Salary cap in Football - good or bad?

[BigPete33]

What little I could find on the A-Leagues salary cap...

A-League
The recently established A-League national football competition utilized a universal salary cap of AU$1.5 million for each squad in its inaugural 2005/2006 season. However, each team could also sign one "marquee player" whose salary was privately funded, and not included in the team's salary cap.

The cap has been increased to AU$1.85 million for the 2007/2008 season.

The cap is expected to reach AU$2 million by its fifth year.


Now given that salary caps usually refer to total wages at a club, how could this be implemented in a league such as the EPL and if it could, would it even affect the transfer fees currently being bandied about?

[bennymacca]

salary cap is bloody tricky.

i would say that transfer fees are outside of the cap. does anyone know what happens to that 800 odd grand that got paid for bruce djite or the 1 million bandied about for dodd to kashima antlers?

so you are right pete, salary cap might not even stop the big transfers.

what it will stop though, is the best teams just buying 2 players for every position because they can.

it will mean that these players will be spread out among all teams, making for a much fairer and even league.

but as you say, it would need to happen in every big league simultaneously, or else the player drain will be phenomenal.

salary caps and draft systems undoubtedly make fair and even competitions, but because of the sheer scale of world soccer, i dont think it will ever be realisable. sports like AFL where there is only 1 top tier competition however, it works brilliantly.

[BigPete33]

The AFL is a bit unique - so I'll save that for a separate discussion.

With reference to the 3 big leagues in Europe (English, Spanish and Italian) at the moment, part of the lure to a club is the amount of money a player will get in wages. For some players that's all they give a toss about other than they enjoy playing football. I don't like those players, very bad for the game.

There's also no doubting that some of the players are absolute super stars and are worth every penny. So where to draw the line?

Well, I don't think there could even be just one line to draw which automatically means it's self defeating.

Put a salary cap in place for all of Europe and suddenly everyone is playing in Dubai! That means it would need to be blanket across the globe which would be interesting due to so many different economic climates. This then also raises the question, what does one league in one country have to offer over another somewhere else?

I don't object in principle to wages being capped in order to assist with financial management of a club but good luck implementing it!


The A-league could do it (and has) because it was a brand new league starting up from scratch however they had to include the marquee player clause otherwise NO superstars would ever come here to play and it would be what we all don't want it to be, and that is a retirement ground for aging players who used to be good.

The positive thing is that they are at least increasing the cap every year which seems to be fairly responsible in that it allows the clubs to grow but not too quickly which keeps them within their means.

[bennymacca]

yeah, because soccer is a truly world game, it would be practically impossible to impose a salary cap at the top tier. (A-league can do it because they aren't really in the business of attracting genuine top class players)

btw pete, NPLSA debating team FTW!!

[BigPete33]

hehe not wrong.

OK.. let's go back to the current model of the AFL which does have a salary cap and as far as I can tell it 'works' for the circumstances present in this country.

So, what's the limit per club and is it on total wages or maximum wage per player or something else?

Also, given that it's limited to one country, what makes one club more desirable to join than another? Oh that's right, there's the draft where there's largely no choice... or is there?

[Chelsea4thewin]

get a room already guys

[Brett Kay]

Salary cap good and bad.

When the start to factor in endorsements and bonuses and if they lay outside the cap. It becomes bad pretty quickly.

Not to mention what about burdens such as housing and cars?

Think if clubs want to they can find a way around most of it.

But then again we don't know the specifics of it.

[Bacon]

hehe not wrong.

OK.. let's go back to the current model of the AFL which does have a salary cap and as far as I can tell it 'works' for the circumstances present in this country.

So, what's the limit per club and is it on total wages or maximum wage per player or something else?

Also, given that it's limited to one country, what makes one club more desirable to join than another? Oh that's right, there's the draft where there's largely no choice... or is there?

AFL clubs must spend between 90% & 100% of the salary cap, currently $8.5 million. (actually I think it's 92.5%, not sure)

The cap rises each year, so really players can get that increase each year.

Clubs have 42 players on their list. 2 spots can be 'outside' this list for veterans. And rookies (who have a minimum wage)

Any player considered a veteran (over 30 & 10 years at the club) has a portion of their salary removed from the salary cap (1 & 2 veterans 50%, 3rd veteran 33%, 4th vet 25%, and so on).

The problem with the salary cap is gonna happen at Freo this year. They've had a large number of players retire, including a veteran or 2, so they will have a lot of money to pay their players. So someone who is worth $150,000 in the marketplace will probably get $250,000 from Freo, cos they HAVE to spend a minimum amount.

PS - SANFL has a salary cap for $400,000. When you think there is about 35 players probably, they aren't really playing football for a living.

$11,000 average per player, whereas AFL would be $200K + per player.

[bennymacca]

What bacon said

Also, given that it's limited to one country, what makes one club more desirable to join than another? Oh that's right, there's the draft where there's largely no choice... or is there?

the reason that clubs are more desireable often has to do with what the club can offer outside of the regular player payments. clubs that have a significant supporter base can generate more sponsorship money for certain players.

but this is only for the top players really.

mostly, the rest of the players move around according to where they will get the most opportunity to play footy, and how much each club thinks their worth is.

Marty Mattner is a good example. he was on the crows list for prolly 5 or 6 years, and he played a lot of footy but was not really a walkup start. in the last season he played for the crows, he didn't play every game. he could probably sense that he would get limited opportunities with the crows next year, so he asked to be traded - and he went to sydney, where he pretty much played every game, because they had more of a need for a running defender - the crows had plenty of these.

he might have got marginally more from sydney than he did the crows, but i doubt that it was his reason for leaving. brad symes is another one who had no opportunites at Port Power, but since being traded to the crows, has become a good player

in AFL football, it is all about the premership. so this also becomes a strong incentive about where players want to play. i.e if a team is clearly on the rise, players are going to wanna play there rather than a shit team.

[BigPete33]

OK.. so the list is capped at 42 players plus 2 extra spots for either rookies or veterans or there's 42 players plus a possible 2 spots for rookies as well as 2 spots for veterans?


What currently happens when a club wants to acquire a player from another club? Is there a transfer fee involved (ie buying the player) or is it purely down to swapping draft picks and/or other players?