Pronewbie
Peep
Like someone said, wealth redistribution is better than having the leeches at United and Liverpool suck and prey on the community. Not that I think either are healthy for the game.
Do you get a batsignal whenever City/PSG are mentioned?
Aye, thought that was absolutely mental, he had to backtrack so quickly because the media were painting him as xenophobic.Exactly. They are praised for how cheap Haaland was and recently it was revealed he was earning £900k a week and nothing has been said about it. Klopp says no one can compete with City’s spending and he almost had to come out to apologise and make excuses he was misquoted. Why does City get so much protection in the media?
And you don't see how the likes of PSG have contributed to inflating prices? It's only going to get worse if left unchecked. It's bad for the game in general.I agree with your first point.
Second, I don't care much for FFP so there is that.
Yeah but isn't the entire goal of American sports to funnel as money as possible into the billionaire owners pockets?Doesn't revenue sharing (your recommendation) reduce top player compensation then?
If competitiveness of a league is not a concern then this thread is moot. But if the goal is for Reims to compete with PSG, player compensation is one of the many factors that need to be considered.
Analog to evil American sports: LeBron is easily worth a billion dollars a year in a non restricted league (or at least he was a few years ago). He doesn't get paid that and the league is better off for it.
Definitely doesn’tWow, 55% of that goes to tax. France is happy.
Half of that will be going to the tax man.it’s not quite that simple though is it, it’s not just “curtailing” the players earning potential other clubs have to “try” to compete with this. So the working class fans end up Paying more and more and more for tickets, forthe sports subscription etc.
They will be playing 1 player more in 1 year than we have spent on players in 3-4 years, they haven’t won a champions league.
We are in a cost of living crisis people won’t be able to afford to go soon and more and more people I know are getting fire sticks etc.
To be honest hearing stuff like this just starts to put me off football all together.
what does that have to do with the price of cheese, they are spending more on 1 persons wages than united have spent on players in 2-3 years it’s genuinely obscene.Half of that will be going to the tax man.
None of the money we spend on transfers goes to the tax man.
Yes but how can it be addressed? If a player wants to make 100k/week on Chelsea's bench rather than make 50k/week in the Everton starting 11, he should be allowed to do that.We had a similar thread earlier, players earning what they do in football is far from a problem.
The biggest problem in football is the talent being boarded at the top. This is what needs to be stopped. Footballs actually quite lucky because the talent is so massive, but the problem becomes when players who should be starting matches elsewhere are wasting their careers on the bench for the sake of depth. Stop that, and there will be more than enough talent going around and automatically you'll see more upsets.
I think my idea was a hard limit on the number of senior players a clubs allowed to hold in total including the players they've loaned out. No buy back clauses.
So my solution is a hard cap on the number of over 21 players a clubs allowed to hold on their books (that includes the ones they've loaned out). Automatically that'll diversify the pool.Yes but how can it be addressed? If a player wants to make 100k/week on Chelsea's bench rather than make 50k/week in the Everton starting 11, he should be allowed to do that.
Ticket prices, etc, are up to the clubs. Revenue sharing doesn't mean they have to make everything more expensive.it’s not quite that simple though is it, it’s not just “curtailing” the players earning potential other clubs have to “try” to compete with this. So the working class fans end up Paying more and more and more for tickets, forthe sports subscription etc.
They will be playing 1 player more in 1 year than we have spent on players in 3-4 years, they haven’t won a champions league.
We are in a cost of living crisis people won’t be able to afford to go soon and more and more people I know are getting fire sticks etc.
To be honest hearing stuff like this just starts to put me off football all together.
Reims would raise their financial profile by having that same Qatari money pumped into their clubBut it’s not psg money is it it’s psg owners money, completely different animal.
how can Reims “raise” there financial level enough to compete with an oil state pumping money into a club through dodgy sponsorships whos paying 1 player more in 1 season than the rest of the league probably spend on transfers in 3-4 years.
this was the point of ffp which is obviously completely failing
Near 100m more in less years. It's the biggest contract in the history of sportsNot far off Messi wage at Barca?
I wouldn't say "the entire goal"Yeah but isn't the entire goal of American sports to funnel as money as possible into the billionaire owners pockets?
Interesting, you could be on to something here. The idea is worth considering.So my solution is a hard cap on the number of over 21 players a clubs allowed to hold on their books (that includes the ones they've loaned out). Automatically that'll diversify the pool.
Its not the perfect solution, and it'll need a good few things thinking about. But ultimately, that's the best way to stop that happening.
Well that’s just like uh, your opinion, man.We had a similar thread earlier, players earning what they do in football is far from a problem.
The biggest problem in football is the talent being boarded at the top. This is what needs to be stopped. Footballs actually quite lucky because the talent is so massive, but the problem becomes when players who should be starting matches elsewhere are wasting their careers on the bench for the sake of depth. Stop that, and there will be more than enough talent going around and automatically you'll see more upsets.
I think my idea was a hard limit on the number of senior players a clubs allowed to hold in total including the players they've loaned out. No buy back clauses.
FixedLove can’t be buy
And that crippled them. Psg wouldn't even blink at it, and that's the problem.Not far off Messi wage at Barca?
Yeah, this wouldn't be a bad idea.So my solution is a hard cap on the number of over 21 players a clubs allowed to hold on their books (that includes the ones they've loaned out). Automatically that'll diversify the pool.
Its not the perfect solution, and it'll need a good few things thinking about. But ultimately, that's the best way to stop that happening.
I don't understand why me as a football fan wants to create an environment where money's funnelled away from the labour (the players) into the owners.I wouldn't say "the entire goal"
Yes it is a significant factor in the equation. However the players have a say in the equation as well, with varying levels of success, and splits from revenue are negotiated between two parties. Sports don't benefit if one party enjoys the spoils at the expense of other parties. In football, the benefits of players, clubs, club owners, leagues, football authorities, and fans/supporters should all be considered. It's not just about the players. Or it shouldn't.
According to one of the linked articles it does. Whether that's true or not is debatable.Definitely doesn’t
But with Barcas creative accounting I’d bet any money Messi took home moreTicket prices, etc, are up to the clubs. Revenue sharing doesn't mean they have to make everything more expensive.
And yes, as i said before, it would have the effect of curtailing earning power for players(well, for top tier players. There'd be more money for good ones). It is a difference of ethics. Players logically can't earn money the clubs don't have. But the clubs wouldn't have that money, as opposed to having it and keeping from the players
Reims would raise their financial profile by having that same Qatari money pumped into their club
And FFP was introduced to prevent owners from bankrupting their clubs, not to create parity
Near 100m more in less years. It's the biggest contract in the history of sports
Do you get a batsignal whenever City/PSG are mentioned?
Why would I need any shame, since you all seem to carry it for all of us every time there's news about PSG (which btw, has zero to do with the fans for the people in the back of the class), and are absolute bullshit, just like this contract and most of the news about Mbappe since he had the unmitigated gall to turn down Real Madrid and stay in his hometown.PSG fans are shameless.
If they do that it just means it's true. You're supposed to laugh these things off if they're so far from the truth.Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
I think it's the double of what he was earning at Barcelona.Not far off Messi wage at Barca?
Football is a microcosm of the living hell happening in society, so why shouldn’t PSG and co be allowed to desecrate the game after their owners pile misery on the rest of usThat club doesnt care. Oil has gone up in price. They can have 3 Mbappes and barely scratch the oil savings account.
Didn’t Messi work out at over 1m per week?I think it's the double of what he was earning at Barcelona.
I'm not sure if this is true or what, as it seems insane but everyone knew he was offered obscene money for him to reject Real Madrid as we also pay a lot to our stars players.
As if he's worth it that much money of course he doesn't, Messi and Ronaldo weren't earning as much and as good as they were we couldn't give him (Ronaldo) more pay raises as it wasn't worth it. With Barcelona they almost go bankrupt and we're talking about two players that have more than 10 ballon d'or between the two.