It's a problem to most of us, but not to them. Uefa, Fifa, the FA, any sports organisation, has the same objective, to increase the number of events under it's control, and build up it's own empire. They actively want more little countries, both for more matches and to vote to keep them in power.The UEFA has the same problem as the FIFA. There are too many "little" countries to please who have as many votes in it like the big nations.
A club breakaway would be suicide for the sport.It's a problem to most of us, but not to them. Uefa, Fifa, the FA, any sports organisation, has the same objective, to increase the number of events under it's control, and build up it's own empire. They actively want more little countries, both for more matches and to vote to keep them in power.
A club breakaway would be fine by me.
Like the premier league breakaway you mean?A club breakaway would be suicide for the sport.
It's still part of an open pyramid. If the biggest clubs were to break away and form a closed league, with no pro/rel, that would be suicide. Not the same as Premier League formation.Like the premier league breakaway you mean?
English clubs do buy players from other countries don't they?Which is all lovely for the English game, but has little benefit for clubs in other leagues.
Why assume a new league would be closed when you say yourself the premier league isn't?It's still part of an open pyramid. If the biggest clubs were to break away and form a closed league, with no pro/rel, that would be suicide. Not the same as Premier League formation.
Actually I do not have a big problem with the smaller nations having more power - but it is not this. It is not the smaller countries so much - I have no problem with the other democratic countries in central Europe having more power - but it is through its sponsors like Azerbajan's Socar that gives some countries more power that should not have it.Something does need to be done about this. However any intention UEFA has is clouded with corruption, do they really have good intentions for the smaller clubs? Absolutely not. They are simply lining their own pockets once again.
That's the 'little' benefit I talked about. It's probably a net negative really for everyone else given all the TV investment is drawn into the Premier League away from other leagues.English clubs do buy players from other countries don't they?
Funny how nobody talked about this when Real, the Italian clubs etc were spending big back in the day.
Without a salary cap it'd all be a joke though. The big teams that would be discouraged from outspending the smaller teams by such a wide margin could just put that money into wages that smaller clubs couldn't match.When has Europe ever had a wage limit or salary cap?
Everything you said here is spot on.Honestly, that's bullshit in my opinion.
They shouldn't be allowed to tax rich (or any) clubs, they aren't a state, and a sport shouldn't have a taxing-governing body, that should be up to the individual countries to decide on. If Uefa wan't more equality, they should give more to lower-ending price-money instead of this shit.
Then what is this thread about if they're already luxury taxing transfer fees ?English football has done that though.
Agree with all of these ideas bar the 100 miles radius which I think is too restrictive. 15 players + any number of players who have had their football education in that country (lets say at least 5 years before the age of 21) would probably work better.I don’t know whether the financial disparities are indeed increasing but super clubs are forming due to a variety of reasons: Huge increase in the domestic TV deals and foreign investment in the PL (Manchester United, MCity, Chelsea, Arsenal, Liverpool), unequal TV deals in Spain and Italy (Barca, Real, to an extend Juventus), huge foreign investment in France (PSG and for some time AS Monaco) and a very low TV deal in Germany meaning Bayern are running away with the marketing money.
In the future these clubs will pull further ahead due to social media increasing brand values, US and China Summer tours and due to nearly guaranteed CL money. These clubs will continue to buy the best players, signing the most profitable sponsorship deals and to have sporting success. It will be nearly impossible for any of these teams to feck up. Furthermore these clubs and the leagues they play in will increase their share in TV interest, meaning they will not only increase their value but at the same time decrease the value of other leagues. They will become even more powerful and will be able to get even more concessions from UEFA, leading to an even higher concentration of power.
I honestly don’t care which clubs gets how much money. All I care for is that football won’t come down to only 10 teams competing for all meaningful honors in European football. In order to save the competitiveness of European football I believe the Top Clubs have to be “reigned in”. So what could be done?
- Limiting the amount payable for transfers: this is the weirdest idea I have read so far. I honestly don’t understand it. Transfer money is one of the most important revenue streams for smaller clubs. It literally is a redistribution mechanism which transfers money from bigger clubs to smaller clubs.
- Salary Caps: This is a little bit extreme. But I like the Idea of a luxury tax. In order to make it easier to implement use it only for teams playing in UEFA competitions. Don’t really let the clubs pay taxes, but withhold price money. Furthermore it should not be too harsh (in the beginning). I believe the current wage budget of Manchester United, MCity, Barca and Real is about 300 M€. So put the tax exemption to 300 M€. Anything above could be taxed with 20%. This should not punish the rich clubs, but decelerated the growth of their wage bill. The money could be redistributed equally between all other clubs participating in the UEFA tournaments.
- Squad limits: again do it only in UEFA competitions. There already is squad limits currently so it should be possible to impose limits legally. Let teams have 15 players, plus any number of players born within a 100 Million radius around there stadium. This would reduce the current discrimination against teams from smaller FAs as well. A maximum of 23 Players can be registered for the season.
- Allow and encourage the formation of supranational Leagues for smaller FAs. Smaller FAs have a very small domestic market meaning there leagues don’t generate much money, therefore they lose the best young players to bigger leagues and lose TV audiences with them. Supranational league in Scandinavia, BeNeLux, the Alps, Eastern Europe, maybe even the Balkan could create markets that are big enough to support clubs that can compete with the elite again.
- Reduce the number of possible loans. Rich clubs financing and supporting the development of young players is awesome. But the stuff that for instance Chelsea does is exploiting the vurnerable position of young players and the weak financial position of smaller clubs for high financial gain with low risk. Reduce the number of possible loans out and in to 3 each. I don’t see a good reason to have more. At the same time abolish buy back clauses and this nonsense, which is used as kind of a loan system anyway.
- Only implement these rules for clubs partaking in UEFA competitions, this should make it easier to implement. The clubs will then pressure their FAs to implement the same rules within the national leagues, I guess.
They've taxed themselves in terms of the tv deal, no tax will match the 1b that the Premier League signed away. That's 20 percent of the entire deal.Then what is this thread about if they're already luxury taxing transfer fees ?
Agree with all of these ideas bar the 100 miles radius which I think is too restrictive. 15 players + any number of players who have had their football education in that country (lets say at least 5 years before the age of 21) would probably work better.
About the wage bill, I agree with that, but I think that some special care should be taken for inflation and for the rise on revenue. If a club in two years has a 30% higher revenue than it should be able to have an increase on wages for 30% IMO. I would say that the limit should be a percentage of revenue, for example no club should spend more than 60% of their total revenue in wages. This would protect the clubs from crazy impatient owners and so the clubs won't do a Leeds or Portsmouth.
