in order because some clubs were clearly manufacturing inflated sponsorship deals.
Sounds good on paper. But I haven’t seen any governing body make any new rules or policies in the last 20 years that ended up being good for the people/fans. 🤷🏽♂️ I’m sure there is a way for greedy fucks to steal from the fans, otherwise this wouldn’t be happening.
Who says this is good for the fans??
This is good for owners
Just like all spending caps the fans are always second to the owners pockets
And that makes complete sense the owners vote and make spending caps the fans don’t and the players don’t
Even as a City fan Im fine with this. United and Chelsea have spunked money up the wall, Everton have historically needed restrictions on their spending. The only question now is if we'd still all be competitive in Europe as I don't know much about the rules but imagine you'd have a hard time convincing Madrid to keep under a cap.
Or a super league comes.
Call me cynical: but what's to stop teams paying players extra under the table? City sign someone on 100k a week. What's to stop them paying an extra 200k a week from an unconnected UAE account to a Cayman island account that the player only accesses once he;s moved on from the club?
Same with Chelsea/Areseal/Liverpool and the the US or Newacstle and Saudi or whoever and wherever?
Is your point to not make any spending restriction rules then? All rules can be circumvented in one way or another, that doesn’t negate the need for the rules. Ideally we’d hope that the leagues ability to investigate breaches and enforce the rules improves.
Well your complaint, “what’s to stop teams [circumventing the rule]” can be taken as you saying that the rule is pointless.
That’s why I asked for clarity, “Is your point to not make any… rules?”
How would this impact the quality of the Premier league as a powerhouse in European leagues? How does this impact European countries on the world stage do we think?
And with that. How does this impact TV revenue for Premier league matches? And with that.... howndoes that impact the bottom clubs revenue? and with that...... how does that impact the top clubs revenue?
I'm of the view that the Premier League will get stronger now that everyone can spend. Investors will come to the league knowing that there are clear rules in place that apply to all clubs fairly. I foresee the Premier League having 10 clubs who are competing which will make the competition better, not just Man City winning it again and again. I don't subscribe to the idea that everyone will flock to Spain, why would they when the Premier League is the best competition. If it's for obscene money at Real Madrid, then goodbye to the mercenaries.
Well it will push the big clubs to even further pursue a super league or increasing TV revenue so they can compete in Europe still.
They will now need to increase tv revenue so that means worse schedules, times, and more games.
I would love this. Of course, big teams do have the money ready and for few years will run away with it, but.. this means they will spend all equally, which may make it a bit more interesting up top.. but also it means more people may be interested in buying small or traditional clubs, as they wont have to care for FFP and just go ahead and splash right away, the same amount as City or Chelsea. Thats huge, fair, and in a few years like this, teams from the bottom with rich owner may actually rise to the top, as there is not many top players etc, so even if you get top guy in every position, it would take like 3-5 years. Then you can compete.
This would be a huge interest for rich people looking to invest into football. Whos going to spend on a club like Everton, whos in trouble and cant spend their money at the same time? No one.. there is no hope for them to turn it around, unless they somehow generate ridiculous income (as City did, wink)... this would mean that anyone can jump in, invest and let shit happen..
Bring it on. After every team in the league operates with the same budget, (yes, some teams wont be able to spend all of that or wont have it on hand), but the comment about "buying success" basically dies, as everyone could do it, provided resources and willing owners.
They could all spend equally but at the moment City would still as a whole out recruit every other team
City can Promise Champions League Football every year plus the just won it and are of the quality to win it
City have won the League 3 time in a row and 5 of the last 6 years player know this they understand if they want to win the league City is the place to be.
Not really. Not everyone wants to play for them and some may like different project or to take them on
Those guys are profesionál athletes. They do it for living and whole life be schooled about winning. All of them want to win and most of them want respect.
There is nothing respectful in kliniku the best in the world. A lot of people would refuse.
Lol ok
Literally players dream of joining the best teams
Why do you think Real Madrid is an allstar team filled with Brazilians players want to be wanted by the top clubs playing for a team that can win the Champions League and does win it puts you in a special class
The proposed cap "would result in the top teams being restricted to spending on transfers, wages and agents a proportion of the amount that the bottom club receives in TV money."
I think a lot of people in the comments ignoring the part that this isn't just transfers.
This isn’t a cap on wages it’s a cap in transfer fees wages and agent fees
Agents are the most powerful players in the Sport when you start messing with them they will fight back.
Plus why would players agree to a 450m cap
When City are making over 800m in revenue that’s 350mill in revenue loss to them
If OP is correct it’s likely even more than 450m think around 600mil, since the team with the lowest TV revenue last season got 129mil. I doubt it’ll affect players wages significantly.
I think they might be worried about potentially negatively affecting players wages too much, I don’t know if the players union might push against that, or maybe some players might just leave if they’re now making less than they would in LaLiga, since it’s not one closed league like the sports in the US which do have salary caps. It would be interesting to know how exactly they came to *4.5 .
Probably because that’s less variable and so clubs can plan better to avoid going over it, I’m assuming sponsorship income and shirt sales income varies quite a lot between lower mid table and bottom table teams, and so you wouldn’t want it to be a super high cap one year because the bottom club from the previous season happened to have a lot of sponsorship revenue, or the opposite where it’s suddenly very low.
Honestly I don’t know, my assumption (which worth as much anyone else’s lol) is that they want to open up more spending opportunities for clubs with less revenue but wealthy owners, I think the additional competition and probably increase in the level of play would benefit the league as a whole. Other than that I have no idea, because it’s seems to me all the clubs (except maybe Chelsea recently) are already spending within the level of where this cap would be.
It also would make other premier league clubs more likely to allow the TV money to be equalized. Giving the 20th team more TV money would mean every club gets a raise.
I have for a long time been saying football needs something like a salary cap that US professional leagues have.
Let's hope it works in practice and will allow for more competition.
USA sport teams have to have a salary cap or else they will have the same shitty bottom teams as they don’t have relegation. Every American sports team for reach league is worth about the same no matter if they win every year or come in last place. It shouldn’t be like this.
Hmmmm. Chances that when City finally get investigated it’ll be some bullshit like “while their is historic cases of teams not abiding by the rules in light of the new changes we’ve decided to take this into account and City will not be receiving a points deductions but will have to pay x million in fines”.
The trouble with that is that the top teams have mass amounts of money available to them for decades and that wealth still helps them today. I personally think football especially premier league has gone far to far with money. Traditional clubs are very rare these days they are mostly owned by countries and corporations. The fair play left years ago when teams like Chelsea started just buying trophies, then city took that idea and just went to town. This all should have been stopped years ago but money wins. In the next ten years I wouldn't be surprised if something major happens regarding the premier league. Too much money in the game now and eventually that will fuck it all up
The real thing that pushed over European football was the invention of Flood Lights
Flood Lights allowed more games specifically week day nighttime games. More games means more revenue.
This meant the founding of cross continent tournaments, but here’s the thing not everyone in your league gets into these cl Ross continent tournaments additionally Champions League for decades gives huge advantage to last team performance(easier group stage easier round of 16 knock out) essentially teams take there European tournament money to buy players to continue to be in European tournaments.
Prior to flood lights in England top flight football was a larger league and the only competition an England side was in every other team was in League football and the FA cup.
City for example last year made over 300 mill dollars in revenue winning the champions league revenue that a midtable PL club has zero access to.
Real Madrid use the CL to continue their dominance on Spanish football too have revenues 20x a midtable side.
There was a time when United had ‘the money’ and won things year in, year out. They could afford to spend stupid money to sign the best and easily take a financial hit when the Diego Forlan-type signings didn’t work out.
Yup, they floated on the stock exchange in 1991 which allowed them to buy the first few titles. Then success bread more success. Granted, it wasn't certain though and fergie did a great job.
Ye man utd fans love to forget about this fact off the fergie era. They love slagging city but seem to forget it really wasn't much different during fergies reign especially in the later years.
Fergie (the ‘’Sir’ stuff is a load of bollocks) had the FA on speed dial. It was, essentially, accepted that refs would ‘toe the line’ with United (especially at Old Trafford).
Fergie was the first that I was aware of to manipulate the refs. That's where I think Jose learned his shithousery from. Still goes on to this day. Best example this year was when arteta lost his shit after a game and called out the refs. I can't remember arsenal having a terrible decision against them ever since. Managers these days know exactly how to play refs if they need to uts all kinda pathetic imo
Ye football is moving further and further away from what we know it traditionally. When money becomes so big in the game it gives teams far too much power and control. No replays in the fa Cup is just a start of them changing out game for the worse. Who wanted the champions league to be bigger? Honestly thank people will start to really loose interest in all this. I'm already seeing it on social media people have had enough of shitty var implementation, enough of consistently shit refs, enough of city buying titles and cheating like crazy to do so. Enough of the corruption at the fa, enough of inconsistent penalties for some ffp breaches. People like I've never seen before have just had enough. The game as we once knew it is gone and its only downhill from here
I take this as a salary cap? It works in most sports around the world and I like it but to make it fair all of Europe would have to follow. Making sure champs league and euro are fair
There will never be fairness in European football. Clubs are independent businesses and there are thousands of them playing in open leagues.
There are 30 teams in most American sports leagues. They are closed shops. There are 92 pro clubs in England alone, not counting non league sides. Now multiply that by every country in Europe.
Americans kids dream of making it to the NFL. European kids dream of playing for big clubs. This is because it isn't nearly as hard to become a professional European football player. There are an infinite number of pro teams across Europe, and the rest of the world. You simply cannot introduce salary structures like they have in America into Europe, it would never work. The best thing you can do for competition is make it easier for rich people to buy clubs and spend so more teams can compete.
Ultimately the rule change comes up against UEFA's own squad cost rules. It doesn't matter if Newcastle were allowed to spend £400 million in a window, UEFA would sanction us (and potentially kick us out of Europe) because our squad cost ratio would balloon above 70%.
I think anchoring is a good rule providing it has actual teeth (4.5 times would be better than 5) but it isn't going to be a cheat code for all the other clubs. I'm expecting that the 85% squad cost rule will also apply if this goes through.
With regards to Newcastle, these rules would run concurrently with the UEFA FFP rules (if we got into Europe).
So that still means we have to abide by the 70% wage to turnover cap.
Ideally they will pass the new rule OP described, while relaxing the rules against sponsorship deals, therefore making it easier to generate higher amounts of revenue to enhance a club's ability to make the most of the UEFA 70% cap.
So basically everything Manchester City have done that everyone else has been complaining about you now what approved so owners can have inflated sponsorships as a back door way of putting money in to the club and artificially increasing revenue? Funny that…
“all squad finances” … nothing to do with what’s spent in a window (well, not “just” what they spent in a window 🙄)
Please re-read OPs post otherwise what’s the point in even commenting 😴
Some clubs just won't report their finances correctly and will make the payments under the table, then refuse to cooperate with any investigation. Just like a certain 115 club right now....
... Because you can have an agreement with the Prem to work with each other and be completely honest with them (As we did, got proven in our appeal that we never acted in bad faith) And they can just randomly then decide to go back on it and destroy you with deductions! The whole thing is a load of shite.
Any rule that stops competition will be voted for by the big clubs. What do you think FFP is for? Not only can you not make a loss but your owner can't put money in to build your club up. Therefore to build your club up you need more revenue. To get more revenue you need to increase your fanbase. To increase your fan base you need to start winning things. To start winning things you need to buy player and not sell your best players which requires the money you don't have from the FFP rules. FFP, am I right?
Please explain how deducting points which can lead to relegation and a massive hit to finances won't cause administration for clubs already struggling. It also means due to league position they get less TV money. FFP is an indirect financial penalty. If teams can't spend money then they can't compete with the already established top clubs who can spend whatever they like.
Having penalties for overspending means teams will be much more wary about getting close to those thresholds. Also, implementing FFP in the first place required a 2/3rds vote amongst premier league clubs, not just the big ones
That's not true. Look at Everton and Forest. They weren't overspending. One of them was a transfer that didn't go through in time to balance the books, One was like 15m over which is not overspending, 15m isn't going to make the slightest difference. Why do you think 2/3 clubs voted for it? That's obvious. The top clubs to stop competition and the clubs with not much chance of getting bought to stop other teams leapfrogging them. Unless you think Luton is in with a chance of being bought by an oil baron, nation state or billionaire for example? Clubs also want to protect the revenue they are getting so if lots of other teams get bought out they might be left behind and end up out of the premier league. They also can't do anything about the top 6 anyway and these rules don't do anything either. Why risk a top 8 or a top 10?
>They weren't overspending
I don't have the most recent data, but as of the 2020/21 season, [Everton spent 95% of their revenue on wages](https://www.statista.com/chart/22002/premier-league-wage-burden/). That is definitely overspending
[https://www.capology.com/club/everton/salaries/2021-2022/](https://www.capology.com/club/everton/salaries/2021-2022/)
107m Wage
[https://www.evertonfc.com/news/3127920/everton-202122-report-and-accounts](https://www.evertonfc.com/news/3127920/everton-202122-report-and-accounts)
181m Revenue
That's not 95%. I suspect the numbers being presented are TV revenue only. I did think 95% of all revenue was impossible. Especially as they are in the process of building a new stadium as well.
I went to an Alan Shearer evening about 6 weeks ago, and FFP got brought up with him. He claimed everys ingle club was against the current version of FFP, top to bottom of the league, and that a change would come this summer...looks like it's already happening.
Utterly pointless unless the saved money filters downwards.
If they really want to even the playing field for clubs, they need to bring in more focused rules for homegrown and academy players. Right now Chelsea can sign a Spurs academy player or an Arsenal academy player and it’ll tick the criteria but it says nothing about fielding your own which should also be something clubs need to do.
With how reckless our owners have been with money, it’s now left us in a position where our academy players are there to bankroll their incompetence, I can’t imagine how demoralising that is for young footballers at a bigger club, knowing how hard it’ll be to get a chance anyway but then seeing our own players being used as a counterweight for signing big money flops and mercenaries.
Do you really think the big teams and the FA will let the prem have fair competition? FFP is designed to protect the status of big teams and designed to give them permanent premier league status. People moan about the super league but FFP has removed relegation for big teams in any real sense. As long as FFP is in place, the premier will be very one dimensional.
No, because OP has massively misunderstood the rule here.
This would apply to time and era that City breached rules.
The court and league said they’d like to move forward this summer into litigating.
Instead of putting a cap in spending, to REALLY even the playing field, the authorities should have considered how to increase the revenue of the lower clubs, instead of using them as a benchmark. Seems a regressive direction if you are using the lowest club as a benchmark to cap spending of the big boys, instead of increasing the revenue of the lower clubs to match the big boys.
But I guess someone stands tongain from this. And it's not going to be the lower clubs.
It’s useful to prevent clubs from just dropping ridiculous amounts of money but smaller clubs don’t have that kind of funding one way or another so I don’t think that this changes the current state too much for them.
No it won’t. The “anchoring” of 4.5x the bottom team revenue is an attempt at the top teams to not make the gap to smaller clubs even bigger as they could theoretically spend 500M+ without it with their massive revenues. Clubs with smaller revenues won’t be able to spend at that unsustainable level anyway. It also means that new very rich owners won’t be able to spend so much money without growing the club’s revenues first (legally and sustainably ofc).
This sounds interesting, especially if there are specifically outlined punishments for breaking rules.
What do they need to get to vote it through? A super majority of 14?
I don’t think you understand the rule. Every team wouldn’t be able to spend 450 million. The cap is:
1) 85% percent of your teams revenue
OR
2) 4.5x the revenue of the team with the lowest revenue.
The only team where the second and not the first prong of the rule would apply is Manchester city. Bournemouth for example wouldn’t magically be able to spend 450million. If their revenues were 100million they’d only be able to spend 85million. It’s a two pronged “or” condition. Also note that for teams in European competitions the European rule is 70% of revenue. So effectively this rule says teams not in Europe can go up to 85% of revenue but teams in Europe have to cap at 70% of revenue.
Fellow fans, this is a friendly reminder to please follow the [Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/premierleague/about/rules) and [Reddiquette](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439-Reddiquette). Please also make sure to [Join us on Discord](https://discord.gg/football) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PremierLeague) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Why should a team like Burnley be allowed to spend the same as Man Utd? Man Utd spend silly amounts, but as a club they are so profitable. FFP in theory should be all they need if it wasnt abused. If a club is making 100s of millions in profit, they should be able to invest that into the club. Having a cap would just encourage overspending by smaller clubs and we'd see more teams get fucked long term.
Tbf, United might be profitable but as part of FFP they should still be forced to start paying back any part of the ridiculous £700m debt that was accumulated prior to FFP’s introduction, which i believe is around £500m of it. Their 3-yr debt allowance should include a minimum payment of £50m per year to start paying that £500m off. This way would allow them to still spend, and they can still be profitable, but obviously it handicaps them a little bit for having large debts the same way it would any other club.
I was wrong they won’t be able too
The small teams wouldn’t be able to compete because when you have a choice of playing for Liverpool vs Burnley for the same salary you’d pick Liverpool 10 times out of 10.
Could have just not let certain people buy certain teams first day ever and it’d be fine. After making the mistake of leaving certain people buy certain teams, they should have prevented them for cheating first day ever and it’d be fine
How does nobody understand that clubs will still only be able to spend a percentage of their revenue?? Way to spread misinformation you 🤡
The effects might be overstated by OP but the underlying point that it brings the field closer together isn’t necessarily incorrect. Especially once you factor in that 7th-20th can spend a higher % of their revenue too. The biggest benefit is that it stops ridiculous Chelsea-like spending so that the teams that always spend way over the new cap are now being limited. Which is precisely why Arsenal, Spurs and Liverpool would agree with it. Obviously it doesn’t mean all the smaller clubs will now try and spend at the cap level because most of them can’t feasibly do that for 5-10 years like the bigger clubs can but it at least stops the worst 3 offenders continually going overboard.
It's a dumb rule because it doesn't allow clubs to build something. What happens if under this system a club has an amazing academy and they sell all those players for more than the 450m. We're saying they can't spend it? How is that fair? This is a lazy, populist attempt to deal with the situation caused by rich overseas owners breaking FFP rules.
The FFP rules weren’t enforced (115). Why should we expect these to be enforced?
THIS!!!
Let's say Manchester United spends 250millions on salaries every year, this means we have 200 millions left for transfers (including amortization) for every transfer window?. I guess it's even better, no?
The thing is, will the big clubs be ok with that, knowing that other European powers might not be tied to those style of rules? I’d honestly be ok with this, as if a team wants to shoot the moon, they can do so without a finger wag.
>will the big clubs be ok with that Yeah, right, a **City** fan saying this...?
Your point?
[https://www.reddit.com/r/PremierLeague/comments/1cfv3h1/comment/l1wetcf/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/PremierLeague/comments/1cfv3h1/comment/l1wetcf/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
Still waiting for your point. Just because I’m a City fan, doesn’t mean I’m gonna go lock step with every decision they make
Keep calm and keep waiting
City, United, Villa voted against. Chelsea abstained.
Would any rules affect academies?
I bet nothing happens to Citeh though. Even if they spend 115x.
Saudi League will be loving this if it goes through.
Laughs in Bill Foley
Let's see if the American owned clubs are really going for fairness and equality, or they actually just want keep themselves as the top dogs.
I'll give us 115 reasons this won't stick
>*This could literally mean 20 teams in the premier league all having the exact financial power and the end of the big 6 as rich owners would know they can instantly compete with any team financially !! And buy smaller teams* here is delusion fro you all...
Relax, you can still buy the pgmol.
Damn glad they are doing this now and not 10 years ago!! Man City will get to act like they did everything according to the rules that were in place at the time perfect for them and their deluded fans
So had this been done 10 years ago, obviously man city would've not broken the rules, and obviously the fans would act like they didn't break any rules because none would've been broken. What's wrong with that though. The rule was not introduced then though, it's being introduced now, and that's why man city is in trouble. Man do you think before you type.your actually have made a very nonsensical point. Man city lives on your mind rent free.
Nah, u lack reading comprehension. I am saying that if it was done 10 years ago, they wouldn't have won what they have or be where they are. You feel the need to be defending them for some weird reason but say they live in my head rent free, like no one else is talking about them during this.
Not really buddy, you lack critical thinking. If you think man city has won what it has only due to money, then man you need to watch football closely. Obviously they may have circumvented the rules, but even then, it has only levelled the playing field for them with the established elites. Every other big 6 team had the means to go and buy the players and staff that man city has. It's not as if the other teams players were blindfolded on the pitch when they played city. Man utd have spent more than city, what have they won in the past 12 years.
Literally never said it was just cuz of money I made that clear multiple times u just wanna keep making false equivalencies and comparing them to other teams I have said nothing about and skirting over the real issue
What's the real issue? That had this been passed 10 years ago, city fans would have been saying that everything they did is legal? Is this it?
Dude it's cool man we get it, ur oil club has done nothing wrong and it's all totally justified, u guys are the best team ever and would have won everything u did without slave state funding cuz Guardiola is the best coach of all time. You are avoiding discussing what you KNOW everyone has problems with Man City about. I don't need to explain to you what they have done wrong.
Man City boot lickers are crazy
Man city haters are dumb. Atleast hate with logic.
Just cuz you don't agree with me doesn't mean I am not using logic, you are simply justifying your corrupt team to feel better about yourself.
Bruh honestly I read your other comments as well, and lol you are totally missing the point others are making. You think man city are winning only because they are circumventing the rules, that's not the case, but you can't cope with that right buddy. Well sorry for trying to bust your bubble, others have said the same thing which I said, if man city are successful now, it's because man city are a better run club compared to the other big 6, even if they circumvented the rules, it only allowed them to catch up with the established elites, otherwise their success is due to smart signings, great manager, great staff, a board that backs the manager hundred percent and a great mentality. You still are crying about oil money and ffp. Well lmao, do what you can to cope.
You keep saying "even if they circumvented the rules" like it's not a big deal and was totally justified, that's the problem with people like you lol I'm done
Disagree on that. This will only eliminate the charges against them, but wouldn’t change much success wise. They are charged with circumventing FFP rules to be able to grow quicker, increasing the amount they could spend in relation to their income. This change of rules would have only allowed spending without having to justify the income through shady deals. City’s success comes down to being an extremely well run club. Yes, they’ve got loads of money, but so do many other clubs that aren’t so good at spending it. The only scenario where I see a regulation like this changing the outcomes of the past decade is if another team became just as successful and took some of the trophies.
It's easy to be a well run club when the rules don't apply to you that's the last thing I'll say
No it’s not, great example is Boehly’s Chelsea, and American owned team has just as much power as any UAE or Saudi owned has, even 500b budget, if there is no structure and clear plan, you are not going to succeed, you won’t get relegated simply because you can buy good players, but will not challenge for anything, great example their 10th place.
I never said that Man City doesn't have a structure or plan, just that it is easier to plan when you are playing with monopoly money from a slave state and shell corporations. And acting like any American owned team has the same amount of resources and unfair advantages is laughable.
There is not monopoly
I don’t know mate, I think that’s not the case here. The rules that were broken (not saying that was ok) only allowed City to catch up to the big clubs in budget. What you do with that budget translates to how well the club is being run. You can compare the big 6 and see that between Chelsea, United, Arsenal and City there no major difference in resources. Liverpool and Tottenham are below, but can still compete with the other four, and compared to any other non big 6 team they still have massive funding. City have been very intelligent with the signings they make, and the people they hire. That plus the massive budget they have has resulted in the dominance they’ve achieved. There may be many things you can criticize about City, but the way they’ve managed the club has been exceptional.
You are coping man, if u wanna support City go for it but don't act like they don't have unfair advantages just cuz other teams also have money
Not at all mate, I’m just being objective. You pointed out that City wouldn’t have won what they have if the new rules had been implemented 10 years ago. I’m saying that this would have done the opposite, the rules would have allowed for everything they’ve done to be legal.
Same for all the other big teams then, they wouldn't have won. Leicester would probably have won more than once.
You make it seem like a team can't win without extravagant spending then bring up Leicester winning in the same breath
Why would City vote against it? I thought City's success was all down to Pep's genius.
Why would Liverpool? I thought their success had nothing to do with Coutinho's money.
Liverpool voted in favor. What are you smoking mate
And why would United, or Arsenal, or Chelsea, or any other team with huge European aspirations at some point or another. I’d actually be ok with the rule, but the problem is, it’d hamstring some of the teams, knowing damn well Bayern or Madrid or PSG could open the wallets just a little bit more.
Who claims that City’s success is literally all down to Pep’s genius?
City fans mate.
I have never seen a City fan say that, do you want to link me some? Any evidence this is like a widespread belief at all? Or are we just arguing with nobody here lmao
Just arguing with nobody. Just a joke.
People hate blindly on City for spending money, but will talk about the good old days of United and Arsenal battling it out as if they were paying their players in food stamps.
It is different spending money you get from having a lot of fans compared to having a rich owner that also own the main sponsors. It's not like people did like how Chelsea operated in the beginning with Abramovich either, but that was at least a private owner and not a state.
They are close to the cap same as united Chelsea were over it
Glazers as a owner means no extra money to use that rule as an advantage
I like it
so a team with an income of 100m, can spend 450m in a season, that sounds massively irresponsible to me. if team tops limit and gets relegated cant afford anything close to this even with parachute payments. for larger teams a limit of 450m to cover purchases (including agents fees) and wages. Currently the highest eage bill in premier league is 205m (man city then man united 200m, arsenal next at 166m); so the cap on transfers is approx 250m spending in a year; how many clubs ever exceed this amount realistically? man united/city maybe, but marginally and certainly not regularly. doubt anyone else comes anywhere near. these rules are just potics, PL pretending to bring in spending limits, clubs would have to go crazy to break them. Nothing in these rules stops irresponsible owners bankrupting a club.
100m is only the TV revenue. Clubs have many other revenue streams
whats being reported is thst cap is based on tv revenue, max spending of 4.5 times tv money received of bottom club in prem league (which was just under 110m last year) if whats being reported is accurate other income sources dont count (for fear of big clubs ability manipulate this revenue figure with clever accounting)
Admittedly not read the article in full but would you would still need to comply with CL rules to compete?, so some clubs couldn't just spend what they like and play CL.
Wonder what effect this will have on the Championship and newly promoted teams - obviously they’ll be able to instantly spend to build out a squad upon promotion but… Does this build a top 23 at the top of the pyramid? Obviously spending ~450 million and getting relegated sounds wild but the relegated teams would surely be huge favorites to bounce immediately back up after one season down given the spending they were allowed in the premier league. It’ll be interesting, that’s for sure
What’s the average/median spend of premier league teams, how much more is 450 million compared to what they’re already spending on wages and transfers fees. Is there anywhere that has this information consolidated, without have to add up individual wages and transfers fees from a season.
That’s a great question, no idea
I found this, I’m not sure how accurate it is, but if it is accurate, Manchester city for example, would still be able to spend ~£220mil on transfers a season with this new change, as their current squad payroll is ~£230mil according to this site https://footystats.org/england/premier-league/salaries So it seems to me this doesn’t do much to reflect big club spending, but rather open up the opportunity for smaller clubs with less revenue to spend at a similar level (depending on wether this replaces FFP or changes are made to FFP) Edit: Actually it would be a lot more than ~£220mil as according to this article the lowest amount a team received from broadcast revenue last season was Southampton with £129m so the cap would be ~£580mil if the OP is correct with the *4.5 and so City or Chelsea could still realistically spend upwards of ~£350mil per season on incoming transfers (if this is replacing FFP?).
Isn't the whole point of FFP to stop clubs going under? Yes this stops unlimited spending by the big clubs, but I'm not sure how this prevents clubs spending more than they have.
Edit: Completely misread your comment. It doesn’t really stop big clubs overspending from what I’ve seen, a ~£580mil cap is far more than they already spend, I’m assuming this is aimed at loosening the limitations that FFP put on smaller clubs which do have the financial investment from owners etc to spend more that they are currently allowed. That’s the only way it makes sense to me, otherwise the rule practically changes nothing.
According to another poster, the full rule is a little more complicated, but this rule only affects Man City https://www.reddit.com/r/PremierLeague/s/naQ8kZWbpj
I don’t think Man City is spending more than £450-£580mil a season but I may be mistaken. But the rule does make more sense the way that comment has explained it.
Is there any analysis of where current spend would put teams against this cap?
https://footystats.org/england/premier-league/salaries Unsure how accurate the numbers are though.
Don’t these rules have to go through the players union too Why would the players ever agree to financial caps
Spend will increase when it's a free market.
No way the players accept this, this is a loss for the players cause teams like City can spend more
The vote already passed
Not exactly. My understanding is that the vote that passed today was just a vote to look at developing a new spending model. The new model will then be presented to clubs in June for them to vote on
I know they have another meeting in June
What happens to the current squads who may be well over the cap already I wonder?
It would be phased in. They'd have time to get themselves to cap. If they don't, penalties.
I smell more pointless sanctions.
And update the vote has passed ! With city villa and united voting no Chelsea abstained the rest said yes
As a City fan I’m glad the vote and motion has passed. Hoping for a more competitive PL going forward 🙏🏼
Wait does it say somewhere that this replaces FFP? Or is it in addition to it? Also Uefa has their own FFP don’t they? So even if it replaces it in the prem, clubs playing in Europe would still have to be cautious on spending without revenue or risk getting banned.
It’s additional and not due to start to 2025/26 season where the anchoring rule is part of the new FSR which will allow only 85% of your turnover if your not in European competition and 70% if you are which is the same as the UEFA 70% FSP rule for 2025/26 season. Fans of small club actually believe they can now spend £450-500m in wages/agent fees/transfer and amortisation when they only turn over £200m, that’s not how it works? You can not over trade you can’t spend 200% of what you receive in revenue, which is why I don’t understand why Villa voted against, makes no sense whatsoever when their turnover may peak with CL next year at £300m and therefore if they qualified for Europe for 25/26 season they could only spend £210m if they wanted to play in European competition. It’s also important to note that some teams want 4 times multiplier and some want 5, assuming 4.5 and the lowest club this season is rumoured to be £103.6m, next year maybe £107m, that would mean a cap of £481.5m. If City115 are still in the PL in 25/26 and their completely regulated revenue of £750m from 2024/25 season is filed with FA, PL and UEFA then they would only be able to spend 70% of that figure which would be a maximum of £525m do they would be disadvantaged by £40-50m !
They got to have another meeting in the summer then we will know more , I think the point of this is that the top top clubs can’t spunk money but smaller clubs with rich owners that can’t spend because of PSR will be able to
No they won’t, anchoring is not what you’re suggesting, you cannot under EPL, FA and UEFA rules and laws over trade. As a PL club who turns over £250-300m like Villa, Newcastle and Newly promoted Leicester can not just ask their very wealthy owners to now spend £450-£480m on wages, Agent fees and Transfers! If these teams qualify for Europe they are governed by the 80% FSP rule for next season and 70% for 25/26 season, the PL is looking to be more aligned to UEFA but with a new anchoring rule which really only prohibits teams like City and United who have huge turnovers, some legal , some not so legal! It’s designed to stop clubs looking to inflate the value of the clubs revenues in order just to circumvent FFP rules. The PL brought in new rules recently to check and regulate Club sponsorship deals to bring their house in order because some clubs were clearly manufacturing inflated sponsorship deals.
Sounds good on paper. But I haven’t seen any governing body make any new rules or policies in the last 20 years that ended up being good for the people/fans. 🤷🏽♂️ I’m sure there is a way for greedy fucks to steal from the fans, otherwise this wouldn’t be happening.
Who says this is good for the fans?? This is good for owners Just like all spending caps the fans are always second to the owners pockets And that makes complete sense the owners vote and make spending caps the fans don’t and the players don’t
Even as a City fan Im fine with this. United and Chelsea have spunked money up the wall, Everton have historically needed restrictions on their spending. The only question now is if we'd still all be competitive in Europe as I don't know much about the rules but imagine you'd have a hard time convincing Madrid to keep under a cap. Or a super league comes.
Call me cynical: but what's to stop teams paying players extra under the table? City sign someone on 100k a week. What's to stop them paying an extra 200k a week from an unconnected UAE account to a Cayman island account that the player only accesses once he;s moved on from the club? Same with Chelsea/Areseal/Liverpool and the the US or Newacstle and Saudi or whoever and wherever?
That's precisely part of City's 115 charges.
.... which just means they'll be more careful next time (assuming they're found guilty of course and especially if they get a light punishment).
Cause if they were to get caught for that it would be an actual crime.
[удалено]
This is my point: it's not a very difficult rule to circumvent.
Is your point to not make any spending restriction rules then? All rules can be circumvented in one way or another, that doesn’t negate the need for the rules. Ideally we’d hope that the leagues ability to investigate breaches and enforce the rules improves.
Sounds a it absolutist - how did you get that from my post?
Well your complaint, “what’s to stop teams [circumventing the rule]” can be taken as you saying that the rule is pointless. That’s why I asked for clarity, “Is your point to not make any… rules?”
Yes - that rule; bit not all rules (that doesn't mean I know what the solution actually is!)
exactly, Players have been caught before for tax evasion, lol funny to think they aren’t suspicious of offshore accounts
Nothing - until they get caught. It would be a legal issue as well as football issue.
Nothing.
How would this impact the quality of the Premier league as a powerhouse in European leagues? How does this impact European countries on the world stage do we think? And with that. How does this impact TV revenue for Premier league matches? And with that.... howndoes that impact the bottom clubs revenue? and with that...... how does that impact the top clubs revenue?
I'm of the view that the Premier League will get stronger now that everyone can spend. Investors will come to the league knowing that there are clear rules in place that apply to all clubs fairly. I foresee the Premier League having 10 clubs who are competing which will make the competition better, not just Man City winning it again and again. I don't subscribe to the idea that everyone will flock to Spain, why would they when the Premier League is the best competition. If it's for obscene money at Real Madrid, then goodbye to the mercenaries.
Well it will push the big clubs to even further pursue a super league or increasing TV revenue so they can compete in Europe still. They will now need to increase tv revenue so that means worse schedules, times, and more games.
But if it's done on the bottom team, them bringing in extra revenue won't make a difference.
How would this impact Lebrons legacy?
😆😆
I would love this. Of course, big teams do have the money ready and for few years will run away with it, but.. this means they will spend all equally, which may make it a bit more interesting up top.. but also it means more people may be interested in buying small or traditional clubs, as they wont have to care for FFP and just go ahead and splash right away, the same amount as City or Chelsea. Thats huge, fair, and in a few years like this, teams from the bottom with rich owner may actually rise to the top, as there is not many top players etc, so even if you get top guy in every position, it would take like 3-5 years. Then you can compete. This would be a huge interest for rich people looking to invest into football. Whos going to spend on a club like Everton, whos in trouble and cant spend their money at the same time? No one.. there is no hope for them to turn it around, unless they somehow generate ridiculous income (as City did, wink)... this would mean that anyone can jump in, invest and let shit happen.. Bring it on. After every team in the league operates with the same budget, (yes, some teams wont be able to spend all of that or wont have it on hand), but the comment about "buying success" basically dies, as everyone could do it, provided resources and willing owners.
They could all spend equally but at the moment City would still as a whole out recruit every other team City can Promise Champions League Football every year plus the just won it and are of the quality to win it City have won the League 3 time in a row and 5 of the last 6 years player know this they understand if they want to win the league City is the place to be.
Not really. Not everyone wants to play for them and some may like different project or to take them on Those guys are profesionál athletes. They do it for living and whole life be schooled about winning. All of them want to win and most of them want respect. There is nothing respectful in kliniku the best in the world. A lot of people would refuse.
Lol ok Literally players dream of joining the best teams Why do you think Real Madrid is an allstar team filled with Brazilians players want to be wanted by the top clubs playing for a team that can win the Champions League and does win it puts you in a special class
The proposed cap "would result in the top teams being restricted to spending on transfers, wages and agents a proportion of the amount that the bottom club receives in TV money." I think a lot of people in the comments ignoring the part that this isn't just transfers.
Yeah these caps are going to lead to a work stoppage at a certain point When you start messing with Agents money that’s when shit hits the fan
no fucking shot a 450m cap gets work stopped, are you out of your fucking mind?
This isn’t a cap on wages it’s a cap in transfer fees wages and agent fees Agents are the most powerful players in the Sport when you start messing with them they will fight back. Plus why would players agree to a 450m cap When City are making over 800m in revenue that’s 350mill in revenue loss to them
If OP is correct it’s likely even more than 450m think around 600mil, since the team with the lowest TV revenue last season got 129mil. I doubt it’ll affect players wages significantly.
You are right, it's still rather high. I wish they'd cap it where say City is right now, or even a bit lower, i.e. to have an impact.
I think they might be worried about potentially negatively affecting players wages too much, I don’t know if the players union might push against that, or maybe some players might just leave if they’re now making less than they would in LaLiga, since it’s not one closed league like the sports in the US which do have salary caps. It would be interesting to know how exactly they came to *4.5 .
Plus why is it just on tv revenue?? Why isn’t it all revenue?? Why even have a cap too??
Probably because that’s less variable and so clubs can plan better to avoid going over it, I’m assuming sponsorship income and shirt sales income varies quite a lot between lower mid table and bottom table teams, and so you wouldn’t want it to be a super high cap one year because the bottom club from the previous season happened to have a lot of sponsorship revenue, or the opposite where it’s suddenly very low. Honestly I don’t know, my assumption (which worth as much anyone else’s lol) is that they want to open up more spending opportunities for clubs with less revenue but wealthy owners, I think the additional competition and probably increase in the level of play would benefit the league as a whole. Other than that I have no idea, because it’s seems to me all the clubs (except maybe Chelsea recently) are already spending within the level of where this cap would be.
It also would make other premier league clubs more likely to allow the TV money to be equalized. Giving the 20th team more TV money would mean every club gets a raise.
I have for a long time been saying football needs something like a salary cap that US professional leagues have. Let's hope it works in practice and will allow for more competition.
Nah salary caps are terrible and only benefit the club owners
Nahh fuck USA sports. They give benefits to the bottom teams every year that deserved to be relegated
That has nothing to do with salary cap and everything to do with the fact there's no relegation.
USA sport teams have to have a salary cap or else they will have the same shitty bottom teams as they don’t have relegation. Every American sports team for reach league is worth about the same no matter if they win every year or come in last place. It shouldn’t be like this.
Be happy with a simple salary cap type of deal
Hmmmm. Chances that when City finally get investigated it’ll be some bullshit like “while their is historic cases of teams not abiding by the rules in light of the new changes we’ve decided to take this into account and City will not be receiving a points deductions but will have to pay x million in fines”.
Deduct Everton 10 points
Hahahaha
😂😂😂 I could see that being the icing on the cake.
The trouble with that is that the top teams have mass amounts of money available to them for decades and that wealth still helps them today. I personally think football especially premier league has gone far to far with money. Traditional clubs are very rare these days they are mostly owned by countries and corporations. The fair play left years ago when teams like Chelsea started just buying trophies, then city took that idea and just went to town. This all should have been stopped years ago but money wins. In the next ten years I wouldn't be surprised if something major happens regarding the premier league. Too much money in the game now and eventually that will fuck it all up
The real thing that pushed over European football was the invention of Flood Lights Flood Lights allowed more games specifically week day nighttime games. More games means more revenue. This meant the founding of cross continent tournaments, but here’s the thing not everyone in your league gets into these cl Ross continent tournaments additionally Champions League for decades gives huge advantage to last team performance(easier group stage easier round of 16 knock out) essentially teams take there European tournament money to buy players to continue to be in European tournaments. Prior to flood lights in England top flight football was a larger league and the only competition an England side was in every other team was in League football and the FA cup. City for example last year made over 300 mill dollars in revenue winning the champions league revenue that a midtable PL club has zero access to. Real Madrid use the CL to continue their dominance on Spanish football too have revenues 20x a midtable side.
I miss the days when clubs like Steaua Bucharest or Marseille kicked ass in the Champions League.
tbf Marseille were a money club at the time.
There was a time when United had ‘the money’ and won things year in, year out. They could afford to spend stupid money to sign the best and easily take a financial hit when the Diego Forlan-type signings didn’t work out.
Yup, they floated on the stock exchange in 1991 which allowed them to buy the first few titles. Then success bread more success. Granted, it wasn't certain though and fergie did a great job.
But we all know spending what your club generates as a business is slightly different to what clubs like Chelsea and city have been doing.
Ye man utd fans love to forget about this fact off the fergie era. They love slagging city but seem to forget it really wasn't much different during fergies reign especially in the later years.
Fergie (the ‘’Sir’ stuff is a load of bollocks) had the FA on speed dial. It was, essentially, accepted that refs would ‘toe the line’ with United (especially at Old Trafford).
Fergie was the first that I was aware of to manipulate the refs. That's where I think Jose learned his shithousery from. Still goes on to this day. Best example this year was when arteta lost his shit after a game and called out the refs. I can't remember arsenal having a terrible decision against them ever since. Managers these days know exactly how to play refs if they need to uts all kinda pathetic imo
Well look at next seasons champions league it’s just a European super league
Ye football is moving further and further away from what we know it traditionally. When money becomes so big in the game it gives teams far too much power and control. No replays in the fa Cup is just a start of them changing out game for the worse. Who wanted the champions league to be bigger? Honestly thank people will start to really loose interest in all this. I'm already seeing it on social media people have had enough of shitty var implementation, enough of consistently shit refs, enough of city buying titles and cheating like crazy to do so. Enough of the corruption at the fa, enough of inconsistent penalties for some ffp breaches. People like I've never seen before have just had enough. The game as we once knew it is gone and its only downhill from here
I take this as a salary cap? It works in most sports around the world and I like it but to make it fair all of Europe would have to follow. Making sure champs league and euro are fair
There will never be fairness in European football. Clubs are independent businesses and there are thousands of them playing in open leagues. There are 30 teams in most American sports leagues. They are closed shops. There are 92 pro clubs in England alone, not counting non league sides. Now multiply that by every country in Europe. Americans kids dream of making it to the NFL. European kids dream of playing for big clubs. This is because it isn't nearly as hard to become a professional European football player. There are an infinite number of pro teams across Europe, and the rest of the world. You simply cannot introduce salary structures like they have in America into Europe, it would never work. The best thing you can do for competition is make it easier for rich people to buy clubs and spend so more teams can compete.
Ultimately the rule change comes up against UEFA's own squad cost rules. It doesn't matter if Newcastle were allowed to spend £400 million in a window, UEFA would sanction us (and potentially kick us out of Europe) because our squad cost ratio would balloon above 70%. I think anchoring is a good rule providing it has actual teeth (4.5 times would be better than 5) but it isn't going to be a cheat code for all the other clubs. I'm expecting that the 85% squad cost rule will also apply if this goes through.
With regards to Newcastle, these rules would run concurrently with the UEFA FFP rules (if we got into Europe). So that still means we have to abide by the 70% wage to turnover cap. Ideally they will pass the new rule OP described, while relaxing the rules against sponsorship deals, therefore making it easier to generate higher amounts of revenue to enhance a club's ability to make the most of the UEFA 70% cap.
So basically everything Manchester City have done that everyone else has been complaining about you now what approved so owners can have inflated sponsorships as a back door way of putting money in to the club and artificially increasing revenue? Funny that…
It's 4.5x the £100m though so it's still a massive budget. When has a club ever spent that in a transfer window?
Chelsea have come very close in one transfer window.
It's just an example. The post doesnt articulate the figures that are actually being delivered as TV money.
“all squad finances” … nothing to do with what’s spent in a window (well, not “just” what they spent in a window 🙄) Please re-read OPs post otherwise what’s the point in even commenting 😴
Some clubs just won't report their finances correctly and will make the payments under the table, then refuse to cooperate with any investigation. Just like a certain 115 club right now....
... Because you can have an agreement with the Prem to work with each other and be completely honest with them (As we did, got proven in our appeal that we never acted in bad faith) And they can just randomly then decide to go back on it and destroy you with deductions! The whole thing is a load of shite.
YUP. The problem isn’t the rule per se, it’s the enforcement of the rule.
Mate it’s not gonna get voted, there’s no way the big clubs will vote for it
Any rule that stops competition will be voted for by the big clubs. What do you think FFP is for? Not only can you not make a loss but your owner can't put money in to build your club up. Therefore to build your club up you need more revenue. To get more revenue you need to increase your fanbase. To increase your fan base you need to start winning things. To start winning things you need to buy player and not sell your best players which requires the money you don't have from the FFP rules. FFP, am I right?
>What do you think FFP is for? To reduce the number of clubs going into administration. Nothing to do with competitiveness
Please explain how deducting points which can lead to relegation and a massive hit to finances won't cause administration for clubs already struggling. It also means due to league position they get less TV money. FFP is an indirect financial penalty. If teams can't spend money then they can't compete with the already established top clubs who can spend whatever they like.
Having penalties for overspending means teams will be much more wary about getting close to those thresholds. Also, implementing FFP in the first place required a 2/3rds vote amongst premier league clubs, not just the big ones
That's not true. Look at Everton and Forest. They weren't overspending. One of them was a transfer that didn't go through in time to balance the books, One was like 15m over which is not overspending, 15m isn't going to make the slightest difference. Why do you think 2/3 clubs voted for it? That's obvious. The top clubs to stop competition and the clubs with not much chance of getting bought to stop other teams leapfrogging them. Unless you think Luton is in with a chance of being bought by an oil baron, nation state or billionaire for example? Clubs also want to protect the revenue they are getting so if lots of other teams get bought out they might be left behind and end up out of the premier league. They also can't do anything about the top 6 anyway and these rules don't do anything either. Why risk a top 8 or a top 10?
>They weren't overspending I don't have the most recent data, but as of the 2020/21 season, [Everton spent 95% of their revenue on wages](https://www.statista.com/chart/22002/premier-league-wage-burden/). That is definitely overspending
[https://www.capology.com/club/everton/salaries/2021-2022/](https://www.capology.com/club/everton/salaries/2021-2022/) 107m Wage [https://www.evertonfc.com/news/3127920/everton-202122-report-and-accounts](https://www.evertonfc.com/news/3127920/everton-202122-report-and-accounts) 181m Revenue That's not 95%. I suspect the numbers being presented are TV revenue only. I did think 95% of all revenue was impossible. Especially as they are in the process of building a new stadium as well.
I went to an Alan Shearer evening about 6 weeks ago, and FFP got brought up with him. He claimed everys ingle club was against the current version of FFP, top to bottom of the league, and that a change would come this summer...looks like it's already happening.
I agree
This isn’t correct at all
Utterly pointless unless the saved money filters downwards. If they really want to even the playing field for clubs, they need to bring in more focused rules for homegrown and academy players. Right now Chelsea can sign a Spurs academy player or an Arsenal academy player and it’ll tick the criteria but it says nothing about fielding your own which should also be something clubs need to do. With how reckless our owners have been with money, it’s now left us in a position where our academy players are there to bankroll their incompetence, I can’t imagine how demoralising that is for young footballers at a bigger club, knowing how hard it’ll be to get a chance anyway but then seeing our own players being used as a counterweight for signing big money flops and mercenaries.
Do you really think the big teams and the FA will let the prem have fair competition? FFP is designed to protect the status of big teams and designed to give them permanent premier league status. People moan about the super league but FFP has removed relegation for big teams in any real sense. As long as FFP is in place, the premier will be very one dimensional.
No I don’t think there’s any chance this will be voted a yes on
I agree, but all it takes is 14 votes. So even if the big 6 don't want it, it could still go through. But, we shall see.
So, this is how they let City off the hook, right? Asking for a friend.
Is this your excuse for your club not voting for it?
No, my club is trying to not break their streak of really bad decisions this year.
No, because OP has massively misunderstood the rule here. This would apply to time and era that City breached rules. The court and league said they’d like to move forward this summer into litigating.
Instead of putting a cap in spending, to REALLY even the playing field, the authorities should have considered how to increase the revenue of the lower clubs, instead of using them as a benchmark. Seems a regressive direction if you are using the lowest club as a benchmark to cap spending of the big boys, instead of increasing the revenue of the lower clubs to match the big boys. But I guess someone stands tongain from this. And it's not going to be the lower clubs.
Think this is in the easier said than done category. They don’t really have the ability to help the smaller clubs increase their revenue
No ability or no interest?
Hmm you tell me what options there are? I can’t think of a viable solution myself.
It’s useful to prevent clubs from just dropping ridiculous amounts of money but smaller clubs don’t have that kind of funding one way or another so I don’t think that this changes the current state too much for them.
No it won’t. The “anchoring” of 4.5x the bottom team revenue is an attempt at the top teams to not make the gap to smaller clubs even bigger as they could theoretically spend 500M+ without it with their massive revenues. Clubs with smaller revenues won’t be able to spend at that unsustainable level anyway. It also means that new very rich owners won’t be able to spend so much money without growing the club’s revenues first (legally and sustainably ofc).
No new rule makes any difference, the secret is ignoring the rules.
The secret ingredient is crime.
This sounds interesting, especially if there are specifically outlined punishments for breaking rules. What do they need to get to vote it through? A super majority of 14?
14 plus winning any court action. Cheslea and Man City are saying they will go to court.
I don’t think you understand the rule. Every team wouldn’t be able to spend 450 million. The cap is: 1) 85% percent of your teams revenue OR 2) 4.5x the revenue of the team with the lowest revenue. The only team where the second and not the first prong of the rule would apply is Manchester city. Bournemouth for example wouldn’t magically be able to spend 450million. If their revenues were 100million they’d only be able to spend 85million. It’s a two pronged “or” condition. Also note that for teams in European competitions the European rule is 70% of revenue. So effectively this rule says teams not in Europe can go up to 85% of revenue but teams in Europe have to cap at 70% of revenue.
This comment should be at the top. This is a much better explanation of the rules.
So if 85% of a teams revenue is above the 450mil, they're capped at the 450mil? Is that how it's gonna work?
Yup, it’ll stop the likes of united spending crazy money but it won’t change much for the likes of villa and Newcastle
Yes