Due to disparities in the distribution of finances within football there are many leagues which are not very competitive such as Spain or Scotland where realistically only 1 or 2 teams will compete for the title. However certainly in the case of Spain the top clubs are of a very high standard where as the bottom ones are quite poor. It is widely believed that to get quality players clubs must spend a lot of money e.g. Man. C, Chelsea, Madrid etc however only a few clubs can afford to get 'top' players. It is often used as an excuse to not introduce transfer/wage caps that the prem could then not attract the best players so standards would drop. But as fans would you rather see a drop in quality and and increase in competitive teams, or keep things as they are?
Personally I don't think the Prem is too bad for it, yeah the title is normally between two teams. But I think teams are cathcing them up Spurs, Newcastle etc. I think relegation and Champions League spot battles are just as interesting as the title, if not more so. I would like more competition and think that it is getting a lot closer personally think there should be a universal cap. Otherwise I can just see it getting higher and higher. Whether it'll improve the division or not isn't guarenteed. I don't think it's a very good league and don't see how it could work in Prem but MLS make it quite good competition by having maximum of two players who can don't apply to a wage cap. The designated player rule I think it is.
I agree, certainly this year the prem has been very competitive, apart from maybe the top 2. I like the idea of a universal cap which would help to increase competitiveness everywhere. Personally I think changes would certainly help national sides, but they no longer seem to take priority.
Yeah, I think thats true, if you had the designated player rule you could maybe make players who have come through youth exempt from it. To be honest it would have to be more than two in the Premier League more something like 6-7 and the cap will be alot higher than MLS but I wonder if it could work.
Another thing they can try is say 12 of the 25 man squad must be British? And stop the transfers of say under 20's so the big clubs don't just buy all the good players from smaller clubs. This would increase competition and improve the national side, however the bigger clubs have better training facilities so may coach players better. It will be interesting to see if the financial fair play rules make any difference, I would be surprised if they did really.
I would like to see limit of how much a club can pay out in wages, so for example a club can spend a maximum of say £10million (this is just a number i've picked) on wages/bonuses to players in a season, so a club can have as many players as they want but they can't go over that amount. so then it down to the clubs to manage their squad wages, and there could be a more even distrubution of star players around the league.
Quite a decent idea. I guess the big problem would be getting the 'big' clubs to agree to these ideas. I guess most fans outside of big clubs would prefer to see a competitive division even at the expense of quality?
I agree with the sentiment here and have suggested as much in other threads but the problem is getting the bigger clubs who have the financial muscle to agree and that means them losing their competitive edge. It isn't going to happen is it? Maybe a tweak on this could be a universal wage cap fo r the club based on a factor related to gates - i.e. if your attendances are 40,000 compared to 20,000 then you can have double the cap. That would certainly still be an advantage for the larger teams but give even the poorest supported sides some hope.
Great idea but this would never stand a hope in hell of ever being implemented due to the vested interests of the FA, Premier League and the big clubs. Guru you would make a great Chancellor, have you ever thought of a career in politics? You would get my vote!
I would quite happily sacrifice a bit of quality in the league if it meant that the competition across the country increased. The easiest way to do this is to fix three things. One: The prize money issued to clubs. It's been mentioned a number of times that each position in the Premier League is worth £750, 000. This means that the team finishing first collects £15 million more than the team finishing bottom of the league. Even finishing bottom in the Premier League brings in a massive amount more than finishing top in the Championship. I'm not saying that the lowest placed team should get the most prize money (although that would be an interesting concept) just that there should be more parity between the prize money. Maybe something like first place gets x amount, teams who qualify for Europe get slightly less, the rest of the league get a little less and the relegated sides get the least. Two: Parachute payments. Scrap them. Yes, I know the promise of them has made us financially secure but it makes a very uneven playing field. Yes, the last two seasons have seen five clubs go up who haven't been getting the payments, but the clubs who have been receiving them have been the ones challenging most of the time as they can afford to hold onto their players for at least one or two years. West Brom (x2), Newcastle, Reading, Sunderland, Birmingham, West Ham and Wolves have all been promoted on the back of parachute payments in the last eight years, Blackpool, Birmingham or West Ham will go up this season using them while the play-offs quite regularly feature at least one relegated club. It also makes it harder for clubs promoted from league one to stay in the championship. This seasons championship featured just six teams who hadn't played in the Premier league and had Portsmouth not been deducted ten points three of those would've finished in the bottom six. Three: Bring the Premier League back under the governance of the FA. While the PL is allowed to operate under its own rules it will be impossible to enforce wage caps etc as it acts in its own interests. The football league has brought in its financial fair play scheme which will punish teams and hopefully put an end to the advantage parachute payments give clubs, but there will be no such thing in the PL because they're only interested in making the PL clubs bigger, eg forcing through and subsequently bullying the football league clubs into accepting the ruling that means there will be hardly any compensation payed to clubs when PL clubs poach their youngsters. I wouldn't be at all suprised if when the financial fair play scheme kicks in the PL will increase parachute payments again. Of course none, of this would ever happen as it would mean the big clubs, the Premier League, the FA and Sky taking a massive hit in the wallet.
Spot on! I have been arguing this point for years! Why should teams automatically benefit from ultimate failure at the disadvantage of existing clubs in the Championship who only have a set budget!
I wholeheartedly agree that parachute payments should be scrapped. Why reward failing? This would certainly force clubs to be much more careful with their finances and maybe pay lower wages when in the prem, especially if they are in danger of relegation. Bringing the prem back under FA guidance seems critical in enforcing any changes or bridging the gap between teams both in and out of the prem. Although this would rely on the FA actually being competent. The irony of it all is that the money men in football and media seem to think a reduction in quality would decrease income and desirability of the league. However there is a fair chance things such as TV revenue may increase as with more competition comes more viewers. Possibly anyway.
I don't think the quality would reduce that much anyway. Say the Premier League, in a moment of madness, decided to implement a financial fair play scheme in a similar way to the Football league as just done you could quite conceivably have this scenario play out. 1.Teams like Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool and both Manchester clubs would start paying massive fines and in some cases suffer transfer embargo's. 2. This would result in a knock on effect of the teams just below them being able to catch them up as they could still buy players and have more money available for wages etc. 3. Suddenly instead of having two or three teams able to win the league you have six or seven teams able to win it and probably more pushing for Europe. 4. Competition increases in the top league, but also makes it that little bit easier for promoted teams to come up and stay up while established teams become less complacent. 5. The Premier League loses its crown as the best league in the world, but English football regains its reputation for exciting, competitive football
The other thing is increased competition may help improve the quality, similar to how you want competition for places in a squad to keep everyone on top of their game. Without being arrogant, with Rangers in crisis and the Scottish league becoming less competitive by the day, I would love to see the league drastically restructure the rules similar to those suggested above. It is a chance to start afresh and reinvigorate Scottish football, making it more competitive and benefiting the national team etc
The problem with the wages is the agents along with the players I think we demonise the clubs too much, even if all the big clubs in the EU didn't cave into player demands the quality would go down and leagues in places like Qatar, Russia and China would pick up as let's face it these countries are throwing money at players who feel their important even though their have beens. It would be great to see a fairer deal but it will never be that way. The biggest thing which worries me would be in 20 years time if domestic leagues didn't exist I think with the importance of the Champions League there is the danger of there being a weekly European Super League or a International one and Scudamore's idea of that extra game per season being played Shanghai or Dubai is one step closer. Teams could be franchised it's a horrific thought and it could happen someone needs to regulate things how we do so I don't know but FIFA need to play a part.
The quality issue is only questioned when British clubs play in Europe or the national side plays in a competition. It wouldn't bother me if I never saw Mankini City play again. Or Barcelona. There is no doubt that many in those two sides have what is termed skillful players. But they bore me to be honest. They pass for passing sake and if they weren't successful, particularly MC, the stadium would be half empty. People want to be entertained first and foremost and luckily, English football has tried to inject attacking football. We are lucky at NCFC that we have nearly always played entertaining attacking football. Keep the foreigners out, keep the agents out and cap the money dependent on your stature i.e. a formula which marries attendances, income form club activities only and sponsorship. Dreaming again.
Agreed! What is really that entertaining about a team passing the ball around for ages across the back four, however skilfully they do it. I'm happy to see rubbish defending, punch ups, hard tackles, terrible passing that finishes 5-4 surely that is as entertaining? Really its the competition that is entertaining rather than the skill if that makes sense?
Would solve a hell of a lot of issues, more likely to see Hartlepool win the champions league than get rid of agents though
I don't know much about the workings of agents, but why are they there? I mean is it just because the players wanted them/ the clubs or what? They just seem to be a drain for money out of football
They are there, as far as I understand, to deal with players contract renewals, to talk up and engineer moves for the players they represent and allow the player to get on with playing instead of negotiating contracts. In reality all they do is bump up transfer prices and wages to ensure they get a huge pay-off when they take their slice of any fees.
