You can see why Chairmen of clubs like Wigan have loaded massive debt against their clubs though, just to stay in the Prem is a massive financial reward in itself. I think it's a symptom of trying to stay up with the clubs around them more than anything else.
I can understand it, but can't condone it. UEFA have made the phrase 'financial doping' into a cliche, but that's exactly what it is in Wigan's case. Taking an alien substance (for drugs, read cash injections) to enhance your performance. Further down the line, I'd like to see them fence off TV payments too, which would take a lot of the excess money out of the game and out of the hands of the most-televised clubs. Direct them into youth development or something more productive than Wayne Rooney and Theo Walcott's yacht funds.
This. Personally I think the vast majority of PL clubs would support FFP in the PL, cos the majority of chairmen don't want to have to keep putting money into the club to stay the same distance behind the big clubs. And it's not just keeping up with the big clubs, it's attempting to come close to them for wages in order to try and keep your squad together from one season to the next. That said, I'm not certain a separate FFP is actually needed for the PL. If the UEFA one works ok and stops the big clubs going nuts, which it seems to be doing for the vast majority at the moment, then that will have a knock on effect as clubs like Wigan won't have to try and push their budgets so far to keep their players and so the rest of the PL won't be throwing silly money around. This is the core of the problem imo. As soon as one club starts 'doping' with external money, loads of others have to start doing it in order to keep up with their enhanced performance. It's like cycling was in the 1990s - the dopers could ride faster than all the others, so the other cyclists had the choice of either doping to keep up, or just accepting they would always be lagging behind. Net result: endemic doping by pretty much all the leading athletes. Is it surprising that the PL debt bubble has pretty much all occurred after the Abramovich takeover? Utd, Arsenal, Liverpool, Pompey and all the others running up debts to try and compete with Chelsea's financial muscle. I think if you took away the doping from the big clubs, all the little ones would naturally stop their own doping as they wouldn't need to any more.
It'll never happen because all the other leagues in Europe won't do it. Which means a mass exodus of talent from the Premier League due to more money being available elsewhere.
That's why it would have to be imposed by FIFA worldwide in order for it to have any impact whatsoever. And knowing how much that organization loves profits, it's unlikely. An NFL type salary cap on all clubs would be ideal imo, and would go a long way in securing a sound footing for many of these clubs who find themselves with massive debts without an oil reserve.
It would be impossibleto implement now - Either the big money players will have to take massive pay cuts (never going to happen) or the Ceiling will have to be set at the current highest wage which is like £250k with Rooney and Yaya right? (would make it redundant). Wishful thinking at best. It would also only work if European clubs agree otherwise the big clubs here wont be able to attract the best players. A sad reality of football is that wages due to a small number of clubs is TOO high and will remain so. It is almost impossible to go back unless those clubs become insolvent.
The major point of FFP is to prevent clubs from going bankrupt. The natural solution then, as wages are the biggest cost but you cannot set a wage cap under EU Employment Law is to set a maximum % of turnover that wages can be. Turnover rather than gate receipts so that smaller clubs that become popular can do well through sponsorship & commercial ventures. Arbitrarily I imagine it will (should) be around 67% as I'm sure that's been mentioned as the maximum ideal before. That puts clubs on a more even footing, but you can see why smaller clubs would be opposed due to it again meaning larger clubs with bigger turnover can afford better players. It doesn't really even the field, just stops bankruptcy.
The American sports system is actually an Ideal to live up to the best young players come through the college system and the team that did worst the season before gets first pick. Also no transfer fees are paid you can trade players based on perceived values. Player power doesn't count for much so a club can send a player to another club even if he doesn't want to go but then again they are handsomely rewarded for it.
The franchise system would be illegal under European law. It effectively creates an artificial monopoly for the employer, and restricts movement of employees. It would fail legality on about 5 seperate counts. As a system it is actually appalling for the sport. There is no incentive for performance to improve as winning teams are paid exactly the same as losing teams. It is all around creating a spectacle and not around competition. It is also restrictive as teams cannot be promoted and relegated. It limits the sport to a few teams. How would it work in England with literally hundreds of teams? Why would any team in division 2 agree to it? Honestly, I feel americans promote it only because it is american; the system has virtually no redeeming features whatsoever.
In europe you will not be able to put a cap on wages, as its against EU rules. All the PL could do would be to take points off a team thet spends to much ££££.
There are arguments that it's against EU rules. But Rugby Union has had a salary cap for 11 years now, and that has never successfully challenged in court. Ultimately the clubs will find it very difficult to challenge any new rules UEFA make, cos as soon as a club takes the matter to court FIFA will insist they are docked points and banned from competition anyway. And the EC has no power to challenge FIFA decisions, so the club would have to back down. See FC Sion. Also, any club would have to launch their challenge through the European Commission. Who said: http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...-financial-fair-play-regulations-7580682.html The only way a challenge could be launched would be if a player decided to challenge the rules, a la Bosman or Webster, to try and exert their 'right' to be paid a higher salary than their club could afford from their own revenues. I bet Tevez is lining up his legal team as we speak...
It's beginning: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19557934 No mention of stopping clubs competing, that won't happen for a while. But the witholding of Prize Money from a Champions League Club would be worth several million (up to 20m I believe) a season, and that seriously affects your budgets.
"Clubs face further investigation because of overdue payments to other clubs, employees or tax authorities. " English teams have paid there taxes etc, so does not affect them.
No, because you are the only team whose wage bill exceeds the money the club earns before investment. Manchester City's wage bill is about 130% of income earned, even including the fake commercial deals. The next highest is about 80%. Manchester United and Arsenal are at about 50%
