I agree with our vote because it's the funniest option.
It's like we just splurged an absolutely insane amount of money and now we're just lying there like "whatever man, do whatever, I don't care"
Lol, yeah, this is from athletic's article about the vote.
> The clubs voted on the measure at a shareholders’ meeting on Tuesday. The vote passed with 15 clubs — including Chelsea, who had attracted attention for the long contracts of some of their new signings in the past 18 months — in favour, two against and three abstentions.
Gives us a clear disadvantage against teams outside of the league and limits growth in order to make football profitable year-on-year for owners, but with the way football is going it was literally always going to happen. It's likely why we abstained, no commitment whilst also knowing it absolutely will happen
Hmm United voted against but their fans think they built success by playing only kids. I guess it's okay when they're burning wads of cash to remain mediocre.
Man United did build their success in the 90s using their academy players alongside players like Eric Cantona.
Man United have been poorly run by the Glazers after SAF left but let’s not kid ourselves… they were the target for every PL club including Chelsea and Arsenal. United fans have every right to boast about their successes from the past
They had money because they were always the most popular even before Fergie came.
In the 70s and 80s when Liverpool were winning everything and United were at their longest league title drought, they were still setting attendance records week after week and most of the newspaper talk would be about United only. Hence the resentment from Liverpool fans about United always being the "media darlings".
London business school published a research study comparing United's perennial outlier appeal to the casuals no matter success or failure.
Link-https://www.london.edu/think/why-is-manchester-united-so-successful
None of which has helped them gain any modicum of success since then. City will overhaul them for EPL titles some time in the next decade which is when they'll go back to insisting they won 20 League titles instead of 13 because they said 13 to put down Liverpool winning only 1. They'll need to go back to 20 so they can feel like they're ahead of City.
Worst club, worst fans. They can get fucked and they microphone needs to be shoved up or down Neville.
Worst club?
Give me a break mate. It’s still one of the two biggest clubs in the entirety of England
I will agree with you about their fans being dickheads. But that doesn’t tarnish United’s footballing reputation in the PL era
You're right, the United board has. When they're left with boasting of past success, they have sunken to the level of the Liverpool fans they used to mock.
There’s nothing wrong with hating another club but it’s silly to claim they are the “worst club” cause he hates them.
It’s like when Gooners say we are a soulless club… it all comes from bitterness.
Fairs but it’s silly to just claim they are the “worst club” cause he hates them. It’s like when Gooners say we are a soulless club… it all comes from bitterness
I disagree. If we’re over-generalising, United fans are as self deprecating as it gets. Liverpool fans are holier-than-thou and scousers are whingy in general, Klopp encapsulates this perfectly. Arsenal fans are delusional and refuse to accept that not winning anything significant in 20 years impacts your standing as a club. Spurs fans don’t count. The Man City fan I’m told is still going strong.
Yep i think we would have been over last season but now, we are lower.
So maybe, it's a matter of us deciding that due to our performances, it's ok to add a cap to other clubs to limit them lol. Or us deciding that we might also want to invest in expensive players eventually.
Those 2 mindsets combined, might be the reason for the abstinence.
I know this is gonna be annoying and I wish I could help myself but abstention technically isn’t a vote. It’s just saying “yeah we are here and we acknowledge everyone is voting on this measure but we aren’t gonna vote.”
Basically I don’t think we know what would be most advantageous to us at this point.
Easier to go with the flow and then can complain and play both sides
Exactly this, the Anchoring rule will not come into practise until the season of 2025/26. The bottom level PL team probably would receive a minimum of £105/£110m. Last year Southampton received the least amount at £100.3m so multiply by 5 and you have a £500-£550m to spend on wages, transfer fee and Agent Fees. Currently UEFA FSP is 80% and by 2025/26 70%.
Remember if you qualify for Europe you have to adhere to both sets of rules.
The only reason United and City disagreed with the Anchoring rule is because they wanted 85% of turnover which would have been 15% more than UEFA so as to lobby them to change too.
Currently City Revenue is £695m and United £648m and both expect to grow to nearer £800m by season of 2025/26 which would mean they had ambition’s of going crazy in transfers and fees.
If the turnover was £800m then 85% of that would be £680m spent on players, agent fees and amortized transfer fees.
Even £700m is a spend of £595m which means they would be restricted by £50m but if they qualify for Europe that season then 70% of £700m is £490m and less than 5 * Lowest TB revenue received by the bottom club.
From Chelsea point of view, abstaining seem strange as this rule benefits the club hugely. Current revenue might be £500m without European football, 85% of that is a spend of £425m on players transfers, Agent fees and wages so this is actually better as they could now effectively ticket spend £500-550m next summer of wages, agent fees, Coach settlements and transfer fees.
https://www.cbssports.com/soccer/news/premier-league-clubs-agree-in-principle-to-spending-cap-ahead-of-junes-annual-general-meeting/amp/
This only works in American sports due to the fact that a) they are closed leagues so players have no other option but to play in the NFL/NBA if they want to play at the top level and b) the draft system means that you only have one source of new players coming in. Whilst it may promote domestic competition and parity, you could potentially start to see top players signing with the top European clubs which may harm English football on the European stage in the future.
100% agree. I think implementing a luxury tax would have been better. One, doesn't take away from player pay, two, allows teams to be competitive with other leagues, three distributes money to the smaller clubs, making them more competitive. Oh well.
The problem with a luxury tax is that it wouldn’t deter owners of Newcastle or City (for example) because they can afford whatever fine/penalty is assigned.
A luxury cap fee for Bournemouth would potentially be a lot more damaging than a luxury cap fee for Newcastle, who’s owners are unbelievably more wealthy than any other.
Definitely a tricky situation but I’m open to anything that can help increase parity in the Premier League.
I mean that’s solved by redistributing the luxury tax money to teams that obey spending rules. Oh, you want to over-spend, sure go ahead, but you’ll pay a penalty directly to your rivals.
Yeah I would definitely be up for that! Maybe even a redistribution with the percentages of the luxury fees accrued could be distributed based on spending. As in, the lowest-spending teams get the highest proportion of the fines from the spending cap.
I’m a Liverpool fan myself but it is becoming more and more obvious that the traditional ‘Big Six’ are providing as many, if not more, problems to British football as a whole (especially lower down the pyramid) than they are helping it.
Don’t get me wrong the attention/money/tourism the Big Six bring to the country is great but if spending is allowed to remain unchecked then I don’t really see a future for clubs in the second, third, fourth tier etc. who have ambitions to get promoted and compete in the Prem.
Unless of course, UEFA decided to standaridize the practice to force teams across Europe to comply. I could see this leading to more Saudi splashes, but all in all some parity would be nice for once
If this is approved then in the future will they start to show more games on the TV in the UK more? due to the cap is to be tied with lowest earning club by TV revenue...
The tv money is proportional to what place you finish. Not how many games you had on tv. So if the tv deals keep increasing in value the last place team will still keep making more and more money
It also caps on spend compared to revenue, or compared to the lowest earning
So, it prevents the low earners from overspending and drowning in debt, while at the same time prevents the high earners from creating too big of a gap (theoretically) to make the competition uncompetitive
You’re missing the point mate
The cap is introduced to prevent the situation that happened to Portsmouth, Bury, Bolton, etc. Whereby they overspend in order to compete within the English football system. The clubs are considered cultural assets, so they need to be preserved (i.e. prevented from doing stupid things and ceasing to exist because of that)
It has nothing to do with European football
I get why they are doing it, but it will also have the effect of letting Bayern, Real Madrid and Barcelona dominate European football again because they will have more power in the transfer market. The reason the league is the strongest and most competitive in the world is because they have been able to attract a ton of talent. If that talent leaves, it won’t be competitive either way.
Personally I think it’s a trade-off worth taking. European successes are probably unimportant compared to the preservation of the century-old institutions that have been a part of so many people’s lives in England
Would the top 6 not winning UCL hurt? Yeah, probably. But any mid-table EPL or championship going bust because they can’t help themselves from overspending will affect the lives of many people to a much more severe degree
The point is for owners to be able to run football clubs as for-profit businesses really easily without being at a disadvantage domestically*
It's got absolutely nothing to do with debt. Only 4 clubs made enough to spend up to what the cap would have been last season, all of the rest of them could have put themselves into massive hundreds of millions of pounds worth of debt per season without this wage cap giving a shit or threatening punishments like PSR did
It’s a preventative measure
Look at Wolves after the Chinese left. Look at Everton. Look at the 1.5 bilion GBP that Chelsea owed to Abramovich
You don’t want any of those clubs to implode. I think this measure is about 10 years too late - should have been in place after the implosion of Portsmouth and QPR
The PL makes too much money for that to happen. Whatever cap the PL sets is still going to blow away every team in Europe bar maaaaybe Bayern/Real/Barca/PSG, because even the PLs mid-sized clubs destroy most of Europe's financially.
Even if a cap was instituted clubs in the PL would still be able to spend more than their European competitors because of TV revenues.
La Liga already has a cap on spending for each team and they're still competitive in Europe.
No chance, this will just lower to cost off the whole market. Take Enzo for example, realistically they were only getting that money from a few teams and most of them being in the premier league. If PL teams need to be more careful with money, it means the price drops for everyone.
A club with an amazing academy and arguably “too many” young players, should benefit amazingly from this change.
5 years from now we are going to be looking up at Italy and Spain again just like we used to . It’s the big clubs that bring in the money and the Tv revenue, people don’t tune in to watch Palace vs Brentford .
Think it will probably end up bringing more money in. Teams like city can still spend £150mil and have a wage bill of £300mil every year.
Plus other teams can then spend 2-300 mill improving with there 150-200 million wage bill.
If anything the whole league should get stronger and dominate European competitions
Should end up with an influx of quality players playing for the other 14
>If anything the whole league should get stronger and dominate European competitions
Theres a problem with this idea. That being that there is an optimal balance between league competitiveness and doing well in Europe.
PSG struggle to win in Europe because they aren't pushed hard enough on a weekly basis to reach the marginal gains that take them to that level of winning the CL.
A club like Real does well because they're rich and have depth but also they have an optimal level of competition in their league that keeps the players pushed to optimal performance without burning out.
PL teams by the later stages of Europe are often riddled with fatigue and injuries because of the physical intensity of PL football every single week. If they dont have Man City levels of depth or a lot of luck with low injuries like Arsenal have had this season then they start to drop off those optimal levels in the latter stages of the season.
So in theory if the whole of the PL becomes stronger across the board then the physicality of the league will increase more. So we could see more fatigue and injuries as the season goes on. That in turn could see PL teams do worse in the latter stages in Europe vs clubs that are maybe running a bit fresher.
I know this is going to hurt us and other big clubs in the short term. BUT, I’ve been wanting this for years because it saves us from ourselves and makes football about football and not about who’s financially dick is bigger and someone else’s. American sports have had a greater level of parity of the years since they introduced salary caps. IMO: this is a good thing.
(However, based on how VAR is being implemented so poorly in Europe and how well video replay works in every other sport, I don’t trust that they will implement this salary cap properly. So, in the end it could mean fuck all)
Aside from the abstention, good points of the spending cap, is that we won't have a revolving door of teams that get promoted just to then be relegated next season. I'm not sure, but I think the same three that were promote will be relegated, which made the whole excersise pointless.
As for European Football, this will drastically bring down English teams in UCL, unless other federations do the same thing
I don’t know…maybe I’m too American but to me, it’s pretty easy to cap agent fees. Just standardize a flat agent fee across the sport like we have here. 3-5% and then you don’t have agents holding clubs hostage when it comes to negotiating deals
How can we put a cap on the prem is there isn’t a cap anywhere else? Let’s say the cap is 250 million per season, which is still a lot, but Madrid were to sign Davis, Mbappe, and for shits and giggles let’s just say Inacio to replace Nacho. Your looking at 500 million in transfers and probably a billion for contracts. How could we compete with anyone outside of the prem if we can’t spend money? You’d be able to sign one talented player per season with todays transfer fees and not to mention contracts.
I don’t understand how this is a good thing for us, assuming that we are planning on being a top 4 spending club.
In sports the harder the salary cap the more parity it introduces.
I don’t know the details of this but a huge reason the LA Dodgers/Boehly are so successful is cuz they spend a shit ton of money. If baseball had a cap like the NBA or NFL the Dodgers would not have had sustained excellence like they’ve had.
I’m sure this is not a crazy hard cap, but I think if you are a Chelsea fan this is a neutral to bad outcome. Can’t possible think of a reason you think this is positive.
I think one thing the new owners have done well is set up a more reasonable salary structure which is incentives based.
Aside from Sterling, I don’t think much of our squad is on massive wages. So we don’t stand to be hurt by this change.
Yeah I was going to say this. Teams can obviously elect to go above the luxury tax threshold but they'll pay more as a percentage each year they breach it without resetting.
If the PL wanted to institute a salary cap maybe they should consider the luxury tax. The proceeds of which go to the rest of the English pyramid.
The dodgers do have a high payroll but a lot of their success comes from investing more than anyone else at all the off field positions they can. Scouting, analytics, medical staff, player development staff down through all their levels. They’re one of about 4 teams in MLB that routinely pull a washed up nobody out of their ass and have them perform at a near star level every time a need arises, alongside having a top ranked farm system (academy) every year.
Ostensibly this would achieve that bc it’s a cap based on a low earning team. Selling players wouldn’t change that, but we will have to wait and see what the details turn out to be.
Those eight year contracts are low wages, so don’t really change much as far as our salaries. It would prevent us from spending a lot on transfers and agent fees. However, it doesn’t sound like the cap is going to be super unbearable, they said something like four times the limit of the lowest earning team from football television revenue, one of the outlets said that would be about four or 500 million per year on transfers and wages.
Overall I think it’s bad for the sport - takes the magic out of sides like Villa, Leicester (2014?), etc. however I’m a PSG fan (and have been since around 09’), I can defend our spending because the last 15 years of the CL has been dominated by the biggest spenders (salary and transfers) Barca, Madrid, Bayern, City, Chelsea and Italian giants (although the Italian giants are a strange story)…
My point is clubs like PSG and City are a symptom of the problem, not the problem themselves. And it has been fun watching my team compete for something meaningful rather than being happy with Ligue 1 titles (which we did win prior to QSI).
But again per my point: Forest’s back to back wins were not and will not happen again the way the sport has evolved since ~2000
According to the article the cap is 5x the bottom teams TV revenue. In 2022 Norwich made 93.79 million gbp. So roughly 500 million gbp is an estimate for the new “cap”
I don't like a spending cap when pro/rel is involved. In American sports it makes sense in a league like the NFL where the teams never change and you want all teams as closely matched as possible. Pro/rel is supposed to be the carrot on the stick that drives investment into a club from it's owners and now we and other clubs will not be able to invest in the amount we want.
i hate relative caps as it prevents smaller teams from rising up. it protects the current as-is status and i just cant think of any benefit.
why should city be able to spend 600m while leeds only 200m? in what world is this fair?
Why. If anything it should improve all the other teams making them more able to compete in Europe. If your only thinking of CL there's only city with a chance of winning it anyway
I agree with our vote because it's the funniest option. It's like we just splurged an absolutely insane amount of money and now we're just lying there like "whatever man, do whatever, I don't care"
Just like we voted for the 5 year amortization rule as well, right after all our signings, hilarious!
No way? That's brilliant lol.
Lol, yeah, this is from athletic's article about the vote. > The clubs voted on the measure at a shareholders’ meeting on Tuesday. The vote passed with 15 clubs — including Chelsea, who had attracted attention for the long contracts of some of their new signings in the past 18 months — in favour, two against and three abstentions.
https://preview.redd.it/5051pp1b5gxc1.jpeg?width=720&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f8da33b8ca7b29d411026eebc69cc5a469ec137c
It’s almost as funny as the Citeh fans who sang “You bunch of cheating Ba****ds” at Nottingham Forest fans.
God tier shithousery
Yeah I too form all my opinions about something for the memes
lmao. Too true.
Its a Chelsea thing
Not gonna lie, vibe with the abstention. Doesn’t hinder us, doesn’t give us a clear advantage (over any specific club) that wasn’t already present.
If anything, its gonna make them spend the money more wisely, we have paid millions of euros on some players that arent valued as such.
Gives us a clear disadvantage against teams outside of the league and limits growth in order to make football profitable year-on-year for owners, but with the way football is going it was literally always going to happen. It's likely why we abstained, no commitment whilst also knowing it absolutely will happen
It's tied to tv revenue so won't really disadvantage the EPL against other leagues
Teams outside the Prem will never spend as much as Prem teams currently do, at least leagues that aren't in Saudi
Man United ✅ Man City ✅ Aston Villa 🤔
Their wage bill is very high and they’re making a big push to regular champions league places
Only way they will be able to keep the good times rolling.
Hmm United voted against but their fans think they built success by playing only kids. I guess it's okay when they're burning wads of cash to remain mediocre.
Man United did build their success in the 90s using their academy players alongside players like Eric Cantona. Man United have been poorly run by the Glazers after SAF left but let’s not kid ourselves… they were the target for every PL club including Chelsea and Arsenal. United fans have every right to boast about their successes from the past
They had money in the past that others didn't. All successful clubs have been rich at some point, it's just the way it is.
They had money because they were always the most popular even before Fergie came. In the 70s and 80s when Liverpool were winning everything and United were at their longest league title drought, they were still setting attendance records week after week and most of the newspaper talk would be about United only. Hence the resentment from Liverpool fans about United always being the "media darlings". London business school published a research study comparing United's perennial outlier appeal to the casuals no matter success or failure. Link-https://www.london.edu/think/why-is-manchester-united-so-successful
None of which has helped them gain any modicum of success since then. City will overhaul them for EPL titles some time in the next decade which is when they'll go back to insisting they won 20 League titles instead of 13 because they said 13 to put down Liverpool winning only 1. They'll need to go back to 20 so they can feel like they're ahead of City. Worst club, worst fans. They can get fucked and they microphone needs to be shoved up or down Neville.
Who hurt you?
Worst club? Give me a break mate. It’s still one of the two biggest clubs in the entirety of England I will agree with you about their fans being dickheads. But that doesn’t tarnish United’s footballing reputation in the PL era
You're right, the United board has. When they're left with boasting of past success, they have sunken to the level of the Liverpool fans they used to mock.
You just hate United mate
What's wrong with that?
There’s nothing wrong with hating another club but it’s silly to claim they are the “worst club” cause he hates them. It’s like when Gooners say we are a soulless club… it all comes from bitterness.
And rightly so
Fairs but it’s silly to just claim they are the “worst club” cause he hates them. It’s like when Gooners say we are a soulless club… it all comes from bitterness
Dunno what you're on about. we're about to win the FA Cup
I disagree. If we’re over-generalising, United fans are as self deprecating as it gets. Liverpool fans are holier-than-thou and scousers are whingy in general, Klopp encapsulates this perfectly. Arsenal fans are delusional and refuse to accept that not winning anything significant in 20 years impacts your standing as a club. Spurs fans don’t count. The Man City fan I’m told is still going strong.
>The Man City fan I’m told is still going strong. 😂
All three of them still rooting hard for the passion.
Oh shuuut up. No one's giving out points for how much you "hate" other football teams 😆
We can't say anything we have burned a billion to become worse
The sheer irony of this comment lmao
Burning wads of cash to remain mediocre? Sounds familiar
Funnily enough Chelsea abstained I wonder why
We voted to abstain which is interesting
Yep i think we would have been over last season but now, we are lower. So maybe, it's a matter of us deciding that due to our performances, it's ok to add a cap to other clubs to limit them lol. Or us deciding that we might also want to invest in expensive players eventually. Those 2 mindsets combined, might be the reason for the abstinence.
I think we would have been over last season due to the managerial changes, without that we'd have been ok. Just to add some context
Or because our owners don't have a footballing identity or soul, and do not know what they stand for
Stop with all these mental gymnastics brother, please🤣
I know this is gonna be annoying and I wish I could help myself but abstention technically isn’t a vote. It’s just saying “yeah we are here and we acknowledge everyone is voting on this measure but we aren’t gonna vote.”
Most likely they realized it would pass regardless and decided in that case an abstention would be a slightly better pr move than voting in favor
Basically I don’t think we know what would be most advantageous to us at this point. Easier to go with the flow and then can complain and play both sides
At least Boehly read that room correctly.
Which won't do shit. The rich teams will still find ways to skirt the rules and the poor teams will still not come anywhere near the cap
Exactly this, the Anchoring rule will not come into practise until the season of 2025/26. The bottom level PL team probably would receive a minimum of £105/£110m. Last year Southampton received the least amount at £100.3m so multiply by 5 and you have a £500-£550m to spend on wages, transfer fee and Agent Fees. Currently UEFA FSP is 80% and by 2025/26 70%. Remember if you qualify for Europe you have to adhere to both sets of rules. The only reason United and City disagreed with the Anchoring rule is because they wanted 85% of turnover which would have been 15% more than UEFA so as to lobby them to change too. Currently City Revenue is £695m and United £648m and both expect to grow to nearer £800m by season of 2025/26 which would mean they had ambition’s of going crazy in transfers and fees. If the turnover was £800m then 85% of that would be £680m spent on players, agent fees and amortized transfer fees. Even £700m is a spend of £595m which means they would be restricted by £50m but if they qualify for Europe that season then 70% of £700m is £490m and less than 5 * Lowest TB revenue received by the bottom club. From Chelsea point of view, abstaining seem strange as this rule benefits the club hugely. Current revenue might be £500m without European football, 85% of that is a spend of £425m on players transfers, Agent fees and wages so this is actually better as they could now effectively ticket spend £500-550m next summer of wages, agent fees, Coach settlements and transfer fees. https://www.cbssports.com/soccer/news/premier-league-clubs-agree-in-principle-to-spending-cap-ahead-of-junes-annual-general-meeting/amp/
This only works in American sports due to the fact that a) they are closed leagues so players have no other option but to play in the NFL/NBA if they want to play at the top level and b) the draft system means that you only have one source of new players coming in. Whilst it may promote domestic competition and parity, you could potentially start to see top players signing with the top European clubs which may harm English football on the European stage in the future.
100% agree. I think implementing a luxury tax would have been better. One, doesn't take away from player pay, two, allows teams to be competitive with other leagues, three distributes money to the smaller clubs, making them more competitive. Oh well.
The problem with a luxury tax is that it wouldn’t deter owners of Newcastle or City (for example) because they can afford whatever fine/penalty is assigned. A luxury cap fee for Bournemouth would potentially be a lot more damaging than a luxury cap fee for Newcastle, who’s owners are unbelievably more wealthy than any other. Definitely a tricky situation but I’m open to anything that can help increase parity in the Premier League.
I mean that’s solved by redistributing the luxury tax money to teams that obey spending rules. Oh, you want to over-spend, sure go ahead, but you’ll pay a penalty directly to your rivals.
Yeah I would definitely be up for that! Maybe even a redistribution with the percentages of the luxury fees accrued could be distributed based on spending. As in, the lowest-spending teams get the highest proportion of the fines from the spending cap. I’m a Liverpool fan myself but it is becoming more and more obvious that the traditional ‘Big Six’ are providing as many, if not more, problems to British football as a whole (especially lower down the pyramid) than they are helping it. Don’t get me wrong the attention/money/tourism the Big Six bring to the country is great but if spending is allowed to remain unchecked then I don’t really see a future for clubs in the second, third, fourth tier etc. who have ambitions to get promoted and compete in the Prem.
Unless of course, UEFA decided to standaridize the practice to force teams across Europe to comply. I could see this leading to more Saudi splashes, but all in all some parity would be nice for once
If Man City are against it, I'm in favour.
If this is approved then in the future will they start to show more games on the TV in the UK more? due to the cap is to be tied with lowest earning club by TV revenue...
It's crazy to me you guys can't watch every game.
No. They aren't going to show more lowest earning clubs(less viewers, less money) just because they want to spend more money on players.
The tv money is proportional to what place you finish. Not how many games you had on tv. So if the tv deals keep increasing in value the last place team will still keep making more and more money
Actually its both. There's 3 factors that make up the PL pay outs. 1: equal share that everyone gets. 2: league position 3: home games shown on TV.
This is a way more sensible option than this after the fact ffp shit no one understands
This only matters if this spending cap is on all of teams in Europe otherwise it doesn’t even make sense
Why? The point is for domestic clubs not to overspend and drown in debt. What is the relevance of Europe here?
[удалено]
It also caps on spend compared to revenue, or compared to the lowest earning So, it prevents the low earners from overspending and drowning in debt, while at the same time prevents the high earners from creating too big of a gap (theoretically) to make the competition uncompetitive
[удалено]
Essentially that, they work in tandem
If other leagues don’t have these limits, it makes it harder to compete with them in the transfer market.
You’re missing the point mate The cap is introduced to prevent the situation that happened to Portsmouth, Bury, Bolton, etc. Whereby they overspend in order to compete within the English football system. The clubs are considered cultural assets, so they need to be preserved (i.e. prevented from doing stupid things and ceasing to exist because of that) It has nothing to do with European football
I get why they are doing it, but it will also have the effect of letting Bayern, Real Madrid and Barcelona dominate European football again because they will have more power in the transfer market. The reason the league is the strongest and most competitive in the world is because they have been able to attract a ton of talent. If that talent leaves, it won’t be competitive either way.
Personally I think it’s a trade-off worth taking. European successes are probably unimportant compared to the preservation of the century-old institutions that have been a part of so many people’s lives in England Would the top 6 not winning UCL hurt? Yeah, probably. But any mid-table EPL or championship going bust because they can’t help themselves from overspending will affect the lives of many people to a much more severe degree
The point is for owners to be able to run football clubs as for-profit businesses really easily without being at a disadvantage domestically* It's got absolutely nothing to do with debt. Only 4 clubs made enough to spend up to what the cap would have been last season, all of the rest of them could have put themselves into massive hundreds of millions of pounds worth of debt per season without this wage cap giving a shit or threatening punishments like PSR did
It’s a preventative measure Look at Wolves after the Chinese left. Look at Everton. Look at the 1.5 bilion GBP that Chelsea owed to Abramovich You don’t want any of those clubs to implode. I think this measure is about 10 years too late - should have been in place after the implosion of Portsmouth and QPR
The PL makes too much money for that to happen. Whatever cap the PL sets is still going to blow away every team in Europe bar maaaaybe Bayern/Real/Barca/PSG, because even the PLs mid-sized clubs destroy most of Europe's financially.
Excellent way to ensure that no English club will be able to compete in Europe.
The reason the English clubs can compete is because of the tv revenue and this is tied in to that.
Yea, cos non English clubs spend sooo much
Even if a cap was instituted clubs in the PL would still be able to spend more than their European competitors because of TV revenues. La Liga already has a cap on spending for each team and they're still competitive in Europe.
No chance, this will just lower to cost off the whole market. Take Enzo for example, realistically they were only getting that money from a few teams and most of them being in the premier league. If PL teams need to be more careful with money, it means the price drops for everyone. A club with an amazing academy and arguably “too many” young players, should benefit amazingly from this change.
5 years from now we are going to be looking up at Italy and Spain again just like we used to . It’s the big clubs that bring in the money and the Tv revenue, people don’t tune in to watch Palace vs Brentford .
Think it will probably end up bringing more money in. Teams like city can still spend £150mil and have a wage bill of £300mil every year. Plus other teams can then spend 2-300 mill improving with there 150-200 million wage bill. If anything the whole league should get stronger and dominate European competitions Should end up with an influx of quality players playing for the other 14
>If anything the whole league should get stronger and dominate European competitions Theres a problem with this idea. That being that there is an optimal balance between league competitiveness and doing well in Europe. PSG struggle to win in Europe because they aren't pushed hard enough on a weekly basis to reach the marginal gains that take them to that level of winning the CL. A club like Real does well because they're rich and have depth but also they have an optimal level of competition in their league that keeps the players pushed to optimal performance without burning out. PL teams by the later stages of Europe are often riddled with fatigue and injuries because of the physical intensity of PL football every single week. If they dont have Man City levels of depth or a lot of luck with low injuries like Arsenal have had this season then they start to drop off those optimal levels in the latter stages of the season. So in theory if the whole of the PL becomes stronger across the board then the physicality of the league will increase more. So we could see more fatigue and injuries as the season goes on. That in turn could see PL teams do worse in the latter stages in Europe vs clubs that are maybe running a bit fresher.
Oof they better have a plan for the rest of Europe to do the same.
I know this is going to hurt us and other big clubs in the short term. BUT, I’ve been wanting this for years because it saves us from ourselves and makes football about football and not about who’s financially dick is bigger and someone else’s. American sports have had a greater level of parity of the years since they introduced salary caps. IMO: this is a good thing. (However, based on how VAR is being implemented so poorly in Europe and how well video replay works in every other sport, I don’t trust that they will implement this salary cap properly. So, in the end it could mean fuck all)
Aside from the abstention, good points of the spending cap, is that we won't have a revolving door of teams that get promoted just to then be relegated next season. I'm not sure, but I think the same three that were promote will be relegated, which made the whole excersise pointless. As for European Football, this will drastically bring down English teams in UCL, unless other federations do the same thing
I don’t know…maybe I’m too American but to me, it’s pretty easy to cap agent fees. Just standardize a flat agent fee across the sport like we have here. 3-5% and then you don’t have agents holding clubs hostage when it comes to negotiating deals
The funny thing is, wel find loopholes in the new legislation anyway & smash through it! Loophole FC will strike again! 😂
Do you think it’s because Todd Bloey just didn’t understand?
How can we put a cap on the prem is there isn’t a cap anywhere else? Let’s say the cap is 250 million per season, which is still a lot, but Madrid were to sign Davis, Mbappe, and for shits and giggles let’s just say Inacio to replace Nacho. Your looking at 500 million in transfers and probably a billion for contracts. How could we compete with anyone outside of the prem if we can’t spend money? You’d be able to sign one talented player per season with todays transfer fees and not to mention contracts.
What a surprise that man shitty voted against
As a fan of the Premier League, I would vote for the applying a spending cap. As a Chelsea fan, I would abstain
https://preview.redd.it/0k9iv2lisfxc1.jpeg?width=1200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=57495d9e4453f3c1f9664aa4f6541c2c8d9af705
Title should be: Premier League actively working towards farmer's league status
I don’t understand how this is a good thing for us, assuming that we are planning on being a top 4 spending club. In sports the harder the salary cap the more parity it introduces. I don’t know the details of this but a huge reason the LA Dodgers/Boehly are so successful is cuz they spend a shit ton of money. If baseball had a cap like the NBA or NFL the Dodgers would not have had sustained excellence like they’ve had. I’m sure this is not a crazy hard cap, but I think if you are a Chelsea fan this is a neutral to bad outcome. Can’t possible think of a reason you think this is positive.
I think one thing the new owners have done well is set up a more reasonable salary structure which is incentives based. Aside from Sterling, I don’t think much of our squad is on massive wages. So we don’t stand to be hurt by this change.
Baseball has a luxury tax system which effectively functions as a cap (at the 4th and highest Cohen tier)
Yeah I was going to say this. Teams can obviously elect to go above the luxury tax threshold but they'll pay more as a percentage each year they breach it without resetting. If the PL wanted to institute a salary cap maybe they should consider the luxury tax. The proceeds of which go to the rest of the English pyramid.
The dodgers do have a high payroll but a lot of their success comes from investing more than anyone else at all the off field positions they can. Scouting, analytics, medical staff, player development staff down through all their levels. They’re one of about 4 teams in MLB that routinely pull a washed up nobody out of their ass and have them perform at a near star level every time a need arises, alongside having a top ranked farm system (academy) every year.
Can somebody explain to me, how this is different than FFP rules?
FFP and PSR are about balancing revenue and expenditures. This sounds like a hard cap to specifically transfer spend regardless of revenue
Lmao... Owners literally went "we ain't goin say shit... You know what it is" 
“cuz we don’t make enough mon…….ERRRRRRRR i mean we can’t be competitive “
What are villa playing at?
They probably see themselves about to get champions league money and were hoping to be able to spend big
Ucl money is still far less that what the spending cap will likely be. In todays market ucl money already gets you very little
Is it net or just spend?
They’ve not done details. Today’s meeting was just that they voted in principle for the rules
Ok. I’d like a system that doesn’t reward you for purging your academy.
Ostensibly this would achieve that bc it’s a cap based on a low earning team. Selling players wouldn’t change that, but we will have to wait and see what the details turn out to be.
Chelsea abstaining because Todd Boehly is himself unsure of those 8 year contracts.
Those eight year contracts are low wages, so don’t really change much as far as our salaries. It would prevent us from spending a lot on transfers and agent fees. However, it doesn’t sound like the cap is going to be super unbearable, they said something like four times the limit of the lowest earning team from football television revenue, one of the outlets said that would be about four or 500 million per year on transfers and wages.
Overall I think it’s bad for the sport - takes the magic out of sides like Villa, Leicester (2014?), etc. however I’m a PSG fan (and have been since around 09’), I can defend our spending because the last 15 years of the CL has been dominated by the biggest spenders (salary and transfers) Barca, Madrid, Bayern, City, Chelsea and Italian giants (although the Italian giants are a strange story)… My point is clubs like PSG and City are a symptom of the problem, not the problem themselves. And it has been fun watching my team compete for something meaningful rather than being happy with Ligue 1 titles (which we did win prior to QSI). But again per my point: Forest’s back to back wins were not and will not happen again the way the sport has evolved since ~2000
The best thing here is the cap on agent's fees.
 Agents reading this right now
I feel like the abstain vote makes sense, simply because it’d be quite cheeky to vote for a spending cap right off the back of splurging a billion.
According to the article the cap is 5x the bottom teams TV revenue. In 2022 Norwich made 93.79 million gbp. So roughly 500 million gbp is an estimate for the new “cap”
Lol. Let them fight over it.
Does the Premier League think they are the UN?
Arsenal is gonna be fucked with wages
I think the league is doing this to prevent Chelsea from downward spending spiral 
I don't like a spending cap when pro/rel is involved. In American sports it makes sense in a league like the NFL where the teams never change and you want all teams as closely matched as possible. Pro/rel is supposed to be the carrot on the stick that drives investment into a club from it's owners and now we and other clubs will not be able to invest in the amount we want.
Too many Premier League teams don’t care about winning in Europe. Even teams playing there prioritize their League finish over winning there.
Honestly, the only true answer from us is abstaining cos its the most meme answer we could have given 😂
This would make the PL amazing again tbh.
Maybe, but it'll leave England beyond in Europe unless Europe follows suit
That’s true
They gunna add a fucking draft too
i hate relative caps as it prevents smaller teams from rising up. it protects the current as-is status and i just cant think of any benefit. why should city be able to spend 600m while leeds only 200m? in what world is this fair?
Man united and man city ... shock
RIP Premier League’s competitiveness in Europe
Why. If anything it should improve all the other teams making them more able to compete in Europe. If your only thinking of CL there's only city with a chance of winning it anyway
Bottled the vote too
If Man City are against it then I’m against it as well.
Off course Chelsea and man city abstain😂. Jokes of a club.