Have salaries at top clubs finally become too high?

[Zehner]

I'm happy for the people who generate the revenue in football to profit from it.

What's the alternative? In a perfect world, football clubs would be required to invest a percentage of their revenue into the local community that supports it week in week out. Simultaneously they could also provide a large bonus to their non playing staff, not just coaches but the folk who work in the business side of things.

Otherwise, if you reduce player salaries or put a cap on it. That just means more money going to the club owners, who are already billionaires.

Is that what anyone wants?

That wasn't really what I meant. I'm not criticizing that players earn that much from a moral perspectice. I asks whether it's clever from top clubs to pay so much because I've got the (subjective) impression that we are seeing more and more examples of top clubs being unable to sell a player they want gone. At least I can't recall a situation like Bale's. Sure, there used to be overpaid players who let their contracts run out (remember Albert Streit for Schalke back in the day) but an international top star and possibly top 10 player in the world?

I feel that it's very hard for top clubs to rebuild their teams since it's incredibly difficult to offload players who've fallen out of favour - top stars and squad players alike.

 

[Josep Dowling]

Good OP

I think contracts should be heavily incentivised. That would ensure a player isn’t happy to sit on the bench or in the stands and make mega money for providing nothing. Squad players will want to move more. Being a big fish in a small pond would pay more than being a squad player at a big club or sitting on a huge deal after you’ve flopped and it should make things easier on the middle sized clubs in regards to acquiring and keeping talent. Clubs would have to rely on their academies more too.

Agree with this. Couldn’t they cap standard wages to say £150k a week max. Then the club can pay any bonuses after that for all manner of things? At least then clubs avoid the Bale and Ozil situation.

 

[Devil81]

Anyone on 500k plus is only leaving a football on a free transfer, you generally only get 500k at about four or five clubs globally.

That club knows they are giving you a contract that won't be matched elsewhere unless you move between the four or five clubs.

 

[Zehner]

It has always been the case, you used the example of a loaned player, of a free transfer in the case of Ballack, a cheap unwanted squad player in the case of Chicharito and an other free transfer in the case of Hyypia. Two of the players mentioned were out of contract. So you are strengthening my point.
Schalke are on a different tier than you are, even today they are financially 15th in Europe, if they weren't mismanaged they should be able to afford these players like every other top 15 clubs. Sanchez got shipped off quite easily, United probably paid a part of what they owed him but that's always true, the club that signed the initial contract is liable.

So no, to me it seems that you don't realize where Leverkusen are in the pecking order and how things happened in the past.

Good points and you may be right - it might just be my impression. Personally, I feel we'd struggle to make a deal like Carvajal nowadays for a player like Diaz, Reinier etc. because they'd disrupt our wage structure at a different scale than Dani did back then. Anyway, let's move this away from Leverkusen. Don't you think that it's harder nowadays to rebuild your squad as a top club? I mean, Barca, Juventus, Real and United are already four top clubs that are struggling to do so because their budget is/was significantly reduced by players they want gone.

Griezmann exemplarily is a player that cost them 120m in fees but he'd be incredibly hard to 'liquidate' again. Basically, if you make a signing like Griezmann, Coutinho or Hazard, the player has to work out until he retires/the contract runs out or you're screwed since you set his resell value to 0 by giving him so much money. Was that really the case with top players 10 years ago, too?

I'll make sure to read that report, by the way. Sounds interesting.

 

[JSArsenal]

That wasn't really what I meant. I'm not criticizing that players earn that much from a moral perspectice. I asks whether it's clever from top clubs to pay so much because I've got the (subjective) impression that we are seeing more and more examples of top clubs being unable to sell a player they want gone. At least I can't recall a situation like Bale's. Sure, there used to be overpaid players who let their contracts run out (remember Albert Streit for Schalke back in the day) but an international top star and possibly top 10 player in the world?

I feel that it's very hard for top clubs to rebuild their teams since it's incredibly difficult to offload players who've fallen out of favour - top stars and squad players alike.

Clubs want these players that "can't be sold." Its just that the players don't want to leave for the wages they would get at their new club. Can you blame Bale really?

I think football clubs have become wise to the fact that fans are starting to think there's too much money in the game and they're trying to pull the wool over our eyes. I trust little that comes out a corporation's mouth (And that's what clubs are). Yes, wages have increased but so have tv deals, matchday revenue, sponsorships and everything else associated with the game. Clubs are making more money now than they ever did in the past.

Someone at the club had to run the numbers and determined that giving Bale that salary wouldn't send Madrid into bankruptcy. The financials aren't stopping them from getting new players.

Governments like to pretend that they're skint all the time whenever someone asks about introducing more social programs or spending more on the ones we have like healthcare and education and still somehow find the money for the things they want to find the money for. Football clubs are no different. Look at Arsenal, we're acting like Ozil's contract is an albatross around our neck, yet we gave a 4 year contract to a RB who only played two games for us. I'm sure we've also given our now former DOF a nice payoff as well.

Football clubs can rebuild if they want to. Transfer fees are not paid upfront and more money will flow into the game.

TL;DR Football clubs are just trying to make players they want to get rid of into bad guys in the eyes of the fans by acting like those players are stopping them from rebuilding their team. Now if every player on top wages refuse to leave then you'd have a problem because you can only have so many senior players from a numbers standpoint. But that isn't the case.

 

[Zehner]

Clubs want these players that "can't be sold." Its just that the players don't want to leave for the wages they would get at their new club. Can you blame Bale really?

I think football clubs have become wise to the fact that fans are starting to think there's too much money in the game and they're trying to pull the wool over our eyes. I trust little that comes out a corporation's mouth (And that's what clubs are). Yes, wages have increased but so have tv deals, matchday revenue, sponsorships and everything else associated with the game. Clubs are making more money now than they ever did in the past.

Someone at the club had to run the numbers and determined that giving Bale that salary wouldn't send Madrid into bankruptcy. The financials aren't stopping them from getting new players.

Governments like to pretend that they're skint all the time whenever someone asks about introducing more social programs or spending more on the ones we have like healthcare and education and still somehow find the money for the things they want to find the money for. Football clubs are no different. Look at Arsenal, we're acting like Ozil's contract is an albatross around our neck, yet we gave a 4 year contract to a RB who only played two games for us. I'm sure we've also given our now former DOF a nice payoff as well.

Football clubs can rebuild if they want to. Transfer fees are not paid upfront and more money will flow into the game.

TL;DR Football clubs are just trying to make players they want to get rid of into bad guys in the eyes of the fans by acting like those players are stopping them from rebuilding their team. Now if every player on top wages refuse to leave then you'd have a problem because you can only have so many senior players from a numbers standpoint. But that isn't the case.

It's not about blame for me, not at all. Read in the Bale thread, I'm firmly on your side, he's doing nothing from.

I'm looking at it more from an economic/managerial perspective. Does it really make sense to pay so much when it has so huge effects if the player doesn't work out?

I mean look at Bale, he's a star player in his best years and doesn't play. I can remember such instances regarding good but not great players but not one of the best in the world.

I guess Bayern exemplarily could pay Bale, too, but I don't think they ever would. They draw their line and have seen their rebuild through exceptionally well.

Thing is, my impression is we're seeing more and more of those situations (Bale, Sanchez, Özil, possibly Coutinho and Griezmann). Even squad players are hard to offload due to the growing difference in wage levels.

 

[JPRouve]

Good points and you may be right - it might just be my impression. Personally, I feel we'd struggle to make a deal like Carvajal nowadays for a player like Diaz, Reinier etc. because they'd disrupt our wage structure at a different scale than Dani did back then. Anyway, let's move this away from Leverkusen. Don't you think that it's harder nowadays to rebuild your squad as a top club? I mean, Barca, Juventus, Real and United are already four top clubs that are struggling to do so because their budget is/was significantly reduced by players they want gone.

Griezmann exemplarily is a player that cost them 120m in fees but he'd be incredibly hard to 'liquidate' again. Basically, if you make a signing like Griezmann, Coutinho or Hazard, the player has to work out until he retires/the contract runs out or you're screwed since you set his resell value to 0 by giving him so much money. Was that really the case with top players 10 years ago, too?

I'll make sure to read that report, by the way. Sounds interesting.

Reinier is linked with a loan to Dortmund and Leverkusen can't because they specifically don't have the money not because the players are in general too expensive. And all players in the tier of Griezmann have always been difficult to liquidate there isn't a moment were it was easy because only few clubs can even get close to the transfer fees and wages necessary, transfer fees and wages have proportionally followed revenues, it will be as difficult as it was for transfer records such as Lentini and Denilson.

And the main problem for Bale is that he isn't a top 10 player, he hasn't been fit or good enough to warrant any risks from the clubs that could afford him.

 

[JSArsenal]

It's not about blame for me, not at all. Read in the Bale thread, I'm firmly on your side, he's doing nothing from.

I'm looking at it more from an economic/managerial perspective. Does it really make sense to pay so much when it has so huge effects if the player doesn't work out?

I mean look at Bale, he's a star player in his best years and doesn't play. I can remember such instances regarding good but not great players but not one of the best in the world.

I guess Bayern exemplarily could pay Bale, too, but I don't think they ever would. They draw their line and have seen their rebuild through exceptionally well.

Thing is, my impression is we're seeing more and more of those situations (Bale, Sanchez, Özil, possibly Coutinho and Griezmann). Even squad players are hard to offload due to the growing difference in wage levels.

Like I said before, someone had to have run the numbers and determined it was economically feasible.
If you're asking from an economic standpoint should clubs pay a player X, I don't know. How much money does Messi generate for Barcelona? How many other clubs could pay him what he makes there? But he's worth it from a sporting perspective and off the pitch perspective.

Clubs could just pay everyone X and put in conditional bonuses so that the new salary equates to the player's current salary. The problem with that is it wrestles power away from the players. If a striker is told he'll only get his bonus if he scores 25 goals a season, then he gets a season ending injury. He'll have lost a large portion of his earnings.

From the clubs perspectives its best to pay the players as little as possible for their own self-interests. My support lies with the players.

 

[Zehner]

Reinier is linked with a loan to Dortmund and Leverkusen can't because they specifically don't have the money not because the players are in general too expensive. And all players in the tier of Griezmann have always been difficult to liquidate there isn't a moment were it was easy because only few clubs can even get close to the transfer fees and wages necessary, transfer fees and wages have proportionally followed revenues, it will be as difficult as it was for transfer records such as Lentini and Denilson.

And the main problem for Bale is that he isn't a top 10 player, he hasn't been fit or good enough to warrant any risks from the clubs that could afford him.

Lentini and Denilson were before I became really interested in international football and began actively informing myself of what happens on the transfermarket (around 2004/05). However, both aren't exactly recent examples. From the top of my memory I can't recall a similar case to Bale, Özil or Sanchez. On the contrary, there's much evidence of top clubs being able to ship off players they didn't want anymore. Barca exemplarily successfully sold Ronaldinho, Ibrahimovic and Eto'o almost immediately after they fell out of favour. The same goes for Robinho, Robben, Sneijder and van der Vaart at Madrid.

I mean, you've got to admit that there's an unusualy high density of such stories in recent years.

Like I said before, someone had to have run the numbers and determined it was economically feasible.
If you're asking from an economic standpoint should clubs pay a player X, I don't know. How much money does Messi generate for Barcelona? How many other clubs could pay him what he makes there? But he's worth it from a sporting perspective and off the pitch perspective.

Clubs could just pay everyone X and put in conditional bonuses so that the new salary equates to the player's current salary. The problem with that is it wrestles power away from the players. If a striker is told he'll only get his bonus if he scores 25 goals a season, then he gets a season ending injury. He'll have lost a large portion of his earnings.

From the clubs perspectives its best to pay the players as little as possible for their own self-interests. My support lies with the players.

It's not about what they generate, I'm sure clubs know exactly how much they can pay before it's no longer profitable. It's just that the average salary at top clubs has gotten so far above the average salary of second and third tier clubs that there's no market for the players they want to leave anymore.

Let's look at it from this perspective: Had Sanchez performed for you the way he performed for Arsenal, everything would be fine and he would have generated enough revenue to justify his salary. But the moment he stopped doing so, you're throwing money out of the window. When the salary gap between top and second/third tier clubs was smaller, that wasn't a problem because you could sell him. But the difference is so large that only the top clubs could afford that and they aren't interested in a player that failed at a club with similar ambition as them. So there's the risk that you are stuck with a player who earns a lot of money but offers less in return. Actually, 'risk' is the wrong phrasing since the question is rather when that starts to be the case, not if. Look at Barca, they need to replace half their team but won't find potential buyers since those players are on monster wages and not willing to accept great pay cuts while they still have multiple years on their contracts. They are essentially locked down now and have to wait that these contracts run out.

 

[JPRouve]

Lentini and Denilson were before I became really interested in international football and began actively informing myself of what happens on the transfermarket (around 2004/05). However, both aren't exactly recent examples. From the top of my memory I can't recall a similar case to Bale, Özil or Sanchez. On the contrary, there's much evidence of top clubs being able to ship off players they didn't want anymore. Barca exemplarily successfully sold Ronaldinho, Ibrahimovic and Eto'o almost immediately after they fell out of favour. The same goes for Robinho, Robben, Sneijder and van der Vaart at Madrid.

I mean, you've got to admit that there's an unusualy high density of such stories in recent years.



It's not about what they generate, I'm sure clubs know exactly how much they can pay before it's no longer profitable. It's just that the average salary at top clubs has gotten so far above the average salary of second and third tier clubs that there's no market for the players they want to leave anymore.

Let's look at it from this perspective: Had Sanchez performed for you the way he performed for Arsenal, everything would be fine and he would have generated enough revenue to justify his salary. But the moment he stopped doing so, you're throwing money out of the window. When the salary gap between top and second/third tier clubs was smaller, that wasn't a problem because you could sell him. But the difference is so large that only the top clubs could afford that and they aren't interested in a player that failed at a club with similar ambition as them. So there's the risk that you are stuck with a player who earns a lot of money but offers less in return. Actually, 'risk' is the wrong phrasing since the question is rather when that starts to be the case, not if. Look at Barca, they need to replace half their team but won't find potential buyers since those players are on monster wages and not willing to accept great pay cuts while they still have multiple years on their contracts.

Now you are confusing me because Robinho wasn't out of favour, a new rich club offered a sum that he wasn't worth and Real Madrid were happy to sell. Van der Vaart, Robben and Sneijder weren't particularly expensive players, they were all youngish players that had lots of suitors and at a discounted price, they were essentially better versions of Andre Gomes, Denis Suarez or Hakimi, none of them went to clubs that weren't among the top 20 clubs though. And finally Ibrahimovic and Eto'o, it involved Barcelona, Inter and Milan again these were members of the wealthiest clubs, Moratti and Berlusconi were still bankrolling both Milan clubs and both players were in their prime, so it was a no brainer for all clubs involved.

I don't really see players that were on top earner contracts, declined and were swiftly moved to tier 2 or 3 clubs.

Edit: To illustrate my point, Sneijder, Robben and Van der Vaart were moved in 2009-2010 at the time Real Madrid top earner was I believe Ronaldo. Do you think that any tier 2 or 3 clubs could have afforded Ronaldo's transfer fee or wage? Or in 2001 Zidane's wage and transfer fee?

 

[Nani Nana]

Always open to understand your thoughts on how we can avoid situations like the ones OP pointed out - Squad players in Real having higher salaries than the starts at Bayer Leverkusen.

At the end of the day that would boil down to good or bad business decisions. Regulating this is impossible because we are talking of different leagues and different markets. Clubs will sometimes overpay or underpay even with a salary cap.

The discrepancy within a same league might be easier to address, ie. Bayern outspending rivals in the Bundesliga. Yet even then, their advantage makes sense from an economic perspective.

For me, I’d like to see a larger part of the salary being performance based. That way you’d avoid getting stuck with a «Sanchez». Would probably need some sort of regulation though.

Football players already have largely performance-based contracts. In what other industry does a career only last 12-15 years with an average contract length of 2.5-3.5 years? That is already heavy scrutiny. Six months or a year of below-par performances and you are out of the picture. There are many industries where you would get away with that, not sport.

You cannot make it performance-based in a tennis kind of way, being paid only if you win games or trophies, because there is so much more happening behind the scenes where clubs' income is inelastic to on-pitch results.

Here again it comes down to good or bad business. The situation mentioned in OP is not optimal economically because it suits neither the selling club, potential buying clubs nor the player. These however are exceptions to a generally fluid market.

You can make the case that recent stakeholders from the Chinese/Indian leagues (and MLS) helped balance the market by providing new options for these players to consider.

 

[sammsky1]

It's ludicrous to have a wage system where a player falls off a cliff in term of performance and yet is protected by a long term contract. This construct creates situations like Sanchez, Ozil, Bale, Griezeman etc

The Sanchez affair illustrates that clubs somehow have to makes wages for the top earners based on incentives, including appearances, key passes, assists, clean sheets etc. ie: Clubs remain happy to pay top wages for superstars, but very top dollar is based upon delivering against your talent.

Say 50% of salary is base, and the rest is made up of delivery against attributes that you were doing when you signed. eg: Sancho should deliver Manchester United 20 goals and 20 assists next season to earn his full allowed salary. (others can debate what these metrics are)

 

[JPRouve]

It's ludicrous to have a wage system where a player falls off a cliff in term of performance and yet is protected by a long term contract. This construct creates situations like Sanchez, Ozil, Bale, Griezeman etc

The Sanchez affair illustrates that clubs somehow have to makes wages for the top earners based on incentives, including appearances, key passes, assists, clean sheets etc. ie: Clubs remain happy to pay top wages for superstars, but very top dollar is based upon delivering against your talent.

Say 50% of salary is base, and the rest is made up of delivery against attributes that you were doing when you signed. eg: Sancho should deliver Manchester United 20 goals and 20 assists next season to earn his fill allowed salary. (others can debate what these metrics are)

If you do that players will rightfully take their images rights back and football clubs will cry.

 

[roonster09]

If you do that players will rightfully take their images rights back and football clubs will cry.

Also players should sign only one year contracts instead of being an asset to the club who are sold for huge money.

 

[SilentWitness]

The difficulty is that players will just say no if you refuse to pay them what they would like and the sample size of top class players is so small compared to the revenue that is possible from shirt sales / winning competitions etc. that most of the time it is worth spending that much on players despite how ludicrous it may seem to the average person.

 

[JPRouve]

Also players should sign only one year contracts instead of being an asset to the club who are sold for huge money.

That's true, people are advocating for the exploitation of footballers because clubs may take poor decisions. How about they don't take those poor decisions and pay for it when they do?

 

[Acrobat7]

Salaries are always tied to revenue. Cause and effect. When you have a wages to turnover ration at around or under 50% (United, Bayern etc.) you’re not paying too much.
If you are on the other hand doing a Barca (70%+) then you are potentially fecked. And not in a good way. Doing accounting acrobatics with Pjanic/Arthur is only kicking the can down the road.

 

[SilentWitness]

Salaries are always tied to revenue. Cause and effect. When you have a wages to turnover ration at around or under 50% (United, Bayern etc.) you’re not paying too much.
If you are on the other hand doing a Barca (70%+) then you are potentially fecked. And not in a good way. Doing accounting acrobatics with Pjanic/Arthur is only kicking the can down the road.

I believe that the three promoted sides were due to the Championship accounts being taken into consideration rather than PL accounts.

 

[Zehner]

Now you are confusing me because Robinho wasn't out of favour, a new rich club offered a sum that he wasn't worth and Real Madrid were happy to sell. Van der Vaart, Robben and Sneijder weren't particularly expensive players, they were all youngish players that had lots of suitors and at a discounted price, they were essentially better versions of Andre Gomes, Denis Suarez or Hakimi, none of them went to clubs that weren't among the top 20 clubs though. And finally Ibrahimovic and Eto'o, it involved Barcelona, Inter and Milan again these were members of the wealthiest clubs, Moratti and Berlusconi were still bankrolling both Milan clubs and both players were in their prime, so it was a no brainer for all clubs involved.

I don't really see players that were on top earner contracts, declined and were swiftly moved to tier 2 or 3 clubs.

Edit: To illustrate my point, Sneijder, Robben and Van der Vaart were moved in 2009-2010 at the time Real Madrid top earner was I believe Ronaldo. Do you think that any tier 2 or 3 clubs could have afforded Ronaldo's transfer fee or wage? Or in 2001 Zidane's wage and transfer fee?

Robinho, van der Vaart, Robben and Sneijder were arguably four of the most talented attackers out there at the time, not really comparable with Gomes or Suarez. And they had to make room because Madrid wanted to pursue their next Galactico project again. Robinho didn't really want to leave but they intended to replace him with Cristiano.

And no, those players weren't sold to second or third tier clubs. But Bale and co. can't be sold at all since no club is willing to pay their wages, not even top clubs, leading to a situation in which the player prefers to see out his contract. I mean, you haven't addressed my point but there are more Bale/Sanchez/Özil/James/Coutinho/Dembele stories than ever before, aren't there? Surely that has to have a cause, even if it isn't the salary gap between top and second tier clubs.

Take the Ibrahimovic transfer example. You argue it made total sense for all involved clubs and it did. I say today, Ibrahimovic would probably earn 30m a year, Pep wanted to sell him, Barca would've looked for a buying club but couldn't find one who's willing to pay such high wages after Ibra failed, so he would've just stayed at Barcelona. Right now this seems to have become the routine procedure when a star signing fails.

 

[ray24]

I will say this is because of FFP kicking in and the clubs are simply not prepared for the new reality. Yes, Man City and PSG tried to by-pass the rules, but both clubs had reigned in their spending. What does this mean?

This means instead of PSG and Man City simply buying over the ageing Ronaldos, Bale, Sanchez, and potentially Messi, even those clubs with the financial means to do so are simply not buying these kinds of players. These new superclubs had to spend money on a level that is more comparable with the likes of other traditional superclubs like Real Madrid, Barcelona and Man Utd.

The salaries that clubs like Barcelona, Real Madrid, Man Utd and Arsenal paid to their superstars was to prevent such players from being poached by the new superclubs like how PSG did with Neymar. The clubs were operating on the idea that if those superstars signings failed to perform, they can simply dump their players onto Man City or PSG. But if the likes of PSG and Man City aren't taking such players, then you're not left with much options. You can move the players outside of Europe, but this is not what many of those players will want to do as it means the end of their international careers.

And even in leagues like the MLS and in China, those clubs have reigned in their spending on ageing superstar players as well. In the MLS, there is an increasing preference to use the designated player slot for younger players ( from Mexico and South America) rather than older players from Europe. In China, the Chinese government has ordered a crackdown on Chinese clubs overspending and to focus more attention on developing Chinese youth talents.

So you end up in a situation where you can no longer find clubs for underperforming superstars. No clubs is willing to spend massive fees ( other than Juventus, and they are getting screwed over trying to accommodate Ronaldo) on underperforming players because everyone tries to follow the FFP to some degree or another. Even Man City, despite flouting the rules tries to "appear" sensible by not massively overspending on players.

 

[Siorac]

Robinho, van der Vaart, Robben and Sneijder were arguably four of the most talented attackers out there at the time, not really comparable with Gomes or Suarez. And they had to make room because Madrid wanted to pursue their next Galactico project again. Robinho didn't really want to leave but they intended to replace him with Cristiano.

And no, those players weren't sold to second or third tier clubs. But Bale and co. can't be sold at all since no club is willing to pay their wages, not even top clubs, leading to a situation in which the player prefers to see out his contract. I mean, you haven't addressed my point but there are more Bale/Sanchez/Özil/James/Coutinho/Dembele stories than ever before, aren't there? Surely that has to have a cause, even if it isn't the salary gap between top and second tier clubs.

Take the Ibrahimovic transfer example. You argue it made total sense for all involved clubs and it did. I say today, Ibrahimovic would probably earn 30m a year, Pep wanted to sell him, Barca would've looked for a buying club but couldn't find one who's willing to pay such high wages after Ibra failed, so he would've just stayed at Barcelona. Right now this seems to have become the routine procedure when a star signing fails.

Even if you're right and the "Bale scenario" does happen more often these days, clubs don't really have much of a choice as long as money keeps flowing in to football. Star players are incredibly valuable and scarce resources: there's massive demand and very limited supply which drives up the price. Top clubs pay massive wages because that's the way to compete with other top clubs. The only way out of that is that the very top clubs form a cartel where they agree to impose a salary cap on themselves. And all the cartel members have to play along with that because if someone decides to violate the agreement, they're back at square one. There's basically two ways such an agreement could go:

- They agree on caps - unofficially, behind the scenes - that are unattainable for everyone else but the members of the cartel and totally dominate the market without ever having to worry about financial issues caused by unreasonable contracts.
- They simply form the European super league with NFL-style spending caps.

Neither option is particularly attractive to me.

 

[JPRouve]

Robinho, van der Vaart, Robben and Sneijder were arguably four of the most talented attackers out there at the time, not really comparable with Gomes or Suarez. And they had to make room because Madrid wanted to pursue their next Galactico project again. Robinho didn't really want to leave but they intended to replace him with Cristiano.

And no, those players weren't sold to second or third tier clubs. But Bale and co. can't be sold at all since no club is willing to pay their wages, not even top clubs, leading to a situation in which the player prefers to see out his contract. I mean, you haven't addressed my point but there are more Bale/Sanchez/Özil/James/Coutinho/Dembele stories than ever before, aren't there? Surely that has to have a cause, even if it isn't the salary gap between top and second tier clubs.

Take the Ibrahimovic transfer example. You argue it made total sense for all involved clubs and it did. I say today, Ibrahimovic would probably earn 30m a year, Pep wanted to sell him, Barca would've looked for a buying club but couldn't find one who's willing to pay such high wages after Ibra failed, so he would've just stayed at Barcelona. Right now this seems to have become the routine procedure when a star signing fails.

You are being way too loose when you are trying to create a theory about salaries. None of the Real Madrid players were big earners, they were all in the talented prospect category and you are comparing them to world record transfers. In the case of Ibrahimovic, you are talking about a player in his prime that was loaned to a wealthy club and then sold on a massive discount, it's essentially what happened with Sanchez who isn't in his prime.

In reality your examples are about players that aren't in their prime anymore and can't be moved because of that, not because they have big wages. Just an example Ronaldo the player with the highest or second highest wage found a new club, the minute he wanted to leave, Juventus were willing to spend hundreds of millions on a 33 years old player. But you won't do that for Bale or Ozil because they are not worth it, not because their wage are financially creepling, the players themselves aren't good enough for the clubs that normally get players with that type of notoriety. It's comparable to Shevchenko, Torrés or Denilson.

Now a good example for your point would be Roque Santa Cruz and Jo, both players would have normally been bought by clubs like Leverkusen but in that case they were too expensive in terms of wages. Drinkwater would be an other example but these aren't rare either, it has always existed players that would be either loaned until the end of their contracts with their club subsiding their wages or stuck in the stands. PSG used to have Albert Baning who is probably unknown to the caf but a true legend for PSG fans @BBRBB , he was not worth the financial effort for clubs of his level even though we are talking about an extremely cheap player.

 

[Zehner]

Even if you're right and the "Bale scenario" does happen more often these days, clubs don't really have much of a choice as long as money keeps flowing in to football. Star players are incredibly valuable and scarce resources: there's massive demand and very limited supply which drives up the price. Top clubs pay massive wages because that's the way to compete with other top clubs. The only way out of that is that the very top clubs form a cartel where they agree to impose a salary cap on themselves. And all the cartel members have to play along with that because if someone decides to violate the agreement, they're back at square one. There's basically two ways such an agreement could go:

- They agree on caps - unofficially, behind the scenes - that are unattainable for everyone else but the members of the cartel and totally dominate the market without ever having to worry about financial issues caused by unreasonable contracts.
- They simply form the European super league with NFL-style spending caps.

Neither option is particularly attractive to me.

Yes, that may very well be the case. My initial thought was that maybe they are actually realizing they are overpaying now since most of those star transfers didn't turn out as expected. Coutinho, Griezmann, Dembele, Hazard (though injuries) etc. So it may be better to develop your players yourself and then pay them those amounts when you not only know they're working for their previous teams but also for you, in your tactical setup and environment but you may be right in the end.

You are being way too loose when you are trying to create a theory about salaries. None of the Real Madrid players were big earners, they were all in the talented prospect category and you are comparing them to world record transfers. In the case of Ibrahimovic, you are talking about a player in his prime that was loaned to a wealthy club and then sold on a massive discount, it's essentially what happened with Sanchez who isn't in his prime.

In reality your examples are about players that aren't in their prime anymore and can't be moved because of that, not because they have big wages. Just an example Ronaldo the player with the highest or second highest wage found a new club, the minute he wanted to leave, Juventus were willing to spend hundreds of millions on a 33 years old player. But you won't do that for Bale or Ozil because they are not worth it, not because their wage are financially creepling, the players themselves aren't good enough for the clubs that normally get players with that type of notoriety. It's comparable to Shevchenko, Torrés or Denilson.

Now a good example for your point would be Roque Santa Cruz and Jo, both players would have normally been bought by clubs like Leverkusen but in that case they were too expensive in terms of wages. Drinkwater would be an other example but these aren't rare either, it has always existed players that would be either loaned until the end of their contracts with their club subsiding their wages or stuck in the stands. PSG used to have Albert Baning who is probably unknown to the caf but a true legend for PSG fans @BBRBB , he was not worth the financial effort for clubs of his level even though we are talking about an extremely cheap player.

Good points and in general I tend to agree now. I still believe it has to do a little bit with the high salaries. 10 years ago, I don't believe the situations around Bale or Sanchez would've escalated the way they did but it is probably less severe than I initially thought.

 

[KeanoMagicHat]

Yep and it leaves this subset of players that should drop a level but can't because they'd have to quarter their wages and they just waste away their careers in the stands. Bale, Ozil, James Rodriguez, Coutinho, Sanchez, Schweinsteiger (briefly) were players on 200k+ a year that weren't even making any appearances, it's crazy stuff and a sign that football is eating itself.

Ozil should be back at Schalke, James Rodriguez back at Porto still popping in the Champions League the odd time, Bale playing Europa League level football in England, but what employee would agree to willingly lose about 80% of their salary? Instead they're all being paid millions a month to do feck all. It's shocking really.

 

[CG1010]

Partly the wage inflation was due to Chinese clubs offering large salaries to established yet fading stars so suddenly they had huge bargaining power. That's fading away and then COVID-19 would certainly put downward pressure on player wages. So we will surely see a 'correction' in wages for next 2-3 years.

This could become an important point in renegotiation of contract of Pogba, somehow I don't see it being a very smooth sailing as is being expected. I wouldn't be surprised if Pogba looks for a club outside and then comes back knowing that not too many clubs would pay him a large increment over his current contract with United. If I am not wrong Bruno is at nearly half of the salary of Pogba which is crazy given their respective contribution in the team.

 

[JPRouve]

Good points and in general I tend to agree now. I still believe it has to do a little bit with the high salaries. 10 years ago, I don't believe the situations around Bale or Sanchez would've escalated the way they did but it is probably less severe than I initially thought.

Which situation with Sanchez? You keep mentioning Sanchez as if he didn't definitely leave for Inter and 10-12 years ago Chelsea were stuck with Torres and Shevchenko, Inter didn't found a club willing to buy Adriano, I could also mention the case of Amauri with Juventus. I couldn't give you an exhaustive list because it happens all the time to pretty much all clubs since ever. You also have Mendieta who was one of the most expensive player ever in 2001 who flopped at Lazio and left on a free to Middlesbrough.

 

[tomaldinho1]

The first thing that has to change is agent fees. A club should not pay any agent a penny - the player hires the agent and then pays them whatever they want to depending on how happy they are with their services. Whether you're United or Dulwich Hamlet, no money should be paid directly to any agent from any club.

 

[JPRouve]

The first thing that has to change is agent fees. A club should not pay any agent a penny - the player hires the agent and then pays them whatever they want to depending on how happy they are with their services. Whether you're United or Dulwich Hamlet, no money should be paid directly to any agent from any club.

Clubs hire agents, that's how they go around tampering rules, they also use them to negotiate with other clubs.

 

[KirkDuyt]

It's just capitalism. The rich are just getting richer and fewer untill in the end 3 clubs have all the best players. It's hard for me to feel any sympathy for club who are just mega rich instead of super mega rich though.

Some sort of salary cap would be nice. It's not like the new Ronaldo would decide on a career as an accountant if being a footballer would only get you 1 measly million per year.

 

[Zehner]

Which situation with Sanchez? You keep mentioning Sanchez as if he didn't definitely leave for Inter and 10-12 years ago Chelsea were stuck with Torres and Shevchenko, Inter didn't found a club willing to buy Adriano, I could also mention the case of Amauri with Juventus. I couldn't give you an exhaustive list because it happens all the time to pretty much all clubs since ever. You also have Mendieta who was one of the most expensive player ever in 2001 who flopped at Lazio and left on a free to Middlesbrough.

Well, as far as I know you compensated him so that his contract was terminated and he could sign for Inter which means he's probably paid just as well (compensation + new salary) as he was by you. Your arguments are well reasoned and you're giving examples but I think you're dismissing it a little bit too easily if you ask me. Many big club struggled to offload some of their best paid players in the last two seasons: Barca (Coutinho, Dembele), Real (Bale, James), United (Sanchez), Arsenal (Özil). I for one can't recall that there were so many cases of this simultaneously, although you're right that some especially drastic falls from grace (Torres, Shevchenko) are good examples.

 

[BBRBB]

You are being way too loose when you are trying to create a theory about salaries. None of the Real Madrid players were big earners, they were all in the talented prospect category and you are comparing them to world record transfers. In the case of Ibrahimovic, you are talking about a player in his prime that was loaned to a wealthy club and then sold on a massive discount, it's essentially what happened with Sanchez who isn't in his prime.

In reality your examples are about players that aren't in their prime anymore and can't be moved because of that, not because they have big wages. Just an example Ronaldo the player with the highest or second highest wage found a new club, the minute he wanted to leave, Juventus were willing to spend hundreds of millions on a 33 years old player. But you won't do that for Bale or Ozil because they are not worth it, not because their wage are financially creepling, the players themselves aren't good enough for the clubs that normally get players with that type of notoriety. It's comparable to Shevchenko, Torrés or Denilson.

Now a good example for your point would be Roque Santa Cruz and Jo, both players would have normally been bought by clubs like Leverkusen but in that case they were too expensive in terms of wages. Drinkwater would be an other example but these aren't rare either, it has always existed players that would be either loaned until the end of their contracts with their club subsiding their wages or stuck in the stands. PSG used to have Albert Baning who is probably unknown to the caf but a true legend for PSG fans @BBRBB , he was not worth the financial effort for clubs of his level even though we are talking about an extremely cheap player.

The cases like Baning are typical of mid-tier clubs (we were indeed mediocre at the time). Fortunately we've had a relatively low number of them over the years, Everton Santos probably being the most famous, now it's for Jese we'll have a hard time finding a club willing to pay any part of his wages on loan.

 

[JPRouve]

Well, as far as I know you compensated him so that his contract was terminated and he could sign for Inter which means he's probably paid just as well (compensation + new salary) as he was by you. Your arguments are well reasoned and you're giving examples but I think you're dismissing it a little bit too easily if you ask me. Many big club struggled to offload some of their best paid players in the last two seasons: Barca (Coutinho, Dembele), Real (Bale, James), United (Sanchez), Arsenal (Özil). I for one can't recall that there were so many cases of this simultaneously, although you're right that some especially drastic falls from grace (Torres, Shevchenko) are good examples.

Clubs generally compensate players when they try to offload them before the end of their contracts, they don't just forfeit their contracts. And Barcelona didn't try to offload Dembélé, so he has nothing to do with this thread and even if they tried his injuries wouldn't have allowed it not his salary, players with that type of salaries move every year, Coutinho and Sanchez are no different to the Chelsea boys and Ozil is no different to most older players that have declined during their last big contracts, these players rarely find suitors before the end of their contracts which is exemplified by your initial examples with Ballack, Hyypia or even Owen with Newcastle.

I would say that the main difference is that media outlets probably make a lot more noise about that side of football in 2020 than they did in 2000.

 

[tomaldinho1]

Clubs hire agents, that's how they go around tampering rules, they also use them to negotiate with other clubs.

Which needs to end. I get it's all an interconnected mess with a lot of under the table stuff undoubtedly going on but I think the first step in getting some kind of regulation when it comes to wages (i.e. if there will be a salary cap or transfer cap or whatever) is to separate clubs from agents as they function today.

Let agents charge whatever they want to their client, which is the player but clubs should be forbidden to directly compensate them. Agents & clubs will still be incentivised to retain close relationships but it will slowly decrease how much agents are paid in fees - you'll still get super agents and people being paid silly amounts but it'll be a lot better than what is currently is - last season PL clubs spent over a quarter of a billion on agent fees alone for example (source BBC)

 

[roonster09]

Which situation with Sanchez? You keep mentioning Sanchez as if he didn't definitely leave for Inter and 10-12 years ago Chelsea were stuck with Torres and Shevchenko, Inter didn't found a club willing to buy Adriano, I could also mention the case of Amauri with Juventus. I couldn't give you an exhaustive list because it happens all the time to pretty much all clubs since ever. You also have Mendieta who was one of the most expensive player ever in 2001 who flopped at Lazio and left on a free to Middlesbrough.

Inter paid most of the players compensation to leave after they won treble. Like I said, it was done from long time. Big clubs pay big wages, when they want to offload, they also end up giving Golden handshake.

 

[JPRouve]

Which needs to end. I get it's all an interconnected mess with a lot of under the table stuff undoubtedly going on but I think the first step in getting some kind of regulation when it comes to wages (i.e. if there will be a salary cap or transfer cap or whatever) is to separate clubs from agents as they function today.

Let agents charge whatever they want to their client, which is the player but clubs should be forbidden to directly compensate them. Agents & clubs will still be incentivised to retain close relationships but it will slowly decrease how much agents are paid in fees - you'll still get super agents and people being paid silly amounts but it'll be a lot better than what is currently is - last season PL clubs spent over a quarter of a billion on agent fees alone for example (source BBC)

That's what they do, clubs are clients. You seemed to be confused, agent fees have nothing to do with the job that agents do for players, that part is paid by players themselves with their wage. Agent fees during transfers are about intermediary works, it's generally not the players agents that are paid in the BBC source that you are refering to, for example United are known to use Zahavi who doesn't have a single client at United.

 

[tomaldinho1]

That's what they do, clubs are clients. You seemed to be confused, agent fees have nothing to do with the job that agents do for players, that part is paid by players themselves with their wage. Agent fees during transfers are about intermediary works, it's generally not the players agents that are paid in the BBC source that you are refering to, for example United are known to use Zahavi who doesn't have a single client at United.

What I actually said is the player should be the client for agents, I'm talking about how things should change not how they currently are. My idea is pretty simple, it's to sever the direct financial link between clubs & agents.

Re Agent fee - you are incorrect, almost every transfer you see in the PL the agent fee is paid for by the buying club: https://www.danielgeey.com/post/but-who-actually-pays-football-agents/ & it's also why FIFA is trying to cap it: https://www.jmw.co.uk/services-for-...t-fifa-regulations-cap-agent-fees-draw-closer

Re clubs employing an agent for negotiation purposes only i.e. they don't represent the player they are negotiating for - do you have any specific examples when it comes to player purchases/sales? From what I know of Zahavi, United have a good relationship with him and there was talk of him being employed in a broker capacity when the rumours were flying around about the Saudi takeover but nothing about him specifically in player sales/purchases.

 

[JPRouve]

What I actually said is the player should be the client for agents, I'm talking about how things should change not how they currently are. My idea is pretty simple, it's to sever the direct financial link between clubs & agents.

Re Agent fee - you are incorrect, almost every transfer you see in the PL the agent fee is paid for by the buying club: https://www.danielgeey.com/post/but-who-actually-pays-football-agents/ & it's also why FIFA is trying to cap it: https://www.jmw.co.uk/services-for-...t-fifa-regulations-cap-agent-fees-draw-closer

Re clubs employing an agent for negotiation purposes only i.e. they don't represent the player they are negotiating for - do you have any specific examples when it comes to player purchases/sales? From what I know of Zahavi, United have a good relationship with him and there was talk of him being employed in a broker capacity when the rumours were flying around about the Saudi takeover but nothing about him specifically in player sales/purchases.

I'm not wrong, they are literally telling you that the agent is paid for the work that he does for the clubs and the players during transfers when it comes to agent fees during transfers. Now the 2.5% that they used as an example and that are paid by the club on behalf of the players, on top of the 2.5% owed by the club itself, are a remuneration to the player, they are not a gift to the agent by the club. If clubs don't pay that share, players and their agents will just negotiate a bigger contract.

 

[tomaldinho1]

I'm not wrong, they are literally telling you that the agent is paid for the work that he does for the clubs and the players during transfers when it comes to agent fees during transfers. Now the 2.5% that they used as an example and that are paid by the club on behalf of the players, on top of the 2.5% owed by the club itself, are a remuneration to the player, they are not a gift to the agent by the club. If clubs don't pay that share, players and their agents will just negotiate a bigger contract.

This is a quote from that article "The majority of Premier League and top-end Football League transfers involve the buying club paying the player’s agent." The quote (no3) you are referring to is an example of the money for transfers comes from the club because of how broken the system is (the club currently pays the agent for themselves AND the player). They even specify with the title for that quote ' Club pays agent for player services and club services ' and earlier in the article also state 'In very limited circumstances when dealing with Premier League players, a player may pay his agent for finalising a transfer'.

Yes, you are correct the obvious way around this will be for clubs to have to pile more money into the players contract/signing on fee but that's where this then becomes more relevant to the OP thread title about capping salary and how we might go about that. My only point is that first, in my opinion, we need to sever the link between club and agent. I also think, there has been a lot more scrutiny around transfer recently and whilst I'm sure some clubs would just react by bumping up salaries, it's easier said than done with dressing room politics and financial impacts of covid being huge factors for the foreseeable future.

 

[JPRouve]

This is a quote from that article "The majority of Premier League and top-end Football League transfers involve the buying club paying the player’s agent." The quote (no3) you are referring to is an example of the money for transfers comes from the club because of how broken the system is (the club currently pays the agent for themselves AND the player). They even specify with the title for that quote ' Club pays agent for player services and club services ' and earlier in the article also state 'In very limited circumstances when dealing with Premier League players, a player may pay his agent for finalising a transfer'.

Yes, you are correct the obvious way around this will be for clubs to have to pile more money into the players contract/signing on fee but that's where this then becomes more relevant to the OP thread title about capping salary and how we might go about that. My only point is that first, in my opinion, we need to sever the link between club and agent. I also think, there has been a lot more scrutiny around transfer recently and whilst I'm sure some clubs would just react by bumping up salaries, it's easier said than done with dressing room politics and financial impacts of covid being huge factors for the foreseeable future.

The problem being that the players are the ones generating the money and they should take the majority of the money home, which by the way is far from the case. Broadcasters and manufacturers are making a fortune on the back of football and footballers, wages should be significantly higher. There is a reason why they are willing to pay that much in sponsorship and broadcasting rights without much hesitation.

 

[tomaldinho1]

The problem being that the players are the ones generating the money and they should take the majority of the money home, which by the way is far from the case. Broadcasters and manufacturers are making a fortune on the back of football and footballers, wages should be significantly higher. There is a reason why they are willing to pay that much in sponsorship and broadcasting rights without much hesitation.

Just to check are we now on the same page re clubs paying agents?

I agree re players and their earnings and this is where the cap would be useful, in a way by removing the power of the agent (making the player directly compensate them NOT a club with near limitless resources) you protect the player/give the player more control & then I can see a lot more performance based and loyalty based bonuses making up a much larger portion of contracts.

A good example of this would have been, let's say Sanchez had been signed and our cap was £250k (in reality enough to attract almost any player) and the rest was in performance based bonuses, it would still have been a terrible and expensive free transfer but it would have the cost the club multiple millions less. Even if the 'savings' for clubs that come from caps are a small percentage it's money that could (although it probably wouldn't) be used to subsidise ticket prices. on the player side it's not as good in that your guaranteed weekly money is less, although most won;t be near the cap and so it's irrelevant to them, and for the superstars like Neymar, bale etc who would be taking the biggest hits they'd just have incredible performance based bonuses in their contracts. As an aside that would immediately stop what's happening with Bale at RM because he'd have to move and play to be earning anywhere near what he's on & would also stop players tying themselves into stupidly long contracts.