One of the reasons why top clubs don't sign British players is because they are so expensive. I mean, just look at Jay Rodriguez. I'm not knocking him, but i'm sure if we had been inclined to do so we could have found a foreign player who is just as good, if not better, for less than £7 million. Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain, who had never played above the third tier of British football, cost nearly as much as Gaston Ramirez, who has two seasons of top flight experience in Italy and is a full international. The key is making the Premier league as poor (financially) as the German, Italian or Spanish league. In those countries, 90% of clubs cannot really afford to spend big money on foreign players, so have to look at their youth academy, not just for first team players, but for continued existence. Get rid of Sky, and a lot of things will get a lot better. Another problem is that there are more qualified youth coaches in Barcelona than there are in Britain...
Spain have really annoyed me in the last couple of tournaments. Their only decent performances in the last two tournaments have both been in the respective finals against Netherlands and Italy. I think it shows the quality that Spain possess, where they still win games without playing that well.
I beg to differ. SKY don't help in the slightest with getting football clubs to manage their finances correctly,. They also skew the money that is available in favour of already successful clubs, which makes for a less than level playing field [excuse the pun but it is appropriate].
Why should SKY help football clubs with their finances?SKY are only their to offer clubs payments for their respective league positions. The premier league is the most equal league in the world in terms of payments distribuitions, i.e, there isn't such disparity between payments of the club that finishes 1st to the club that finishes 20th. http://www.footballtransfertavern.c...ague-tv-prize-fund-money-weve-all-the-figures. The clubs that finish higher than the other clubs earn more money, of course, there is nothing wrong with this. The FA and the PL should enforce some sort of transfer cap and salary cap for all clubs in the PL and FL, an average of all the clubs incomes should be calculated.It's not SKY's job to do this. This reminds me of a programme I saw on BBC, where they blaimed fast food joints and food companies for making people fat.They don't force people to eat their food.People are just too weak to stop themselves from eating it.
It's a figure of speech to say my second sentence. An older person would have understood that. If you are older it's about time you did. [with apologies for being patronising] As far as skewing the money, it's about appearances. I don't think Wigan are going to appear of SKY TV as much as Manchester City or Utd, and will not earn anywhere near as much appearance money. Therefore the payout is skewed in favour of already successful clubs. Personally, I agree with Wisescummer. There should be less money in the game. But..! And here's the ground shaking bit. If there was less money in the game, would Nicola have persuaded Markus to buy SFC for him..? Then again, would Saints have been in such a pitiful financial state trying to compete with so-called big clubs...?
The sky money has turned the PL into arguably the best league in the world. Being really heavy handed with the rules would lead to a reduced standard of football, the money heading elsewhere and English football declining. Say what you will about wages, greed and skullduggery, but they're all part of the fine game we have. Just look at the SPL - the clubs are skint and the standard of football is terrible. Scotland are still crap too. Money in football makes the game better. There needs to be a massive, long-term commitment to kids football like they have done in Spain and Germany, to bring the kids up to the standard of the PL, not draconian legislation to bring the PL down.
Have you ever watched the Bundesliga? Brilliant quality of football, really level playing field in terms of becoming successful (five different champions in the last 10 years), tickets cheaper than at many league 1 clubs and a production line of young talent which England can only dream of. And yet there is no multi billion pound TV deal there. Ask a German fan if they would prefer the premiership or the bundesliga, and they would laugh in your face. Once again the Germans are showing Britain how things should be done (as they have for most of the last 150 years to be fair). In my opinion Sky is ruining English football in so many ways, and if it went bust tomorrow it would only be a good thing in the long term. And the English premier league will never go down the route of the SPL. Even without Sky the top division of British football would still be one of the top 5 leagues in the world (as it was before Sky).
I might be interested in how the Bundesliga is run, but I don't think I would use the Germans as an example of how other things are done. Remember it was their economy collapse that fuelled the rise of Nazism and led to WWII. Simplistic I know, but they are not a shining example to us all.
Thread closed to me it is not the money that is the problem, but the way that the money is used. Really there should be 15 Premier League clubs running operations the size of Staplewood, but there are more like four. Never mind.
I get pretty bored when I watch the Bundesliga. Dortmund are a very attractive team and Bayern are still decent (even though they're nothing on what they used to be), but there are a lot of poor teams in that league and the quality of football is definitely lower than it is in the Premier League. It's not as fast-paced and most of the teams just aren't as good.
More money more incentive to win instantly and opposed to build , this in turn gives fewer opportunities to home grown players and then in turn less top flight quality players to choose from for international duty .
Really good players are good enough at 17/18. If they're not, it's unlikely that they will ever reach the ultimate level. With demand for homegrown players high and supply short, there is every incentive to produce them. There just aren't many outstanding English players and that would suggest something we're doing wrong rather than money or lack of it.
Do English footballers lose their incentive to improve too soon? If they are good, they soon have more money than is good for them. In this country (don't know if true of elsewhere in Europe) the target is fame rather than what you are famous for.
That's not a bad point. Reading the story about the idiotic Man City youngster, I was amazed that he was driving a Merc. He's 18 and is nowhere near their first team as far as I know. How much is he earning already? Where is the incentive for him to get better? Obviously some players are just model professionals who want to improve because they want to be the best they can be, but a lot will get the first contract, get the flash car, the spongers and the hordes of women throwing themselves at their feet and decide that they don't need anything else. We must lose a lot of talent that way.
Fair point, but I doubt Spain or Germany are much different. The sort of kids who go out on the lash every night thinking they're billy big balls probably aren't cut out to be elite footballers wherever they hail from.
Be an interesting one to find out. Perhaps Youngsters at Real Barca are well paid, but i'm not sure how well youngsters at other clubs are paid (as far as I know, it seemed that most Spanish clubs decided to save money by just not paying their players at all last season...), and I'd think it'd be something similar in Germany. Based on my argument you'd also expect the lower league clubs to produce the best talent, but maybe that is countered by thier lack of facilities and the fact that the best youth players are all hoovered up by the premiership sides. Or perhaps British youngsters are just predisposed to be knobs...
