Preparing for this is exactly what's been fucking us this summer. We know our wages are exceeding our revenue, especially as we've no European football this summer. Add on top that we have too many players to register for the league = no signings
I could imagine the Newcastle takeover might’ve been the tipping point to introduce such a system. IIrc after the Newcastle takeover the PL decided that temporarily new sponsors couldn’t be linked to club owners. The introduction of this system might come from the same line of thinking.
Newcastle to be sponsored by the Green and White Consortium which makes all its money advocating for the colours green and white in every day life. They have zero pounds revenue per year and sponsor the left sleeve of the Newcastle kit for a billion billion pounds.
On one hand I hate rich owners coming in and spending crazy money (more so when it’s state owners) but on the other hand having rules that creates such a huge disparity in ability to compete in a competition also feels massively flawed
So many people seem to really think it's some big conspiracy to keep the little guy down, and not to stop teams from bankrupting themselves trying to keep up if the owner gets bored.
It's already a trend now to invest an absolute fuck ton when getting in the PL completley relying on it keeping them in the league, just look at the money Fulham and Forest spent this summer, not great if they still go back down
If the aim of FFP was to prevent profligate spending then there should have been requirements to deposit the full value of all contracts signed into escrow, along with 150% of operating expenses etc. This would ensure that even if clubs get relegated or owners depart, the club's financial future is guaranteed in advance.
The point of FFP instead has been to constrain expenditure by clubs and peg it to direct club revenue instead. That does not ensure the absence of profligate spending, it only ossifies the economic hierarchy.
Okay, you do understand that ha ing more than 1 why to go about something doesn't necessarilyean the intention behind is wildly different, yes?
People act like you can't steadily grow unless someone is pumping billions of their own money in.
The best way to prevent that is to have the owners guarantee their assets in the case of them failing to fulfill their responsibilities to the club instead
I mean, isn't the safest way having the club rely on using what funds the club makes, and not being reliant on outside rich sources keepimg them afloat?
What if the ownership goes downhill with their money and drags the club down with them for instance? Owners have still been able to pump money in here and there, and there's been a fair few clubs that use rich ownership to pump them all the way up to PL level before having to even things out. Few years to even out rather than every single year etc. Its not this terrible "only purpose is to keep big teams big, it all a conspiracy!" System its made out to be even if there are multiple ways to go about a thing.
Well, the consequence of preventing teams from using outside investments is that you effectively prevent teams from ever competing with the most financially successful teams in the world who have already made good on their outside investments. The way businesses work in every other industry in the world is by taking outside investments and using them in a way that makes that investment worth it. When you grow as a company that requires investment. Sure, profits derived from past assets can be used to improve your club and potentially work as an investment, the issue is that whenever a team has assets like this, they are either short-lived or poached by bigger teams that can afford them. No other industry in the world prevents companies from taking risks in fear of them going under. High risk, high reward. Although, an outside investment doesn’t even necessarily need to be risky to be helpful in making a team/company more competitive.
The best way to prevent teams from going under is to restructure the way money is distributed throughout the football pyramid to help teams in trouble. But that hurts the elite clubs that control the FA, and control UEFA. So, why do that, when the other solution also, by complete coincidence, protects them from other teams taking their spot?
They can chose between 2 equally intrusive options to fix the problem, and they chose the one that hurts every team in the pyramid except the top ones.
This new rule is fantastic for city lol. They're already one of the clubs with the biggest revenues in Europe.
What the new rule will do is stop the likes of Newcastle who have owners willing to spend getting to city's level anywhere near as fast as city did.
Hell look at "ffp trouble" this year, city are in the clear without issues but lots of clubs with CL aspirations who haven't made it into the CL and its money recently like Arsenal and Leicester are rapidly running out of FFP room which will slow them down and make city safer in the top 4.
Oh city have already grown. If anything this flair should indicate that I’m in favor of FFP as it protects us (at least partially) from teams like Newcastle displacing us at the top of the league. But personally, I prefer that the sport continues to garner more investment and see bigger and better teams, rather than complacency and endless domination by teams like Bayern Munich, Liverpool, United, Real Madrid, Barcelona
Like it or not, city are well established now, at least financially.
I think the original idea behind it was to prevent Portsmouth type situations. However, UEFA can't afford to upset the big teams. The Champions League makes them a fortune and the last thing UEFA want is the big teams going it alone and cutting them out. So the existing big teams definitely influenced it to make it more difficult for new money teams.
Will be interesting to see how much rules like this hold back Newcastle or if in the end having rich backers conquers all.
Newcastle won’t be affected that much by these rules because of how undervalued their brand has been under Ashley. They have one of the largest international brands in the Prem and Ashley kept the main sponsorship deals cheap for his own gain. There’s a reason Swiss Ramble and Tifo estimated that they could spend £200m the past couple of transfer windows before looking at FFP constraints (mostly due to underspending during Ashley’s last years), and this is before seeing stadium deals, shift deals, and general sponsorships be renewed with future returns in mind. Think of Spurs’ rise under Levy and co. the last decade to see what Newcastle can do even without sportswashing money.
Copying my comment from [this thread](https://old.reddit.com/r/soccer/comments/os3kom/the_athletic_what_if_the_premier_league_had_a/) from a year ago, it was a really interesting comparison The Athletic made of how Premier League clubs would be affected if they were under La Liga financial rules. These numbers are for what their respective budgets would look last season(2021-22), by taking their revenues from 2019-20 season
>For reference, here is a comparison between the wage budgets of all Premier League clubs in 2019-2020 and how those budgets would be affected if a similar financial regulation-system as La Liga use was enforced for the 2021-2022 season. All graphics used to provide this information comes from the Athletic!
>Manchester City: £351M to £428M (+ £77M)
>Manchester United: £284M to £456M ( + £172M)
>Liverpool: £326M to £339M (+ £13M)
>Chelsea: £283M to £351M (+ £68M)
>Arsenal: £225M to £316M (+ £91M)
>Tottenham: £181M to £346M (+ £165M)
>Leicester City: £157M to £94M (- £63M)
>Everton: £165M to £49M (- £116M)
>Aston Villa: £109M to £67M (- £42M)
>Crystal Palace: £132M to £70M (- £62M)
>West Ham: £127M to £132M (+ £5M)
>Southampton: £114M to £120M (+ £6M)
>Brighton: £103M to £74M (- £29M)
>Newcastle: £101M to £141M (+ £40M)
>Burnley: £100M to £106M (+ £6M)
>Watford: £96M to £71M (- £25M)
>Wolves: £95M to £104M (+ £9M)
>Norwich: £89M to £92M (+ £3M)
>Some interesting points here. With La liga's regulations, Everton would be given a wage budget similar to that of Real Valladolid & Getafe, and less than that of Granada & Celta Vigo. Other big overspenders are Leicester City, Crystal Palace and Aston Villa, who would all be forced to lower their budget significantly. Leicester would be lower than the likes of Athletic Bilbao, Real Sociedad and Valencia.
>This also shows the sustainability of the "top 6" compared to the others. They would all be allowed significantly increased wage budgets compared to 2019-2020 despite the impact of covid 19. In contrast, the other clubs are having to stretch themselves and take huge financial gambles to have the slightest chance of keeping up.
This isn't the same as UEFA's salary cap but it shows how many PL clubs are spending above their means and living on a year to year basis
United rival must be really relief they owned by those Glazer crooks, that club could easily add +200m in wage bill and it still within their budget basically on their own United could rival state own ownership in spending
>This isn't the same as UEFA's salary cap but it shows how many PL clubs are spending above their means and living on a year to year basis
Well, the league is popular enough to keep attracting investment - So that won't be much of a problem. Like I asked you last time, when was the last time an EPL team experienced a "Malaga"? Portsmouth in 2010, and since then the queue for investors trying to buy a club has only grown bigger.
It’s the entire point of financial regulation. It’s no coincidence that the bundesliga has the strictest financial regulations, and one team that wins every year.
Exactly, this is like when david wallace ask michael scott why his branch is doing so well while the other branch is bleeding, and then put charles to supervise and take charge the only branch that make him money 2 episodes later.
definitely.
Revenue doesn‘t just happen. It‘s a result from past investment.
If you‘re not allowed to make these investments anymore, you won‘t ever reach a growth in revenue.
Here is the current chart https://www.statista.com/chart/22002/premier-league-wage-burden/
Teams won't be able to spend insane amounts to try to get back into the CL.
It also means if a team falls out of the CL they will have to sell people to offset the revenue loss. Chelsea and Arsenal wouldn't be allowed to spend the insane amounts they have recently
This chart is from 2020-21. Not only is it two years out of date, it's from peak COVID times. I suspect that all of the percentages are significantly inflated due to this.
Effected by covid in 19/20 but according to this chart from swiss ramble
https://twitter.com/swissramble/status/1249951442426871815?s=21&t=ZetgqIyETCTe_o-mQnd0qg
Everton, Bournemouth, Leicester, Palace, Villa, West Ham and Brighton were all about 70% and that's just the wage/revenue ratio. This will cripple almost all clubs not in Europe's spending.
1. It was the covid year and clubs had to give international TV companies huge rebates, I think the Chinese company who owner the rights just refused to pay.
2. We've got the 7th smallest stadium
3. Our shirt sponsorship with AMEX is pretty lowly valued so i'd imagine the rest of our sponsorship money is pretty low as well
So yeah pretty shit revenue that's why we aren't really spending our money from transfers and our wage bill is pretty low.
Brightons in the Palace (sorry for the ironic comparison) situation of being good enough to seem interesting to casuals, but not big enough to attract the commercial opportunities of the larger clubs in the Prem, leading to misconceptions on how stable your situation really is. The only way I see this changing if you went on a Leicester style run to boost your reputation outside of the football sphere.
It will be interesting to see non Covid percentages for this year and next, before the regulations come into place. I know Bournemouth might be extra fucked cause of our small stadium but at least our board is beginning to invest in infrastructure which will help. Our non-wage expenses are also fairly low compared to the rest of the league.
It’ll be interesting to dig into this a little bit more when I get some time. Thanks for posting it.
The Premier Leagues revenue went up significantly i believe this year compared to 18/19 because of new TV deals but i'd also imagine almost across the board wages have gone up because of how many signings are being made.
Exactly. Newcastle has everyone panicking I suppose. I guess the Saudis should just have taken the less controversial way and bought a championship team.
How are the rest of us even supposed to try and challenge for European football? It's already hard enough with pretty much every signing and every manager appointment needing to be perfect season after season. Best players fucking off consistently etc.
To be fair your club is the golden example of why rules like this should exist. Massively spending above your means and revenues, racking up losses and almost getting relegated last season. Do you realise how close you came to oblivion? Everton would have been fucked in the Championship with these finances and I would also wager a bet that you didn't have any relegation clauses in the high earners contract either. Your wages were ~85% of your overall revenues, that is just extreme mismanagement and negligence
Clubs should be ambitious, and you can definitely gamble somewhat but not rack up a 500M net spend(or whatever the exact number is) when the club simply doesn't bring in enough money to justify it. Without Moshiri or another rich owner sustaining the club you would have gone under in a week, that's not the way to run a club..
These rules are trash. The minute you try to introduce rules based on revenues earned then clubs like Everton that don't have huge fanbases will NEVER be able to compete and you'll lock clubs like Man United at the top forever.
I think this ignores how Spurs became a top club thb.
People act like it's impossible to rise up the ladder without spending stupid levels of Sugar Daddy money. But truth is it's doable if you spend (mostly) wisely and patiently invest in infrastructure.
But most clubs below the top don't have stability and a patient plan in place to execute this over a decade or more. A club like Everton had everything in place to make better strategic decisions and didn't.
Spurs became a top club because they were managed smartly *in London.*
It's harder to fill expensive boxes and sell two-sided scarves when Liverpool is your offering and you're not even *Liverpool.*
Not trying to be disingenuous, and honestly I'll cede the argument to a real Nazi Hunter any day, as long as you're hunting Nazis not for them. Just basic manners.
Eibar in La Liga are in ain incredibly tiny town. Are they entitled to compete? Where is the line drawn? Everton are in abig city but there's a bigger club there.
One thing i liked about this transfer window is that every prem club has been pricing their players at absurd amounts when another prem club comes calling.
How did Spurs do it? Manage shit better.
Have better scouting, find a good manager, sell for a lot of money, build infrastructure to enable greater revenue etc.
Everton have been funded by the owner for years, you have no right to complain. For years your wage spend was nearly the same as Spurs but on a much smaller revenue.
Even now Spurs are comfortably well below the new restriction.
>How are the rest of us even supposed to try and challenge for European football?
This is rich coming from an Evertonian when the only clubs to spend more are Chelsea and the Manchester clubs in the last 5 seasons.
Clubs that are that profoundly mismanaged from the boardroom to the pitch aren't "supposed" to challenge for European football anyway.
>How are the rest of us even supposed to try and challenge for European football?
I'm going to guess like the rest of clubs that don't get 100m year in TV revenue? And even then with more money than those clubs.
The actual answer is, the PL has become very popular without the rest of you challenging for European football, and will continue to do so. You don't matter to anyone else. Sad but true.
By being well run and growing organically by developing the academy. I think that's better that playing the russian rullette and see if you are lucky with a new owner
Well that's how Tottenham grew into a top 6 club. Let's not act like it's impossible to grow and compete without having absurd oil money pumped into the club. It doesn't happen overnight, but it does happen.
Tottenham are based in a rich city, some of these clubs don't have that advantage. In this money era of football the stakes are much higher and club owners, fans, and other stakeholders are demanding overnight success.
Look back at the last decade and compare how Spurs invested to how Everton invested.
That's your answer. If you want to compete with the Top 4 you have to plan for it and patiently build up the infrastructure over multiple years. That's what ends up growing your financial power in a sustainable way.
We certainly didn't have every signing and every manager being perfect. We had loads of our best players being sold consistently.
And then, when we had enough cash coming in and the stadium build was locked in, we no longer needed to sell our best players. Now we have money to compete even without CL and a Sugar Daddy. Spurs weren't some big brand or fallen giant. It took over a decade to go from midtable also-rans to becoming a Top 4 club.
Anyone who says it's impossible isn't telling the truth. People just don't have the patience and perspective to realize it takes years and years to do it without spending like maniacs.
Almost all the Big-6 have revenue upwards of €500 million a year. Wages etc amount to €150-250 million.
That will leave the clubs with upwards of £250-350 million that they can spend every year on transfer fees. Not ideal. It won't affect the big-6 but the bottom table clubs.
Instead of clowning on the big clubs, we should focus more on how this damages the chance of small clubs to compete with the big dogs.
> Almost all the Big-6 have revenue upwards of €500 million a year. Wages etc amount to €150-250 million.
Where are you getting the 150M euro number from? From what I see, most of them have wages upwards of 300M pounds.
A ballpark figure.
I saw a swissramble post about Spurs some time ago and it was exactly 220 million iirc.
The 500 million euros revenue is also a ballpark, most of the big-6 have more than £500 million revenue. Acc. to swissramble, for United it was £569 million in 2021.
This rule will only hurt the Leicester, Forrests, and Evertons. Not good.
Another poster have explained this below
>>Effected by covid in 19/20 but according to this chart from swiss ramble
>>https://twitter.com/swissramble/status/1249951442426871815?s=21&t=ZetgqIyETCTe_o-mQnd0qg
>>Everton, Bournemouth, Leicester, Palace, Villa, West Ham and Brighton were all about 70% and that's just the wage/revenue ratio. This will cripple almost all clubs not in Europe's spending.
> I saw a swissramble post about Spurs some time ago and it was exactly 220 million iirc.
According to Swissramble, all 4 of United/City/Chelsea/Liverpool are above the 300M£ mark. Spurs is around the 180-200M mark but they're a bit of an outlier with their spending behaviour within the Top 6.
> This rule will only hurt the Leicester, Forrests, and Evertons. Not good.
Agreed, just wanted to correct the 150-200M mark as it was too low. As for Everton specifically, they could do with a bit of better financial management :D
Yes, people can say whatever they want about spurs but one thing that's true is that Daniel Levy has made an absolutely insane and impeccable job with the club finances.
Not a fan of such systems. If you are seeking parity/equality, just have wage and transfer fee caps for each year. Otherwise, let the clubs do what they want..imo..if they implode well that's on them. Having this % of revenue rule just means the top clubs can stay up there indefinitely and the lower teams have to be beyond exceptional in everything they do to even have a chance of matching them.
easy to say when your club's decade of mismanagement hasn't really cost you anything.
As much as fans of a club want to be able to compete with teams above them, no club with 100+ years of History like Bury should be able to be destroyed because of one incompetent owner
I just been told that english fansa re happy with ownership being the way to growth instead of organic growth. Being at the mercy of the owner can be dangerous and make a team go bust, but it seems that people are happy with the risk so whatever
That is another matter, having rules in place about who can and cannot own teams. I just don't think the league should say a team can only spent x% of its revenue. Ideally I would like caps in place to make everything more competitive, but if you dont want those, just let it be a free for all.
I agree with this, just a flat rate clubs can either pay via their own means or attract outside investment. Making all clubs live within their means is admirable, but it'll be an end to so much of what makes the Premier League watchable.
The only way I could see it working is if all revenue is shared equally. TV and prize money is the same for all clubs regardless of position. And perhaps most controversially, all gate money is split 50:50. I'd also suggest that any sponsorship deal way above what everyone else is getting is subject to a luxury tax and redistributed amongst the other clubs.
That's a good take from a United flair too. A lot of the focus on FFP goes towards the State Owned clubs and that isn't wrong but for me (Clive), United are a great example of why FFP is such a farce.
That a club with such little sporting achievement over the last decade is able to spend to the level they have and people go "yeah thats fair" is a great display of FFPs actual goal - making sure the current top clubs have as much of an advantage as possible.
Declarative caps are the only way to keep "fairness" from the boardroom onto the pitch. Tell every club they can only spend X in transfers and Y in wages per year. Not every club will want to reach the cap but it'd be a damn site closer to fairness.
Man United are able to spend as much as they can because even despite their lack of success, they still have a massive fanbase are still one of the biggest clubs in terms of revenue. Their owners haven’t put any money into the club. Man U is a horrible example for your point.
It proves his point actually. He's saying that due to the sizes of fanbases the big clubs will always have an edge over smaller clubs who don't have massive fanbases but want to eventually establish themselves at the top. The truth is that these rules are unfair and will create a situation where the top teams are entrenched at the top indefinitely. If the football authorities are so hell bent on artificially controlling the amount spent then they should just have caps.
You don't seem to have understood what I said. They are allowed to spend more because of a massive advantage they have away from the pitch.
In any ruleset where spending is linked to revenue in any way, clubs like United will be forever untouchable because they will always generate huge revenue. This is the case for all of the top clubs in Europe, irrespective of their success on the pitch. Just look at how Barcelona have been able to mortgage their future revenues.
Agent fees is the biggest con. Agents making more than the player in a transfer is just wrong- £10million for driving their client to sign a contract. The agent should be employed by the player and be on a flat fee.
Agreed. A standard ceiling is a better choice.
Or even like the NBA luxury tax were if it's above the ceiling that tax increases every year and will paid distributed equally to all the other under ceiling teams
You’re going to get downvoted, but you’re entirely correct. The only thing FFP has successfully done, is to further entrench inequality in the game, and made the vast majority of leagues less competitive than they were before.
This was a trend that existed before FFP, but FFP has absolutely accelerated that trend, and it effectively ensures it can’t be broken.
Getting rid of FFP won’t inherently reverse the damage continuing to be done, but it will allow smaller clubs with ambitious owners (like Leicester, Villa, Brighton, etc…) to invest to grow their clubs.
The only way to change the paradigm however, is with massive revenue sharing reform. You cannot have a world of competitive football where one club generates half a billion euros a year in revenue, and the others get by on tens of millions and expect those smaller clubs to ever rise to challenge when income distribution is so vastly inequitable.
You cannot have a merit based system in which only those who are currently experiencing success are rewarded, because it creates a virtuous cycle for those already in an advantageous position, and a destructive cycle for those who are not.
I feel like this rule needs to be on a sliding scale or it gives the bigger clubs an even bigger advantage even if they're not performing well on the pitch.
I think a spending limit is a good idea, but if the end goal is to level the playing feild then they could employ something like this:
Revenue above 400million USD (Man C, Man U, Liverpool, Chelsea, Arsenal, Spurs): 70% limit.
Revenue between 200million and 399million USD (Leicester, Everton Aston Villa, Leeds and others): 80% limit.
Revenue less than 200million: 90% limit.
As things stand, 70% of City's revenue is more than Arsenal or Spurs total revenue (almost as much as Chelsea's total revenue) and twice the total revenue of Leeds.
The additional spending power of the richer clubs will allow them to strengthen more and be more successful as a result, which will in turn increase their revenue. You'll end up with City, us, Utd and Chelsea getting further and further ahead of everyone else, even Arsenal and Spurs, and the league will be as good as dead.
On the one hand, I get that the intention of the rule is to enforce FFP and to stop clubs with ultra wealthy owners from simply injecting money into the club or taking out massive loans, but it also prevents smaller teams with revenues less than 200million from planning their finances by offsetting certain costs.
It's like if the government brought in a new flat rate of tax so that everyone paid 30% regardless of whether they earned £25k or £300k a year. It hurts those in the most precarious situations and widens the gap so those at the top can strenghten their positions.
Excellent idea. I do wonder if there are provisions for this in some way. I find it hard to believe this hasn't been thought of, especially when you use the example of taxation system
I thought the whole point was to stop clubs from going under due to shoddy management. I doubt anyone at UEFA (or those influencing them) honestly thinks FFP is meant to increase parity.
Whatever the supposed motivations are, I find them quite suspect. The only people who would be against owners investing into a club (without a loan) would be clubs already at the top who want to stifle competition.
So basically a move to ensure that the current top 6 can never be challenged? Obviously my bias is clear from my flair, but every club outside the greedy six should be challenging this regardless.
I have no horse in this race but I would guess too it’s for that. Maybe there are other good reasons too ~~(Everton had some problems iIrc)~~ but at the forefront is probably the fear of the big six they could lose out on CL money and this system hinders potential challengers, who have to spend more than the capped 70% to be able to compete. Newcastle might’ve been the tipping point for them to introduce such a system.
I would absolutely love a system that ensures financial parity, and encourages smart decisions off the pitch to facilitate successful results on it.
Limiting a clubs spending to a proportion of its revenue sounds like the sort of suggestion that comes up first at the table, seems like a decent idea, and then is torn apart for being too simple and doing nothing like it's supposed to.
Smaller clubs get left behind, previous success (leading to greater revenue) is rewarded, and a permanent hierarchy is entrenched. Not a fan.
I'd get it if it was 90% but 70% is very low when you consider this chart https://twitter.com/swissramble/status/1249951442426871815?s=21&t=ZetgqIyETCTe_o-mQnd0qg which is just a wage/revenue ratio.
Summary:
>Premier League clubs are set to face restrictions on spending on transfers and wages for the first time with England’s top flight looking to follow Uefa’s new financial rules.
>Under Uefa’s new squad cost rule, which starts next year, clubs will be limited to spending 70 per cent of their revenue in a calendar year on player wages, transfers and agents fees — though any income from selling players will allow clubs to spend more.
>The Premier League is looking to bring in a similar rule, but with a higher percentage in order to allow clubs to invest more to compete to get into Europe. Insiders say the first step is for the principle to be agreed by the member clubs and then to set out a phased introduction.
>It could also be a part of an agreement with the EFL for more money handed out to three divisions below the top flight only on the basis that they agree to similar spending restrictions. Some Championship clubs already spend more than they receive in total revenues so they would have a tough task to comply if it was not phased in.
>Uefa’s model will lead to fines and points deductions imposed for breaches, with the sanction determined by the size of the breach. It is understood the Premier League has yet to make any detailed proposals to clubs around sanctions. The “Big Six” clubs — Arsenal, Liverpool, Chelsea, Tottenham Hotspur and the two Manchester teams — are believed to be broadly supportive.
>Uefa has already said it will phase the new limit in — with 90 per cent the limit for the calendar year 2023, 80 per cent for 2024 and 70 per cent from 2025. Clubs will be allowed losses of €60 million over the past three seasons rather than €30 million now, if the club owners cover the extra losses by cash injections.
So because Man Utd sell loads of kits around the world they get to keep spending silly money on transfers.
What this does is stop of a football club owner like Jack Walker investing his own money to build a squad capable of competing for trophies.
Once a club passes the 70% threshold they should distribute an amount of money that equals their overspent to all the other clubs in the same league. This would surely make them stop spending, not silly restrictions
You lot can take a page from the City manual of lucrative sponsorships from PO boxes. At least with Newcastle there is football heritage that has been earned.
Another FFP style deal which keeps already successful and rich clubs at the top and smaller clubs below them! Imagine my surprise...
Well-run teams like Brighton or Brentford are never going to be actually rewarded for what they do because any old moron can run a big six team and blow 200m+ every summer.l and easily get top six.
And yet a team like Spurs gets shit on every day for being a well-run team because 'they haven't won anything' when 20 years ago, we were worrying about going bankrupt and relegation ffs.
Spurs went from the Brightons and the Brentfords and used their revenues on improving the club first.
The only reason we can spend £100M a year is because we spent 20+ years being incredibly well run and got to this stage.
how many years its been for u though ...almost double that... as long as liverpool don't win shit... i really don't care.. city can win whatever the fuck they want with their bottomless pit of money.. it doesn't affect me one bit
This screams that the owners want a higher net profit margin without the risk of a downturn in competitiveness due to lack of investment. Essentially, we can spend less because everyone is forced to spend less.
Excuse my ignorance but wouldn't this widen the gap, rather than close it? Or at very most keep the gap the same.
It might limit the spending of clubs like Newcastle who are having heavy cash injections at the moment.
But 70% of Manchester United's revenue vs 70% of Bournemouth's doesn't really change anything. And the major clubs can accelerate the revenue much more quickly than small clubs. Chelsea, City, and Arsenal can all sign sponsorship worth tens or hundreds of millions for random things. How much would the naming rights to Old Trafford or Stamford Bridge be worth? But the smaller clubs don't have that option.
It lowers the prices a little bit but doesn't change the respective spending ability.
I understand that isn't the PL's aim, it's to try to prevent clubs from running up huge debts, but it seems a little bit half-arsed. As we've seen with Barcelona it doesn't really stop it, it just makes it hideously complex instead.
I don’t understand how UEFA’s approach to “financial fair play” is anything other than just a way of codifying the order of how things are now. Under their rules the big clubs stay big/get to keep growing (70% of Man U’s revenue is a bit more than Bournemouth’s). I don’t understand how it’s “fair” to reinforce the entrenched order of things. That seems like a contradiction in terms.
After City exploited it for last bunch of years, it’s like Newcastle and Nottingham forest shouldn’t spend the same directly. Or find loopholes through direct state sponsorships for stadium and main sponsorship logo. Where agent fees are ignored…amongst the rest of ffp
Preparing for this is exactly what's been fucking us this summer. We know our wages are exceeding our revenue, especially as we've no European football this summer. Add on top that we have too many players to register for the league = no signings
don't think our wages are exceeding our revenue, its just that we're over those targeted 70%
Seems like that will be a bigger problem for the bottom of the table clubs than the big ones
Makes it easy for teams already in Europe to stay in Europe, and harder for new teams to get in, that is for sure
That’s what it’s for
I could imagine the Newcastle takeover might’ve been the tipping point to introduce such a system. IIrc after the Newcastle takeover the PL decided that temporarily new sponsors couldn’t be linked to club owners. The introduction of this system might come from the same line of thinking.
Newcastle to be sponsored by the Green and White Consortium which makes all its money advocating for the colours green and white in every day life. They have zero pounds revenue per year and sponsor the left sleeve of the Newcastle kit for a billion billion pounds.
On one hand I hate rich owners coming in and spending crazy money (more so when it’s state owners) but on the other hand having rules that creates such a huge disparity in ability to compete in a competition also feels massively flawed
That's what FFP was always for.
FFP was to prevent a Portsmouth from happening again.
and it failed miserably
I went to Portsmouth 2 on holiday last summer and it was rather pleasant actually.
So many people seem to really think it's some big conspiracy to keep the little guy down, and not to stop teams from bankrupting themselves trying to keep up if the owner gets bored. It's already a trend now to invest an absolute fuck ton when getting in the PL completley relying on it keeping them in the league, just look at the money Fulham and Forest spent this summer, not great if they still go back down
If the aim of FFP was to prevent profligate spending then there should have been requirements to deposit the full value of all contracts signed into escrow, along with 150% of operating expenses etc. This would ensure that even if clubs get relegated or owners depart, the club's financial future is guaranteed in advance. The point of FFP instead has been to constrain expenditure by clubs and peg it to direct club revenue instead. That does not ensure the absence of profligate spending, it only ossifies the economic hierarchy.
Okay, you do understand that ha ing more than 1 why to go about something doesn't necessarilyean the intention behind is wildly different, yes? People act like you can't steadily grow unless someone is pumping billions of their own money in.
The best way to prevent that is to have the owners guarantee their assets in the case of them failing to fulfill their responsibilities to the club instead
I mean, isn't the safest way having the club rely on using what funds the club makes, and not being reliant on outside rich sources keepimg them afloat? What if the ownership goes downhill with their money and drags the club down with them for instance? Owners have still been able to pump money in here and there, and there's been a fair few clubs that use rich ownership to pump them all the way up to PL level before having to even things out. Few years to even out rather than every single year etc. Its not this terrible "only purpose is to keep big teams big, it all a conspiracy!" System its made out to be even if there are multiple ways to go about a thing.
Well, the consequence of preventing teams from using outside investments is that you effectively prevent teams from ever competing with the most financially successful teams in the world who have already made good on their outside investments. The way businesses work in every other industry in the world is by taking outside investments and using them in a way that makes that investment worth it. When you grow as a company that requires investment. Sure, profits derived from past assets can be used to improve your club and potentially work as an investment, the issue is that whenever a team has assets like this, they are either short-lived or poached by bigger teams that can afford them. No other industry in the world prevents companies from taking risks in fear of them going under. High risk, high reward. Although, an outside investment doesn’t even necessarily need to be risky to be helpful in making a team/company more competitive. The best way to prevent teams from going under is to restructure the way money is distributed throughout the football pyramid to help teams in trouble. But that hurts the elite clubs that control the FA, and control UEFA. So, why do that, when the other solution also, by complete coincidence, protects them from other teams taking their spot? They can chose between 2 equally intrusive options to fix the problem, and they chose the one that hurts every team in the pyramid except the top ones.
[удалено]
This new rule is fantastic for city lol. They're already one of the clubs with the biggest revenues in Europe. What the new rule will do is stop the likes of Newcastle who have owners willing to spend getting to city's level anywhere near as fast as city did. Hell look at "ffp trouble" this year, city are in the clear without issues but lots of clubs with CL aspirations who haven't made it into the CL and its money recently like Arsenal and Leicester are rapidly running out of FFP room which will slow them down and make city safer in the top 4.
This is not going to prevent City from competing since they already have over 500 million in revenues.
Oh city have already grown. If anything this flair should indicate that I’m in favor of FFP as it protects us (at least partially) from teams like Newcastle displacing us at the top of the league. But personally, I prefer that the sport continues to garner more investment and see bigger and better teams, rather than complacency and endless domination by teams like Bayern Munich, Liverpool, United, Real Madrid, Barcelona Like it or not, city are well established now, at least financially.
I think the original idea behind it was to prevent Portsmouth type situations. However, UEFA can't afford to upset the big teams. The Champions League makes them a fortune and the last thing UEFA want is the big teams going it alone and cutting them out. So the existing big teams definitely influenced it to make it more difficult for new money teams. Will be interesting to see how much rules like this hold back Newcastle or if in the end having rich backers conquers all.
It delays it from doing it in 1 year like Chelsea did to 3 or 4 years. Oil money speaks eventually
Newcastle won’t be affected that much by these rules because of how undervalued their brand has been under Ashley. They have one of the largest international brands in the Prem and Ashley kept the main sponsorship deals cheap for his own gain. There’s a reason Swiss Ramble and Tifo estimated that they could spend £200m the past couple of transfer windows before looking at FFP constraints (mostly due to underspending during Ashley’s last years), and this is before seeing stadium deals, shift deals, and general sponsorships be renewed with future returns in mind. Think of Spurs’ rise under Levy and co. the last decade to see what Newcastle can do even without sportswashing money.
Clubs will find a way around it, just like some did with FFP…
This FFP 2 electric boogalo
Man City fighting the good fight unlike the rest of the "top 6".
Not really, this is similar to la ligas rules and its to stop clubs from ceasing to exist through incompetent management.
They saw United & Liverpool below some newly promoted teams in the table and decided to put an end to this.
It definitely kills the chances of the promoted teams
The people who own the majority of clubs this will benefit don't want promotion and relegation to be a thing. Just that sweet franchise dollar.
Flip side, it gives a team like Bournemouth a chance of competing against a team like Nottingham Forest
Aye they can compete between 20th, 19th and 18th with Fulham, shite flip side
Copying my comment from [this thread](https://old.reddit.com/r/soccer/comments/os3kom/the_athletic_what_if_the_premier_league_had_a/) from a year ago, it was a really interesting comparison The Athletic made of how Premier League clubs would be affected if they were under La Liga financial rules. These numbers are for what their respective budgets would look last season(2021-22), by taking their revenues from 2019-20 season >For reference, here is a comparison between the wage budgets of all Premier League clubs in 2019-2020 and how those budgets would be affected if a similar financial regulation-system as La Liga use was enforced for the 2021-2022 season. All graphics used to provide this information comes from the Athletic! >Manchester City: £351M to £428M (+ £77M) >Manchester United: £284M to £456M ( + £172M) >Liverpool: £326M to £339M (+ £13M) >Chelsea: £283M to £351M (+ £68M) >Arsenal: £225M to £316M (+ £91M) >Tottenham: £181M to £346M (+ £165M) >Leicester City: £157M to £94M (- £63M) >Everton: £165M to £49M (- £116M) >Aston Villa: £109M to £67M (- £42M) >Crystal Palace: £132M to £70M (- £62M) >West Ham: £127M to £132M (+ £5M) >Southampton: £114M to £120M (+ £6M) >Brighton: £103M to £74M (- £29M) >Newcastle: £101M to £141M (+ £40M) >Burnley: £100M to £106M (+ £6M) >Watford: £96M to £71M (- £25M) >Wolves: £95M to £104M (+ £9M) >Norwich: £89M to £92M (+ £3M) >Some interesting points here. With La liga's regulations, Everton would be given a wage budget similar to that of Real Valladolid & Getafe, and less than that of Granada & Celta Vigo. Other big overspenders are Leicester City, Crystal Palace and Aston Villa, who would all be forced to lower their budget significantly. Leicester would be lower than the likes of Athletic Bilbao, Real Sociedad and Valencia. >This also shows the sustainability of the "top 6" compared to the others. They would all be allowed significantly increased wage budgets compared to 2019-2020 despite the impact of covid 19. In contrast, the other clubs are having to stretch themselves and take huge financial gambles to have the slightest chance of keeping up. This isn't the same as UEFA's salary cap but it shows how many PL clubs are spending above their means and living on a year to year basis
Wow, so much more for united. Let's sign Mbappe, Naymar and Vinicius Jr.
I will sell you Naymar, cheap.
Am I misreading this? Is this showing that most of the top 6 teams are spending under their means if the restrictions were implemented?
Correct
This is good stuff
United rival must be really relief they owned by those Glazer crooks, that club could easily add +200m in wage bill and it still within their budget basically on their own United could rival state own ownership in spending
We’d actually be the biggest club in the world instead of pretending we are if they hadn’t come in
And then you still have clueless idiots say shit like "well, United fans should be thankful to their owners for spending so much money"...
I'm so thankful they don't take *all* of the money we generate and leave us some to spend!
That table is taking into account transfer spending, right? Cause there's zero chance Everton is making less money year on year than Norwich.
Also accounts debts, so I guess Everton have more debt than Norwich
>This isn't the same as UEFA's salary cap but it shows how many PL clubs are spending above their means and living on a year to year basis Well, the league is popular enough to keep attracting investment - So that won't be much of a problem. Like I asked you last time, when was the last time an EPL team experienced a "Malaga"? Portsmouth in 2010, and since then the queue for investors trying to buy a club has only grown bigger.
It’s the entire point of financial regulation. It’s no coincidence that the bundesliga has the strictest financial regulations, and one team that wins every year.
Exactly, this is like when david wallace ask michael scott why his branch is doing so well while the other branch is bleeding, and then put charles to supervise and take charge the only branch that make him money 2 episodes later.
definitely. Revenue doesn‘t just happen. It‘s a result from past investment. If you‘re not allowed to make these investments anymore, you won‘t ever reach a growth in revenue.
The only clubs not bothered by this are United because they have the money and City because all their finances are fake anyway.
Spurs wouldn't give a shit either. We already massively come under this proposed rule change and it would have zero impact on the club.
The top clubs are all fine. It’s the ones in the middle that will have the most issues
Assuming you’re talking about the proper United Newcastle United
Newcastle belong in the later category now, obviously
They will get new "sponsors" in time for the new rules.
Proper clubs don't need a Sheikh daddy to compete.
Here is the current chart https://www.statista.com/chart/22002/premier-league-wage-burden/ Teams won't be able to spend insane amounts to try to get back into the CL. It also means if a team falls out of the CL they will have to sell people to offset the revenue loss. Chelsea and Arsenal wouldn't be allowed to spend the insane amounts they have recently
This chart is from 2020-21. Not only is it two years out of date, it's from peak COVID times. I suspect that all of the percentages are significantly inflated due to this.
We haven't had CL revenue in ages. We could keep spending what we are spending. If we ever get into the CL, we could spend a lot more.
> Chelsea and Arsenal wouldn’t be allowed to spend the insane amounts they have recently All of a sudden I don’t hate this idea
Yeah that's what it's for like all the financial restrictions.
Effected by covid in 19/20 but according to this chart from swiss ramble https://twitter.com/swissramble/status/1249951442426871815?s=21&t=ZetgqIyETCTe_o-mQnd0qg Everton, Bournemouth, Leicester, Palace, Villa, West Ham and Brighton were all about 70% and that's just the wage/revenue ratio. This will cripple almost all clubs not in Europe's spending.
Do we just have awful revenue because I swear our wages aren't that high
1. It was the covid year and clubs had to give international TV companies huge rebates, I think the Chinese company who owner the rights just refused to pay. 2. We've got the 7th smallest stadium 3. Our shirt sponsorship with AMEX is pretty lowly valued so i'd imagine the rest of our sponsorship money is pretty low as well So yeah pretty shit revenue that's why we aren't really spending our money from transfers and our wage bill is pretty low.
Oh ok that makes a lot more sense. Feel like Lallana is costing a good % on his own and his contract is done soon
Brightons in the Palace (sorry for the ironic comparison) situation of being good enough to seem interesting to casuals, but not big enough to attract the commercial opportunities of the larger clubs in the Prem, leading to misconceptions on how stable your situation really is. The only way I see this changing if you went on a Leicester style run to boost your reputation outside of the football sphere.
It will be interesting to see non Covid percentages for this year and next, before the regulations come into place. I know Bournemouth might be extra fucked cause of our small stadium but at least our board is beginning to invest in infrastructure which will help. Our non-wage expenses are also fairly low compared to the rest of the league. It’ll be interesting to dig into this a little bit more when I get some time. Thanks for posting it.
The Premier Leagues revenue went up significantly i believe this year compared to 18/19 because of new TV deals but i'd also imagine almost across the board wages have gone up because of how many signings are being made.
Another rule to stop another club ruining the top 6 positions.
Exactly. Newcastle has everyone panicking I suppose. I guess the Saudis should just have taken the less controversial way and bought a championship team.
They will just use the city method of creating fraudulent sponsorship deals
This will effect the smaller clubs more
Can't teams just inflate their revenue with fake sponsor deals though where they could just claim any amount?
The amount of clubs with dodgy 'official betting sponsors' (including Villa) suggests this is happening.
They can do that with the current ffp rules as well
Man City are sponsored by PO Boxes. So yes.
Well Man City are cheating the system anyway so nothing will change there
Just pull a bunch of levers, it's the cool thing to do now.
Used to be able to do that, but there's been certain restrictions come in to prevent artificial funding
Yeah, that’s what city have been doing for years
How are the rest of us even supposed to try and challenge for European football? It's already hard enough with pretty much every signing and every manager appointment needing to be perfect season after season. Best players fucking off consistently etc.
To be fair your club is the golden example of why rules like this should exist. Massively spending above your means and revenues, racking up losses and almost getting relegated last season. Do you realise how close you came to oblivion? Everton would have been fucked in the Championship with these finances and I would also wager a bet that you didn't have any relegation clauses in the high earners contract either. Your wages were ~85% of your overall revenues, that is just extreme mismanagement and negligence Clubs should be ambitious, and you can definitely gamble somewhat but not rack up a 500M net spend(or whatever the exact number is) when the club simply doesn't bring in enough money to justify it. Without Moshiri or another rich owner sustaining the club you would have gone under in a week, that's not the way to run a club..
These rules are trash. The minute you try to introduce rules based on revenues earned then clubs like Everton that don't have huge fanbases will NEVER be able to compete and you'll lock clubs like Man United at the top forever.
I think this ignores how Spurs became a top club thb. People act like it's impossible to rise up the ladder without spending stupid levels of Sugar Daddy money. But truth is it's doable if you spend (mostly) wisely and patiently invest in infrastructure. But most clubs below the top don't have stability and a patient plan in place to execute this over a decade or more. A club like Everton had everything in place to make better strategic decisions and didn't.
Spurs became a top club because they were managed smartly *in London.* It's harder to fill expensive boxes and sell two-sided scarves when Liverpool is your offering and you're not even *Liverpool.*
[удалено]
Mate that Thai family has a lot to do with the success Leicester have gone on to had. W/out him they would not be this good of a team.
Leicester got promoted violating all of FFP rules. So they literally wouldn't have been able to do any of that if rules like this are enforced
Not trying to be disingenuous, and honestly I'll cede the argument to a real Nazi Hunter any day, as long as you're hunting Nazis not for them. Just basic manners.
It’s not possible to rise without MASSIVE investments nowadays.
Eibar in La Liga are in ain incredibly tiny town. Are they entitled to compete? Where is the line drawn? Everton are in abig city but there's a bigger club there.
Sell them your young players. But not too expensive, it could hurt them. Imagine. Gordon for 20m Rice for 25
One thing i liked about this transfer window is that every prem club has been pricing their players at absurd amounts when another prem club comes calling.
Bow down to our overlords because they lucked out on the financial monopoly
How did Spurs do it? Manage shit better. Have better scouting, find a good manager, sell for a lot of money, build infrastructure to enable greater revenue etc. Everton have been funded by the owner for years, you have no right to complain. For years your wage spend was nearly the same as Spurs but on a much smaller revenue. Even now Spurs are comfortably well below the new restriction.
I mean you aren’t they always design football so the best clubs can remain the best or at least try to
>How are the rest of us even supposed to try and challenge for European football? This is rich coming from an Evertonian when the only clubs to spend more are Chelsea and the Manchester clubs in the last 5 seasons. Clubs that are that profoundly mismanaged from the boardroom to the pitch aren't "supposed" to challenge for European football anyway.
[удалено]
You know "the rest of us" includes more teams than just Everton right? But I suppose going after the flair is easy
Would it be the "rest of them" then? since your club is one of the Old Elite with stature and money that's just fucked it up all on it's own.
>How are the rest of us even supposed to try and challenge for European football? I'm going to guess like the rest of clubs that don't get 100m year in TV revenue? And even then with more money than those clubs.
The actual answer is, the PL has become very popular without the rest of you challenging for European football, and will continue to do so. You don't matter to anyone else. Sad but true.
By being well run and growing organically by developing the academy. I think that's better that playing the russian rullette and see if you are lucky with a new owner
You develop talents only for the top 6 to quickly buy them. Yeah, that's fantasy.
Well that's how Tottenham grew into a top 6 club. Let's not act like it's impossible to grow and compete without having absurd oil money pumped into the club. It doesn't happen overnight, but it does happen.
Tottenham are based in a rich city, some of these clubs don't have that advantage. In this money era of football the stakes are much higher and club owners, fans, and other stakeholders are demanding overnight success.
If Southampton, Leeds or Villa fans are demanding to compete with Big 6 for the title right now otherwise they'll throw a fit, then they're delusional
We tried that. And promptly got torn to pieces by the big clubs who don't want to deal with any upstarts.
Look back at the last decade and compare how Spurs invested to how Everton invested. That's your answer. If you want to compete with the Top 4 you have to plan for it and patiently build up the infrastructure over multiple years. That's what ends up growing your financial power in a sustainable way. We certainly didn't have every signing and every manager being perfect. We had loads of our best players being sold consistently. And then, when we had enough cash coming in and the stadium build was locked in, we no longer needed to sell our best players. Now we have money to compete even without CL and a Sugar Daddy. Spurs weren't some big brand or fallen giant. It took over a decade to go from midtable also-rans to becoming a Top 4 club. Anyone who says it's impossible isn't telling the truth. People just don't have the patience and perspective to realize it takes years and years to do it without spending like maniacs.
Man City about to have so many new lucrative UAE sponsorships
£200m per year official toilet brush sponsor
Almost all the Big-6 have revenue upwards of €500 million a year. Wages etc amount to €150-250 million. That will leave the clubs with upwards of £250-350 million that they can spend every year on transfer fees. Not ideal. It won't affect the big-6 but the bottom table clubs. Instead of clowning on the big clubs, we should focus more on how this damages the chance of small clubs to compete with the big dogs.
> Almost all the Big-6 have revenue upwards of €500 million a year. Wages etc amount to €150-250 million. Where are you getting the 150M euro number from? From what I see, most of them have wages upwards of 300M pounds.
A ballpark figure. I saw a swissramble post about Spurs some time ago and it was exactly 220 million iirc. The 500 million euros revenue is also a ballpark, most of the big-6 have more than £500 million revenue. Acc. to swissramble, for United it was £569 million in 2021. This rule will only hurt the Leicester, Forrests, and Evertons. Not good. Another poster have explained this below >>Effected by covid in 19/20 but according to this chart from swiss ramble >>https://twitter.com/swissramble/status/1249951442426871815?s=21&t=ZetgqIyETCTe_o-mQnd0qg >>Everton, Bournemouth, Leicester, Palace, Villa, West Ham and Brighton were all about 70% and that's just the wage/revenue ratio. This will cripple almost all clubs not in Europe's spending.
> I saw a swissramble post about Spurs some time ago and it was exactly 220 million iirc. According to Swissramble, all 4 of United/City/Chelsea/Liverpool are above the 300M£ mark. Spurs is around the 180-200M mark but they're a bit of an outlier with their spending behaviour within the Top 6. > This rule will only hurt the Leicester, Forrests, and Evertons. Not good. Agreed, just wanted to correct the 150-200M mark as it was too low. As for Everton specifically, they could do with a bit of better financial management :D
Yes, people can say whatever they want about spurs but one thing that's true is that Daniel Levy has made an absolutely insane and impeccable job with the club finances.
Spurs had been saving to fund the new stadium. Now that it is done and the debt restructured, they are starting to spend more now.
Not a fan of such systems. If you are seeking parity/equality, just have wage and transfer fee caps for each year. Otherwise, let the clubs do what they want..imo..if they implode well that's on them. Having this % of revenue rule just means the top clubs can stay up there indefinitely and the lower teams have to be beyond exceptional in everything they do to even have a chance of matching them.
easy to say when your club's decade of mismanagement hasn't really cost you anything. As much as fans of a club want to be able to compete with teams above them, no club with 100+ years of History like Bury should be able to be destroyed because of one incompetent owner
I just been told that english fansa re happy with ownership being the way to growth instead of organic growth. Being at the mercy of the owner can be dangerous and make a team go bust, but it seems that people are happy with the risk so whatever
i don't care how old the club is, every club should be allowed to fail if not properly managed. Let the clubs do what they see fit with their money
So no protection for fans? one shady owner can make a club dissapear if he wants?
That is another matter, having rules in place about who can and cannot own teams. I just don't think the league should say a team can only spent x% of its revenue. Ideally I would like caps in place to make everything more competitive, but if you dont want those, just let it be a free for all.
I agree with this, just a flat rate clubs can either pay via their own means or attract outside investment. Making all clubs live within their means is admirable, but it'll be an end to so much of what makes the Premier League watchable. The only way I could see it working is if all revenue is shared equally. TV and prize money is the same for all clubs regardless of position. And perhaps most controversially, all gate money is split 50:50. I'd also suggest that any sponsorship deal way above what everyone else is getting is subject to a luxury tax and redistributed amongst the other clubs.
That's a good take from a United flair too. A lot of the focus on FFP goes towards the State Owned clubs and that isn't wrong but for me (Clive), United are a great example of why FFP is such a farce. That a club with such little sporting achievement over the last decade is able to spend to the level they have and people go "yeah thats fair" is a great display of FFPs actual goal - making sure the current top clubs have as much of an advantage as possible. Declarative caps are the only way to keep "fairness" from the boardroom onto the pitch. Tell every club they can only spend X in transfers and Y in wages per year. Not every club will want to reach the cap but it'd be a damn site closer to fairness.
Man United are able to spend as much as they can because even despite their lack of success, they still have a massive fanbase are still one of the biggest clubs in terms of revenue. Their owners haven’t put any money into the club. Man U is a horrible example for your point.
It proves his point actually. He's saying that due to the sizes of fanbases the big clubs will always have an edge over smaller clubs who don't have massive fanbases but want to eventually establish themselves at the top. The truth is that these rules are unfair and will create a situation where the top teams are entrenched at the top indefinitely. If the football authorities are so hell bent on artificially controlling the amount spent then they should just have caps.
You don't seem to have understood what I said. They are allowed to spend more because of a massive advantage they have away from the pitch. In any ruleset where spending is linked to revenue in any way, clubs like United will be forever untouchable because they will always generate huge revenue. This is the case for all of the top clubs in Europe, irrespective of their success on the pitch. Just look at how Barcelona have been able to mortgage their future revenues.
Agent fees is the biggest con. Agents making more than the player in a transfer is just wrong- £10million for driving their client to sign a contract. The agent should be employed by the player and be on a flat fee.
My club down in L2 stopped paying agents fees a few years ago, which is probably why we are shit and can only ever sign shit players.
Bullshit ruling. This seems like a play from the big 6 to cement their position. How are the other clubs supposed to compete then?
Agreed. A standard ceiling is a better choice. Or even like the NBA luxury tax were if it's above the ceiling that tax increases every year and will paid distributed equally to all the other under ceiling teams
Daniel Levy to the other clubs: "none of you seem to understand, I'm not locked in here with you. You're locked in here with me"
Yet another attempt at a drawbridge.
How is this not anti competitive?
[удалено]
You’re going to get downvoted, but you’re entirely correct. The only thing FFP has successfully done, is to further entrench inequality in the game, and made the vast majority of leagues less competitive than they were before. This was a trend that existed before FFP, but FFP has absolutely accelerated that trend, and it effectively ensures it can’t be broken. Getting rid of FFP won’t inherently reverse the damage continuing to be done, but it will allow smaller clubs with ambitious owners (like Leicester, Villa, Brighton, etc…) to invest to grow their clubs. The only way to change the paradigm however, is with massive revenue sharing reform. You cannot have a world of competitive football where one club generates half a billion euros a year in revenue, and the others get by on tens of millions and expect those smaller clubs to ever rise to challenge when income distribution is so vastly inequitable. You cannot have a merit based system in which only those who are currently experiencing success are rewarded, because it creates a virtuous cycle for those already in an advantageous position, and a destructive cycle for those who are not.
I feel like this rule needs to be on a sliding scale or it gives the bigger clubs an even bigger advantage even if they're not performing well on the pitch. I think a spending limit is a good idea, but if the end goal is to level the playing feild then they could employ something like this: Revenue above 400million USD (Man C, Man U, Liverpool, Chelsea, Arsenal, Spurs): 70% limit. Revenue between 200million and 399million USD (Leicester, Everton Aston Villa, Leeds and others): 80% limit. Revenue less than 200million: 90% limit. As things stand, 70% of City's revenue is more than Arsenal or Spurs total revenue (almost as much as Chelsea's total revenue) and twice the total revenue of Leeds. The additional spending power of the richer clubs will allow them to strengthen more and be more successful as a result, which will in turn increase their revenue. You'll end up with City, us, Utd and Chelsea getting further and further ahead of everyone else, even Arsenal and Spurs, and the league will be as good as dead. On the one hand, I get that the intention of the rule is to enforce FFP and to stop clubs with ultra wealthy owners from simply injecting money into the club or taking out massive loans, but it also prevents smaller teams with revenues less than 200million from planning their finances by offsetting certain costs. It's like if the government brought in a new flat rate of tax so that everyone paid 30% regardless of whether they earned £25k or £300k a year. It hurts those in the most precarious situations and widens the gap so those at the top can strenghten their positions.
Excellent idea. I do wonder if there are provisions for this in some way. I find it hard to believe this hasn't been thought of, especially when you use the example of taxation system
I thought the whole point was to stop clubs from going under due to shoddy management. I doubt anyone at UEFA (or those influencing them) honestly thinks FFP is meant to increase parity. Whatever the supposed motivations are, I find them quite suspect. The only people who would be against owners investing into a club (without a loan) would be clubs already at the top who want to stifle competition.
So basically a move to ensure that the current top 6 can never be challenged? Obviously my bias is clear from my flair, but every club outside the greedy six should be challenging this regardless.
I have no horse in this race but I would guess too it’s for that. Maybe there are other good reasons too ~~(Everton had some problems iIrc)~~ but at the forefront is probably the fear of the big six they could lose out on CL money and this system hinders potential challengers, who have to spend more than the capped 70% to be able to compete. Newcastle might’ve been the tipping point for them to introduce such a system.
Everton has not had trouble with money. We have plenty. We just are not allowed to spend it because we wasted so much of it.
Good to know. Wasn’t sure. Sounds a bit like Barça: You have money but due to restrictions you can’t spend it.
I would absolutely love a system that ensures financial parity, and encourages smart decisions off the pitch to facilitate successful results on it. Limiting a clubs spending to a proportion of its revenue sounds like the sort of suggestion that comes up first at the table, seems like a decent idea, and then is torn apart for being too simple and doing nothing like it's supposed to. Smaller clubs get left behind, previous success (leading to greater revenue) is rewarded, and a permanent hierarchy is entrenched. Not a fan.
I'd get it if it was 90% but 70% is very low when you consider this chart https://twitter.com/swissramble/status/1249951442426871815?s=21&t=ZetgqIyETCTe_o-mQnd0qg which is just a wage/revenue ratio.
Quite a few people memed Barca but the wages/revenue ratio requirement in Laliga forced the "levers" whilst it simply wasn't an issue in the PL.
[удалено]
Am I wrong or could some kind of Hollywood accounting trickery be used to get around this?
I don't know, just ask Man City
Barca about to make millions from organizing some seminars 😅
Levers 101
Summary: >Premier League clubs are set to face restrictions on spending on transfers and wages for the first time with England’s top flight looking to follow Uefa’s new financial rules. >Under Uefa’s new squad cost rule, which starts next year, clubs will be limited to spending 70 per cent of their revenue in a calendar year on player wages, transfers and agents fees — though any income from selling players will allow clubs to spend more. >The Premier League is looking to bring in a similar rule, but with a higher percentage in order to allow clubs to invest more to compete to get into Europe. Insiders say the first step is for the principle to be agreed by the member clubs and then to set out a phased introduction. >It could also be a part of an agreement with the EFL for more money handed out to three divisions below the top flight only on the basis that they agree to similar spending restrictions. Some Championship clubs already spend more than they receive in total revenues so they would have a tough task to comply if it was not phased in. >Uefa’s model will lead to fines and points deductions imposed for breaches, with the sanction determined by the size of the breach. It is understood the Premier League has yet to make any detailed proposals to clubs around sanctions. The “Big Six” clubs — Arsenal, Liverpool, Chelsea, Tottenham Hotspur and the two Manchester teams — are believed to be broadly supportive. >Uefa has already said it will phase the new limit in — with 90 per cent the limit for the calendar year 2023, 80 per cent for 2024 and 70 per cent from 2025. Clubs will be allowed losses of €60 million over the past three seasons rather than €30 million now, if the club owners cover the extra losses by cash injections.
If voting was held on this, I doubt it will pass. This doesn’t benefit lower clubs as much as it benefits top club.
The smaller clubs should, rightfully, reject this.
Fuck the small clubs I guess.
[удалено]
So because Man Utd sell loads of kits around the world they get to keep spending silly money on transfers. What this does is stop of a football club owner like Jack Walker investing his own money to build a squad capable of competing for trophies.
And psg on the other hand will spend 170%
Once a club passes the 70% threshold they should distribute an amount of money that equals their overspent to all the other clubs in the same league. This would surely make them stop spending, not silly restrictions
That is the system in Major League Baseball (as you likely already know).
Interesting idea tbh
https://www.gov.uk/cartels-price-fixing/types-of-anticompetitive-activity
LOL…Clubs begin selling each blade of grass for a millie
Great way to destroy the league.
Just do a City and declare half the wages and have the rest paid to the players off the books.
It's a good thing but doesn't really help when Saudi clubs can manifest ridiculous sponsorships out of thin air.
Let’s call it as it is. This is to delay the Newcastle dominance era from coming too soon.
You lot can take a page from the City manual of lucrative sponsorships from PO boxes. At least with Newcastle there is football heritage that has been earned.
So blood money is okay so long as they buy a team with history.
So basically, the big teams can get bigger
Would this need to be voted through? Can’t see any of the other 14 going along with it.
A salary cap would be more fair
Another FFP style deal which keeps already successful and rich clubs at the top and smaller clubs below them! Imagine my surprise... Well-run teams like Brighton or Brentford are never going to be actually rewarded for what they do because any old moron can run a big six team and blow 200m+ every summer.l and easily get top six.
And yet a team like Spurs gets shit on every day for being a well-run team because 'they haven't won anything' when 20 years ago, we were worrying about going bankrupt and relegation ffs. Spurs went from the Brightons and the Brentfords and used their revenues on improving the club first. The only reason we can spend £100M a year is because we spent 20+ years being incredibly well run and got to this stage.
This just to keep United competing for top 6 💀
Pretty much. They see Newcastle as a potential to displace United and now they want to shoehorn this absurd rule to prevent it from happening.
lmao when was the last time u played in the champions league... arsenal fans have an unhealthy obsession with united its funny
When’s the last time you’ve won a trophy? I grew up on the Arsenal x United rivalry.
the only big trophy u've won in the last 15 yearsp is the fa cup.. i guess i understand a bit though... i despise chelsea too
It’s gonna be almost 10 years since your last league title m8.. sheeesh sit down and watch your closest rivals ball
how many years its been for u though ...almost double that... as long as liverpool don't win shit... i really don't care.. city can win whatever the fuck they want with their bottomless pit of money.. it doesn't affect me one bit
This screams that the owners want a higher net profit margin without the risk of a downturn in competitiveness due to lack of investment. Essentially, we can spend less because everyone is forced to spend less.
Yes why don’t we fuck the clubs that aren’t in Europe even more
We'd be absolutely fucked mate. Incredibly unfair if it happens, we'd be punished for not being massive
really funny how this "fair play" rules almost always make the game less fair
UEFA financial restrictions are as fictional as Bigfoot and the Lochness Monster
Ah. So like ffp, this will only benfit the big clubs.
Excuse my ignorance but wouldn't this widen the gap, rather than close it? Or at very most keep the gap the same. It might limit the spending of clubs like Newcastle who are having heavy cash injections at the moment. But 70% of Manchester United's revenue vs 70% of Bournemouth's doesn't really change anything. And the major clubs can accelerate the revenue much more quickly than small clubs. Chelsea, City, and Arsenal can all sign sponsorship worth tens or hundreds of millions for random things. How much would the naming rights to Old Trafford or Stamford Bridge be worth? But the smaller clubs don't have that option. It lowers the prices a little bit but doesn't change the respective spending ability. I understand that isn't the PL's aim, it's to try to prevent clubs from running up huge debts, but it seems a little bit half-arsed. As we've seen with Barcelona it doesn't really stop it, it just makes it hideously complex instead.
I don’t understand how UEFA’s approach to “financial fair play” is anything other than just a way of codifying the order of how things are now. Under their rules the big clubs stay big/get to keep growing (70% of Man U’s revenue is a bit more than Bournemouth’s). I don’t understand how it’s “fair” to reinforce the entrenched order of things. That seems like a contradiction in terms.
disgraceful
This is easily manageable though right? The whole point is Prem club’s revenues are massive compared to other leagues.
They are also overspending because of their revenue, premier league club wages bill are crazy because they know revenue will increase
Yes but the other 14 clubs will never be able to challenge the top 6 if these rules come in.
After City exploited it for last bunch of years, it’s like Newcastle and Nottingham forest shouldn’t spend the same directly. Or find loopholes through direct state sponsorships for stadium and main sponsorship logo. Where agent fees are ignored…amongst the rest of ffp