But what if, instead of working on redistributing revenues, we looked at redistributing the means of production, the players?
Right now, most top clubs will have more than 40-50 players under contract. Some will be youngsters, some will be on loan. What if we drastically cut that number? The players cut loose would end up back on the market and trickle down to the next tier of clubs that, presumably, would become more competitive. This knock-on effect would continue down the pyramid.
Many leagues already limit squad sizes and loan players. In the Premier League, you can't register more than 25 players, excluding Under-22s. What if that were cut radically to, say, 19?
Let's look at Liverpool's squad as an example. Take out the seven guys likely to contribute the least: Let's say Pedro Chirivella, Isaac Christie-Davies (he's on loan anyway, but bear with me), Nathaniel Clyne, Andy Lonergan, Dejan Lovren, and Adam Lallana. Those guys would be "cut" at the start of the season to meet the squad limit and if you wanted to bring in another guy in January, as they did with Takumi Minamino, then you'd need to cut somebody else loose. Bye bye, Xherdan Shaqiri. We're not talking about superstars, and the team as a whole wouldn't be much affected. But those seven players would trickle down to other clubs who would become more competitive as a result.
You can play the game for other clubs, too. Real Madrid would need to cut two guys, maybe Alvaro Odriozola and Mariano Diaz. Juventus might say arrivederci to Carlo Pinsoglio, Marko Pjaca, Emre Can and Daniele Rugani.
The other obvious upshot here is that younger players would become more valuable and clubs would be incentivised to develop them and keep them around because they don't count against the cap. Clubs who develop players would be rewarded in the long term.
You would obviously need some sort of mechanism to "cut" the player because if he signs a contract, he's entitled to his rights. So maybe you work out a deal where anybody can get cut in exchange for a full year's wages. You become a free agent and you get a year's salary. It's not a bad deal for a player and because you're a free agent, you suddenly become more affordable for other clubs because there's no transfer fee to pay and they don't have to match the big wages you were previously earning.
Would clubs go for it? Those who enjoy hoarding players would obviously be penalized and their managers would, of course, grumble about lack of options. But the reality is that everybody would be in the same boat and you wouldn't need to keep paying for dead weight on your wage bill. Sure, you'd need to be smarter when it comes to squad-planning, but costs would come down -- not just in terms of wages, but also in terms of transfer fees.
You would obviously need to find the right mechanisms in order to make such a plan work, too. Maybe 19 is too lax as an age; maybe we need to go down to 17 or even 16. Maybe it's not a year's salary to cut players; maybe six months is enough. Maybe exempt the U-21s or U-23s instead of U-22s. You'd also need greater transparency and oversight to prevent clubs (and, these days, superagents) from "parking" players at "friendly" smaller clubs. You'd need a better-regulated loan system for players over the age of 22, like maybe limiting them to one per season. You'd then want to figure out some sort of medical exemption for players who suffer a long-term injury and, of course, you'd need a long transition period before you whittle things down to 19 senior pros.
But it's doable and it's desirable. Because the fact of the matter is that the 20th-most important senior player at Manchester City (John Stones?), or Tottenham (Eric Dier?) or Paris Saint-Germain (Edinson Cavani?) may well move the needle the next tier down. Or, alternatively, we just sit and do nothing, waiting for the Overton window to further shift to the point where we think what is going on today across Europe is entirely normal. But trust me: that will get really, really boring in the long run and leave us screaming out for that closed Super League, which nobody says they want.
Better youth development incentives, more focus on u23 team (u21s in this scenario) being a depth pool.Sounds pretty stupid. What happens in an injury crisis? With 3 goalkeepers that leaves only 6 extra players for the squad. And if teams as a whole "wouldn't be much affected" with these players being "cut" then that means they are not that good anyway.
You would then use youth players, of which you can have an unlimited number of.Sounds pretty stupid. What happens in an injury crisis? With 3 goalkeepers that leaves only 6 extra players for the squad. And if teams as a whole "wouldn't be much affected" with these players being "cut" then that means they are not that good anyway.
Salary cap is harder to implement in a way that makes a significant difference because of the international nature of football. A salary cap of, I don't know, 200m a year is a restriction for Manchester United, sure, but it's pie-in-the-sky, unattainably huge for a Belgian or Polish club.Will only happen if / when football becomes boring to watch and TV money starts drying up. Then we'll see reform to make it more interesting and ideas to rebalance the competitiveness of teams.
Salary cap does pretty much the same thing, as in most US professional sports which are structured to preserve competition as more interesting for viewers so more $$$ for everyone.
It'll happen in football eventually, could take decade or two though.
Stupid idea.
I like Marcotti as a journalist but this plan sounds like something he thought of while drinking.
- The players that "trickle" will take other spots on other squads - pushing the worst players down a level, which will improve the league below. That's the idea.
- Reduces the number of available roster spots for players older than the cut off (I think he said 19 or 17) - over aged 21, again that's the idea.
- Certain teams in certain leagues that play an absurd amount of games are punished (Liverpool/Wolves this season) - yes, but the absurd fixture list is a problem that has been ignored for a while now. And a better focus on u23s woud likely mean that the EFL Cup would see a lot more youth.
- Artificially increases wages for 1st team players (same labor supply, less labor demand) - ye maybe, but reduced transfer fees would balance it out.
- Increases the value of players under the age threshold - the idea is to improve in house youth development
- Good luck structuring non-guaranteed contracts that allow players to be "cut". Any players union will fight this to the death. - that would be a problem and he acknowledged it, suggesting that players must be bought out their contract for it to be terminated. Which again benefits players, because they'd get paid a lump sum, and be free to sign up for someone else.
EDIT: The loan system already gives smaller clubs the ability to "use" talent from larger/richer clubs without a large financial investment. The imbalance is one of money, not squad sizes and this plan does nothing to fix that.
Then lean on your youth team.Sounds pretty stupid. What happens in an injury crisis? With 3 goalkeepers that leaves only 6 extra players for the squad. And if teams as a whole "wouldn't be much affected" with these players being "cut" then that means they are not that good anyway.
Meh, forcing youth in such artificial way wouln't do much good for anyone. City is probably the most extreme example one can think of and still it wouldn't make the rest of the league much stronger. In fact, the league is already strong enough that clubs don't really need squad players from the top teams.Then lean on your youth team.
My point is the trickle-down effect results in an arbitrary loss of places for players older than the threshold. Once player is above that threshold, his chances for finding employment (especially at the same level) diminishes. This is a weird side effect to have and it doesn't necessarily push down players a level, just out of the league.pushing the worst players down a level, which will improve the league below. That's the idea.
The age is largely irrelevant. This issue is players who are older than the threshold are punished.over aged 21, again that's the idea.
This only worsens the problem. EFL cup already features a lot of youth. Look at some of the sides fielded in the earlier rounds.yes, but the absurd fixture list is a problem that has been ignored for a while now. And a better focus on u23s woud likely mean that the EFL Cup would see a lot more youth.
I actually think you would see larger transfer fees along with higher wages due to the restrictions. (I actually mispoke earlier. The labor supply decreases (the players available to sign decreases) and the demand stays the same)ye maybe, but reduced transfer fees would balance it out.
I don't think this guarantees this as a) the U-22 spots can be filled with foreign players and b) this incentivizes poaching young talent from the academies of smaller clubsthe idea is to improve in house youth development
If it's not a fully guaranteed contract, it does not benefit players. What he is proposing is an NFL style system that has virtually no chance of ever getting implemented by UEFA (partly b/c it would probably be illegal in countries that protect collective bargaining) or by any of the player's unions in the big leagues.that would be a problem and he acknowledged it, suggesting that players must be bought out their contract for it to be terminated. Which again benefits players, because they'd get paid a lump sum, and be free to sign up for someone else.
I think maybe Liverpool not playing and absurd amount of games would make things more competitive for everyone else.Stupid idea.
I like Marcotti as a journalist but this plan sounds like something he thought of while drinking.
- The players that "trickle" will take other spots on other squads
- Reduces the number of available roster spots for players older than the cut off (I think he said 19 or 17)
- Certain teams in certain leagues that play an absurd amount of games are punished (Liverpool/Wolves this season)
- Artificially increases wages for 1st team players (same labor supply, less labor demand)
- Increases the value of players under the age threshold
- Good luck structuring non-guaranteed contracts that allow players to be "cut". Any players union will fight this to the death.
EDIT: The loan system already gives smaller clubs the ability to "use" talent from larger/richer clubs without a large financial investment. The imbalance is one of money, not squad sizes and this plan does nothing to fix that.
Good points.@Lynty difficult to respond when you quote in the message FYI but I'll try
My point is the trickle-down effect results in an arbitrary loss of places for players older than the threshold. Once player is above that threshold, his chances for finding employment (especially at the same level) diminishes. This is a weird side effect to have and it doesn't necessarily push down players a level, just out of the league.
The age is largely irrelevant. This issue is players who are older than the threshold are punished.
This only worsens the problem. EFL cup already features a lot of youth. Look at some of the sides fielded in the earlier rounds.
I actually think you would see larger transfer fees along with higher wages due to the restrictions. (I actually mispoke earlier. The labor supply decreases (the players available to sign decreases) and the demand stays the same)
I don't think this guarantees this as a) the U-22 spots can be filled with foreign players and b) this incentivizes poaching young talent from the academies of smaller clubs
If it's not a fully guaranteed contract, it does not benefit players. What he is proposing is an NFL style system that has virtually no chance of ever getting implemented by UEFA (partly b/c it would probably be illegal in countries that protect collective bargaining) or by any of the player's unions in the big leagues.
Agreed. The issue is that big clubs have the financial means to keep hoards of cheap, young players on their books almost indefinitely (ie. Chelsea) and the loan system allows them to hold on to them longer than possible. Fix the loan system and you will see many young players opting to stay at their clubs or sign for clubs who will promise more playing time.Restructure the loan system. Cap the number of u23s that can be loaned out, forcing young players to give more thought to moving to a team where they'll get gametime. The money then follows in transfer fees.
