I don't understand the mechanism.
Wenger was spot on
- Thread starter Crashoutcassius
- Start date
Remind me how much United lost during the pandemic? How about Bayern Munich (who have endorsed salary caps) Ditto Dortmund?
That will then highlight how much revenue the day to day business brings in . Yes some of this loss was due to rebates from broadcasters, but United as an example were losing money every matchday (roughly £4m a game for United or £10m a month on average they were missing out on). They still had to pay for security, travel, maintainence of the ground, hotels, etc etc, but with vastly reduced incomings.
If a salary cap is introduced then it stands to reason that the savings that are made via the salary cap (as thats the point of having a cap - keep everyone in the black) can be passed on to the fans due to not needing the same amount of matchday revenue etc.
Again, I wouldn't expect many, if any owners, to go along with this, but the fans can force the issue quite easily.
And the more people who want to come to the games or buy a season ticket the better it is for the club as a whole.
I am talking about the principle. You pay huge fees for an asset(registration) that can walk away for free. Don't know any other industry where that happens.
Possibly, but we are seeing a few more of them. Kane of course, but Dias and Grealish both signed a 6yr contract and Foden's new contract is expected to be 6 yrs. Newcastle seem to be offering 6 yr contracts to all, albeit they're not signing expensive players. Given that a 6 yr contract was outlandish not that long ago, they are creeping in.
Football is not an industry.
Because they are doing what is in their best interests? Something clubs do all the time.
A club is a business. How isn't football an industry?
Their best interests. No being loyal to a club or fan base nowadays just all about money and you’ve got fanboys saying why shouldn’t they probably flip between clubs as well..
So you are using a pandeminc and zero attendance as a model? Surely you realize that your point is only relevant in the case where attendance is allowed otherwise the cost of a ticket is null for most sensible people. Then there is a limited amount of people that can attend a game and in the case of the clubs in question they are close to the max, so there is no reasonable point to reduce the entry fee, it's also an english issue more than anything else, so Bayern and Dortmund aren't a good example, in Germany attending a game is reasonably priced, if I'm not mistaken the highest season ticket price in the Bundesliga is half the price of the highest season ticket in the PL.
Why would players be loyal to a club or a fan base? They are professionals and seldomly play for a club they support or a club they have a reason to care for. It's also not a new concept, it's been the case for the majority of players since football is professional.
They can't sell now and no one is paying 200m for a player in Jan, when he be can signed on pre contract.
Your analogy is wrong. The human resources can not be viewed the same way as material resources for a company, which are owned completely by that entity. The more apt analogy would be , if a certain high valued employee (say a domain expert , phD, etc) is on a fixed term contract and is prohibited from working in the same industry for a certain period of time if decides to leave before end of the contract. In that case another company may pay the first company a sum for their services , conducting a transfer of sorts. After their contract at the 2nd company runs out they will "leave on a free".
Paul Scholes and Ryan Giggs were..
These are expections, not the rule. You are talking about two youth players who joined what was the wealthiest, second wealthiest club in the world, there is no way up whether we are talking about money or potential trophies. And even then Giggs wasn't very loyal to his initial youth club, Manchester City. Apply your logic to 99% of players, someone that comes from Preston North End academy.
Lots of comparisons between the European football method vs the North American, however nobody is mentioning the biggest difference North American sports have players unions.
Some strong (MLB, NBA) amd some weak (NFL). Either way contracts, free agency, revenue sharing, salary caps (or lack of with the MLB) are agreed upon between players and leagues.
It is not a perfect system but has many benefits.
Lots of non European soccer fans think it is very stupid that each league has maybe 2-3 teams (sometimes 1) that could win year after year.
Some strong (MLB, NBA) amd some weak (NFL). Either way contracts, free agency, revenue sharing, salary caps (or lack of with the MLB) are agreed upon between players and leagues.
It is not a perfect system but has many benefits.
Lots of non European soccer fans think it is very stupid that each league has maybe 2-3 teams (sometimes 1) that could win year after year.
If the new paradigm starts to become problematic for clubs, I wonder if we will see clubs and players negotiate buy-out clauses to get players to sign on.
I’d suggest someone that comes from Preston North End and were good enough would be snapped up with the club getting a hefty fee and not run down their contract, like Jude Bellingham.
So loyalty isn't a thing when the club receive the money that it wants? Now what is the player supposed to do when his club can't agree with the club he wants to join?
Also how many players have you seen reject a move that they wanted and chose to leave on a free?
We’re talking about running down your contract to get a big signing on fee, totally different to a club having to accept a bid because it will benefit the running of the place for years.
You see this is what I hate about modern football it’s all player oriented instead of club. What if a player wants a million pounds a week and runs the club into the ground? Fans still say aw well who cares.
Rooney’s first contract with us was like that. It had stepped wage increases for the first few years.
Yeah, but they’ve willingly walked away from that opportunity.
I get the principle, it was a weird example, considering that they could’ve basically sell him for the same amount of money, only losing his wages in the end. And they would’ve always had that option — maybe not for 200 mil precisely, but clubs would’ve still paid an enormous amount of money to get such a talent one year earlier.
Football tickets are fairly reasonable outside of the London clubs. I paid what £35 for my tickets for the weekend against Newcastle. Compared to Cricket, theatre or rugby that’s a steal.
That's not what he suggested. Rooney had a contract with a fixed end date. Here he suggested that the players contract is automatically renewed based on performances with predetermined terms, the point being that the player can't be free unless he "underperforms".
You do understand that clubs are also businesses that operate tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars and, well, economically exploit the fans? Why should they get benefits? Would they let loyal fans for free?
It's relative compared to other countries tickets are overpriced even outside of London, but London is definitely on a different level.
Wonder what he thought of Real Madrid's Mbappe bid. Football is mental.
The clubs will give more back to the fans than any greedy footballer will that’s for sure.
Sure but it’s always going to be based on the local economy and demand to some extent. We’re quite lucky Utd still charge a reasonable price considering the demand.
The German clubs throw in public transport with your ticket price which is a nice touch too.
This makes no sense, you are not addressing the questions. Why should a professional player be loyal, is loyalty a byproduct of being employed and is it eternal? As for your question about a player wanting 1m pounds a week, the club that can't afford it has a very easy way to not be in trouble, not offer 1m£/week, it's the same logic than almost all clubs not offering 200k£/week to Maguire, they can't afford it and therefore don't.
That's my point, the issue that the other poster mentioned isn't a football problem it's a local problem, an english and as you specified a London problem. Unless London lose population and people that can afford current season tickets, there is no business arguments for owners to reduce prices, regardless of how much they reduce expenses.
Why would you be loyal to money?
The overall financial package for clubs that can offer to players is the same. Back then is transfer fee + wages + sign on fee + agent fee and with the expectation of sell on value for younger players. Now it is just without transfer fee, the sell on value and only 4 years of service. Clubs will plan accordingly and market will adjust. What Haaland and Raiola did with a reasonable release clause option in his third year is extremely smart. He can move club if he wishes and the club can still get a fee and make 3 times the profit instead of losing him for nothing. Win win situation for all parties involved.
However the issue is lots of small club can only survive by selling their best players to bigger clubs. Transfer fee is a big income for them.
However the issue is lots of small club can only survive by selling their best players to bigger clubs. Transfer fee is a big income for them.
Wage caps are a nice idea, but the feasibility went out the window when we allowed oil states to buy clubs. Sport without proper competition isn't worth a shit and when you have a couple of the richest clubs easily able to sidestep the rules everyone else has to abide by, the idea of competition will be a farce.
Yep that's legitimate to look into it. But most want the player should be slave for their club. That's not going to happen. Make player happy and pay what they deserve also give them the environment to win. No one will complain.
Wenger talked lot of sense but not this one. He got paid handsomely while managed arsenal but complained about players want more money. That's not go well with any player.
Pogba raiola case he got paid well but he will show el as only medal in his prime played for man utd. That's why he wanted to go.
What is that supposed to mean? You brought loyalty into it when the only link that player definitively with their club is an employment relationship, the clubs pays for players labor and if the player believe that his labor is worth more than he will leave. You don't get loyalty just because you paid someone which is why I asked you why professional players should be loyal, similarly a cook is likely to leave his current employer if an other one offers him better conditions.
because it wouldnt be legally enforceble
It is just a job after all and players want to switch jobs for different reasons. The ridiculously high transfer fee nowadays prevent players to do that so they have no choice but to run the contract down. Raiola offered a solution but not every club can accept it yet. If the player is happy he will stay, just like any employee out there in every company. If the company wants to keep his best employee, they pay up to keep them.
That’s an extremely heartless way to explain football, when football is built on passion and loyalty, you think it’s just fine for a player to run down a contract and walk then to get the most money he can? Then I think why even bother with it.
Yep so why they wanted to move on. Money, security for future,play time and medal all are important to players. But mostly fans wanted players should put their head down and work for their club. Only slaves could do that. Not multi millionaire players. They will do whatever they want.They hold all the power and rightly so.
it is absolutely fine but you can think otherwise.