Premier League clubs have agreed in principle to introduce a spending cap

[SilentWitness]

Premier League clubs have agreed in principle to introduce a spending cap.

A majority of clubs voted in favour of the spending cap, which will be determined by the amount of money earned in television rights by the lowest-earning club in the Premier League.

If approved in June's AGM, the new model will replace the current Profit and Sustainability Regulations from the 2025-26 season.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cpegd3dy8j7o

 

[LordSpud]

Will price a lot of players out of coming to the League, no?

 

[Widow]

Without fully understanding it yet, it sounds like the top earning clubs will just be making thrme already rich owners even richer! I hope I'm proven wrong.

 

[Big Ben Foster]

Will price a lot of players out of coming to the League, no?

Maybe, but the upward pressure on transfer fees and wages has been largely due to PL wealth. Midtable Liga and Serie A clubs aren't going to be spending 30m + 80k/week on a player.

 

[Big Ben Foster]

Without fully understanding it yet, it sounds like the top earning clubs will just be making thrme already rich owners even richer! I hope I'm proven wrong.

Yeah this is how I'm seeing it. In essence a transfer of wealth from the players to the owners.

 

[mazhar13]

I was wondering what the PFA's response to this would be. I'm not surprised by it.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

This is the start of a pathway towards a potentially hard salary cap should the league choose to take it further, and if they do go there, then there will need to be collective bargaining agreements signed with the PFA to ensure that the players are paid the appropriate wages.

 

[SER19]

A decade too late.

 

[Vidyoyo]

Great news. Let's start doing drafts next and claiming players off waivers

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

Just makes is easier for the cheats

 

[Von Mistelroum]

Apparently we voted against it, which makes sense since the cap will just mean that clubs like us will have to stick to it, while City keep on passing huge wages under the table.

 

[Widow]

Apparently we voted against it, which makes sense since the cap will just mean that clubs like us will have to stick to it, while City keep on passing huge wages under the table.

Villa, United and City voted against while Chelsea abstained

 

[Garnacho's Shoelaces]

I was wondering what the PFA's response to this would be. I'm not surprised by it.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

This is the start of a pathway towards a potentially hard salary cap should the league choose to take it further, and if they do go there, then there will need to be collective bargaining agreements signed with the PFA to ensure that the players are paid the appropriate wages.

The other concern is that we know Man City have circumvented wage restrictions historically with off-shore dual salaries for fictitious consulting / lecturing services.

 

[Chipper]

Any details up?

Without seeing them this could be anything from allowing everyone to spend more, some more some less or everyone less!

Some of the less well-off clubs might be for an increase in spending, feeling current rules stop a large, sudden cash injection. We all know that argument against FFP.

City, Newcastle, perhaps Chelsea would want to to be able to spend more too.

For other rich clubs, who knows what they want? Greedy owners pocketing the profit if they had money left over after the cap, but would risk losing advantage and players to big Euro clubs if it was too low.

Maybe the cap is set so high that nobody can even reach it?

 

[Widow]

Just read that anchoring would bring spending to the lowest earner, 103 mill x4 so 412 million max squad spend, agents, wages, transfers etc. This would hinder SJR spending power.

 

[Telsim]

Just makes is easier for the cheats

This was my initial thought without knowing much about it. Clubs like City and Newcastle will never receive appropriate punishment due to who their owners are. They can break any rules and laws with impunity. So, they can bring any player they want on any wage, while all other clubs will have to abide by this and lose players to those two or other European clubs.

Hope I'm ignorant and wrong.

 

[bstb3]

Without seeing the details it's hard to really comment, but in principle it sounds like a good idea and stops the state & commercially very strong clubs running away from the rest of the pack. Of course the devil is always in the detail, but as with any of this stuff they have to make sure people stick to it, which is the rather large elephant in the room with City right now.

Can imagine a mental summer happening before it comes in though as people try to lay the ground work in advance - both in transfer spending and getting big wages off the books.

 

[SouthMancRed]

Yep, creative accounts backed by a quality legal team will get round any financial restrictions.

 

[Widow]

Without seeing the details it's hard to really comment, but in principle it sounds like a good idea and stops the state & commercially very strong clubs running away from the rest of the pack. Of course the devil is always in the detail, but as with any of this stuff they have to make sure people stick to it, which is the rather large elephant in the room with City right now.

Can imagine a mental summer happening before it comes in though as people try to lay the ground work in advance - both in transfer spending and getting big wages off the books.

Trouble is, we fall into that bracket

 

[Chipper]

I'm seeing City voted against it. Would make me think it might restrict them in that case.

United too, and Villa. Less clear what's going on here.

Chelsea abstaining.

 

[No Idea For Nickname]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[bstb3]

Trouble is, we fall into that bracket

Yeah we do, but we can't complain about city while trying to feather the bed for ourselves. We'll always be able to be at the top end of that spend limit, but it means we will have to do better rather than just spending to get an advantage. If it brings about a fairer and more interesting league based on merit rather than cash I'm all for it.

Has to be policed though, else its meaningless.

 

[roonster09]

Any cap is just an easy way out for cheats.

 

[Torino]

Good news for the league overall. Now it’s not revenue related spending only while the majority of clubs struggle. This will make it a much more level playing field.

 

[Fully Fledged]

Without fully understanding it yet, it sounds like the top earning clubs will just be making thrme already rich owners even richer! I hope I'm proven wrong.

I don't think you will be.

 

[Powderfinger]

Good news for the league overall. Now it’s not revenue related spending only while the majority of clubs struggle. This will make it a much more level playing field.

Yeah, exactly.

Successfully enforcing this kind of cap is far more likely than trying to enforce team-specific spending limits based on their revenue. A club like City may still try to get away with under-the-table payments to agents and the like but its much easier to detect and potentially punish that than it is to fight an army of the world's most expensive lawyers to prove that a sponsorship deal signed with a Bahamas based crypto company owned by a Singaporean based holding company silently controlled by a Dubai based investment firm whose shadow owner is Mansour's fourth cousin is 30% over market rate.

Ultimately, this kind of thing would effectively cap City's spend on players roughly at its current level and other clubs would be able to make up that difference and compete with them on a more level playing field.

 

[Widow]

Yeah we do, but we can't complain about city while trying to feather the bed for ourselves. We'll always be able to be at the top end of that spend limit, but it means we will have to do better rather than just spending to get an advantage. If it brings about a fairer and more interesting league based on merit rather than cash I'm all for it.

Has to be policed though, else its meaningless.

We complain about City's rule breaks that allow them to spend, that's the difference.

 

[IncyWincySpider]

Spending cap plan makes a change from spending crap plan as far as our transfer business goes.

 

[Gene Loblaw]

How would it even be implemented? Would it be staggered over the years? Let's say that United, City, Chelsea, Arsenal etc are all currently WAY over the current limit. Does the governing body give the clubs 5 years or so to get in compliance?

I'm assuming hte spending limit just applied to player transfers and wages though. Not like the current cost cap in F1 which stupidly includes the ability to update the infrastructure of the team's facilities.

I'm all for it though bc I think it should make the top teams more competitive. And it should make offloading players easier too imo.

 

[90 + 5min]

I was wondering what the PFA's response to this would be. I'm not surprised by it.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

This is the start of a pathway towards a potentially hard salary cap should the league choose to take it further, and if they do go there, then there will need to be collective bargaining agreements signed with the PFA to ensure that the players are paid the appropriate wages.

Why would our club go against what should be something positive.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

They do have some funny tweets sometimes.

 

[bstb3]

We complain about City's rule breaks that allow them to spend, that's the difference.

Well the rule breaking is just a symptom of the problem though. They did it, and should be punished back to the stone age for it, but the underlying problem is that they are state owned with infinite resources. Sooner or later, even if they hadn't cheated, it would get them to where they are now and without some form of effective (again, it has to be enforced) limit in place they would eventually be so far out of sight of pretty much everyone. The state ownership should never have been allowed, but with that cat out of the bag this might be the only way getting some balance back in.

We have a minor advantage due to our current commercial strength, but it won't last forever in the face of unlimited wealth and it still wouldn't be good for the league overall.

 

[adexkola]

Will price a lot of players out of coming to the League, no?

No. You can splurge half your cap on Mbappe if you want. Just means it's harder to build a super team

Without fully understanding it yet, it sounds like the top earning clubs will just be making thrme already rich owners even richer! I hope I'm proven wrong.

Everyone benefits. Owners, clubs, football players, match going fans... It doesn't have to be a zero sum situation.

Yeah this is how I'm seeing it. In essence a transfer of wealth from the players to the owners.

No one is watching elite players watch football in your local park. Owners deserve some return on their investment... The players are not the only stakeholders in this equation, and this new development ensures that everyone eats. Not just the players, and feck everyone else

 

[adexkola]

Apparently we voted against it, which makes sense since the cap will just mean that clubs like us will have to stick to it, while City keep on passing huge wages under the table.

No, that's not why United voted against it

Instituting a spending cap means that it will be harder for United to spend their way out of bad management. Which is how it should be in a fair sport. And that is what we don't want; losing the ability to leverage our "earned" income to get over clubs better managed in the present

 

[Mb194dc]

Is there a working example of how much the caps would be with the current television rights split?

 

[Dazzmondo]

While this is probably a much fairer system for the league as a whole, selfishly I think this could be bad news for us as Utd fans. Might mean we need to get in more players than originally intended this summer to avoid issues with spending in the following season.

 

[Cloud7]

The money that PL teams spend on wages is obscene. You only have to look at the comparable wages in other teams around European football. I am in favor of this. For us it might also make the club be a bit more sensible in terms of the contracts they hand out, which in turn will make it easier to shift underperforming players

 

[Lastwolf]

Any details up?

Without seeing them this could be anything from allowing everyone to spend more, some more some less or everyone less!

Some of the less well-off clubs might be for an increase in spending, feeling current rules stop a large, sudden cash injection. We all know that argument against FFP.

City, Newcastle, perhaps Chelsea would want to to be able to spend more too.

For other rich clubs, who knows what they want? Greedy owners pocketing the profit if they had money left over after the cap, but would risk losing advantage and players to big Euro clubs if it was too low.

Maybe the cap is set so high that nobody can even reach it?

They haven't decided yet, it's supposed to be up for a vote in June. The basic proposed structure is that it will be a multiple of the lowest clubs TV revenue as a cap for squad wages, agent fees, transfer amoritistaion and spending with x4.5 x5 and x6 are on the cards, at x4.5 City and Chelsea would need to sell or release players to be under the cap "currently".

 

[bstb3]

While this is probably a much fairer system for the league as a whole, selfishly I think this could be bad news for us as Utd fans. Might mean we need to get in more players than originally intended this summer to avoid issues with spending in the following season.

Maybe, but there are still advantages to being us. We have such a big fanbase & global viewership that external player sponsorships will always be more valuable than if they play for less viewed EPL teams - makes us still more attractive even if we are spending up to the cap alongside competitors. It does mean though we have to be better at the footballing project side, which is actually a plus anyway - if we had had this 15 years ago the Glazers hands might have been pushed more forcefully towards doing things properly rather than just throwing cash at the problem blindly.

Besides, with the large surplus we'd have every year there's no doubt at all the season tickets prices would be cut, right? I mean surely.....

 

[Alex99]

Is there a working example of how much the caps would be with the current television rights split?

I saw someone on reddit (which is obviously an extremely dubious source) suggest it won't really make any sort of material difference to how things currently operate. Only difference seemed to be lottery winners like Newcastle not having to be quite as careful and it essentially rules out any PSG/Saudi level wages.

 

[pocco]

It's probably a good thing, but the fact we voted against probably also shows that it will be a bad thing for us. I'm guessing we're concerned it will take even longer to sort the mess out.

 

[Zen86]

Sounds good in principle, but (if passed) you can bet the actual ruling will be a lot softer than it sounds. It will end up heavily watered down with plenty of ways to circumvent it. Not that it matters, the damage has already been done anyway.