Financial Fair Play

[ranger_syntax 4,265]

Here's an interesting article about Uefa's financial fair play regulations by Stefan Szymanski

 

http://www.soccernomics-agency.com/?p=527

 

He thinks that it will lead to a closed system like the N.F.L. where big clubs are protected from competition and owners can actually make a profit.

 

I've been aware of, and opposed to, these regulations for a while but the following quote surprised me:

 

Similar regulations are creeping in at national level. England’s Premier League now has a rule limiting wage bill rises to £4m a year for clubs already spending more than £52m. Of the league’s 20 clubs, 14 spend at or below this level, while the “big six” spend more than £100m – there are no plausible mechanisms for the smaller clubs ever to close this gap and compete.

 

Interested to read what the rest of you think of it all.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

This is an interesting article on a number of levels.

 

American Football, Baseball, Basketball and Ice Hockey are all closed shops and all are hugely successful in terms of crowd appeal (with the possible exception of some of the smaller franchises like Tampa Bay) and TV revenue. Yet there are historical and artificial divisions, no relegation and complex play-off systems, which in baseball, basketball and ice hockey involve 7-game series. Perhaps it's to do with the American mentality of being "winners", I doubt a relegation series would attract the same interest. In America you don't want to be a loser.

 

In the MLB, the New York Yankees invariably break the "soft" salary cap (which limits overall spending but not individual salaries) and have to pay a "luxury tax" and in the NBA the NY Knicks and the Dallas Mavericks are the major offenders. However (in baseball) the tax doesn't go to the other clubs it is is divided as follows: 50% funds player benefits, 25% funds developing baseball in countries without high school baseball, and 25% goes to a growth fund.

 

Also the Yankees have won the AFL East in 14 of the last 20 seasons and were 2nd the other 6 times; and have gone on to the win the World Series in 5 of those years; so the salary cap doesn't seem to trouble them too much.

 

The Baltimore Orioles playing in the same division have finished 4th or 5th (out of 5) in 13 out of the last 15 seasons.

 

In the NHL the Dallas Mavericks have reached the play-offs in 12 out of the last 13 seasons, won their division twice and the Word Series once.

 

The Calgary Flames, playing in the same division haven't reached the play-offs in 11 out of the last 15 seasons and been knocked out in the quarter-finals in 4 of the 5 seasons that they did. (Bear in mind that more than half the teams qualify for the hockey play-offs).

 

So it doesn't really help the smaller teams get better nor does it put any breaks on the teams that can afford to pay.

 

What does help the smaller teams is the draft system, which essentially starts with the premise that last year's bottom teams get the first picks on upcoming college players; but without a college system here, it is difficult if not impossible to see how that might operate in this country.

 

Both the NFL and the NHL have "hard" caps on player's salaries.

 

The system introduced by the EPL appears to be some kind of hybrid "soft" cap and it seems unlikely that that too will stop the major teams from the major conurbations being the perpetual winners or the same teams or types of teams being the perpetual losers.

 

If we want greater competition in this country (and here I recognise that many don't) then we need to go a lot further in terms of sharing our meagre TV and sponsorship revenues amongst the clubs than even the new SPFL have achieved thus far. (Please note I am not advocating sharing gate receipts.)

Edited August 21, 2013 by BrahimHemdani

[ranger_syntax 4,265]

Thanks for the interesting details about American sport.

 

Regarding the EPL "soft" cap it definitely means that teams are much less likely to move up and down the league. It doesn't appear to be designed to hinder major teams in any way but rather to preserve their status. It's as if there is a wide spread, and false, perception that FFP is to prevent teams like Manchester City from spending massive sums of money. That may be one outcome but situations such as witnessed at Chelsea and Manchester City are rare. In contrast every single team will find itself pegged against income. Imagine a Premier league where Middlesborough can never try to outdo Newcastle. Sounds pretty boring to me.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

I think it's a very intersting subject, though it's apparent not many on here do!

 

I would like to do a lot more research on it particularly whether a "hard" salary cap is more useful in terms of spreading success amongst different teams.

 

I think this is interesting as some football (soccer) player's salaries are starting to reach the astronmical levels seen in baseball (New York Yankees' third baseman Alex Rodriguez with an annual salary of $30,000,000 and another 13 on over $20.00M), basketball (Kobe Bryant of the Los Angeles Lakers on $30,453,805 this season) and to a lesser extent American football (Eli Manning, the New York Giants quarter back on $20.85 million). In football only Messi and Ronaldo come close.

 

In the NFL, 18 different teams have won the Superbowl in its 47 year history, which is quite remarkable really, when you think about it; that's more than 50% of the teams have won the competition! So it might have something to do with the salary cap.

 

It may also have a lot to do with the importance of the QB, which again is not really something that is replicated in our football (though Beckenbauer was that kind of figure and these days watching Arteta at Arsenal and Gerrard at Liverpool comes close). In the last 30 odd years: the San Francisco 49'ers won 4 Superbowls in the 80's led by the legendary Joe Montana; Troy Aikman led the Dallas Cowboys to 3 victories in the early 90's whereas John Elway's Denver Broncos dominated the latter 90's with 2 Superbowl wins; and Tom Brady's New England Patriots dominated the early naughties with 3 wins in 4 years. Notice something here? Four different teams dominated in 3 decades.

 

And only four current NFL teams have never appeared in a Super Bowl, including franchise relocations and renaming: the Cleveland Browns, Detroit Lions, Jacksonville Jaguars, and Houston Texans, though both the Browns and Lions had won NFL Championship games prior to the creation of the Super Bowl in 1966.

 

That's enough for now!

Edited August 22, 2013 by BrahimHemdani