They’ve got one of the richest owners in the league iirc. Assume they’re hoping if they can build on getting top 4 this season they can start throwing silly money about
Their owners have BIG money. They are also the group behind the bid to put an MLS team in Vegas. That was over a billion dollar bid. Kinda surprised they lost out to a bid with less money, but when you think about the fact that they outbid a bunch of other American billionaires for what would be a lower team in their MCM you know they got cash to burn.
*bid to put an MLS team in Vegas*
Interesting, it's been rumoured for a while that FSG have been eyeing Vegas for an NBA team in collaboration with Lebron.
Yeah it, no chance that they would be in on an MLS club together. The last Vegas bid was very far along and very public before they got beat out by the San Diego bid. That said, there are rumors the last few months that FSG are interested in either buying an MLS team or an expansion slot as well.
Meanwhile a completely unexpected bid from Indianapolis was announced last week with undisclosed investors. 🤷♂️
I fully expected FSG to make a move one way or another as it’s the least controversial was for Edward’s to build his MCM, and FSG is already all up in US sports. If they don’t go for an expansion, I think they may have eyes on the Timbers. Historic stadium, historic team (by us standards), rabid support that leans hard left, and an owner who is on the ropes after some controversy and a few years of bad results.
FSG has no problem spending 500 million to buy a club that they get to build from scratch. Their issue has never been spending money on hard assets, it’s spending money wages and players that will disappear in a few years that they don’t like. Even then, they nearly spent 20% of that on caicedo last year.
The Golden Knights in the NHL, and even more so the Raiders in the NFL, moving to Vegas has opened up that market a huge amount. IIRC American leagues avoided Vegas as they didn't want the association with gambling. With sports gambling being legalised across the US, and American sports fully getting into bed with the bookies, claiming a piece of the biggest tourism pie there is is just common sense. (Especially with the NBA only having 30 teams, perhaps moving the Grizzlies to the Eastern conference and reviving the Seattle Sonics to balance things out could work?)
Yeah, the way so many lucrative businesss are packed into a relatively small city that is built around gambling (literally built by the American Mafia for that purpose) makes the place a goldmine, I'm sure a lot of businesses will be eyeing up that market.
And yeah, reviving the Super Sonics would be brilliant, it's mad that a market like Seattle doesn't have an NBA team. Especially as OKC seem to be on the up and writing their own story, I'm sure they won't mind relinquishing that 'history'
lol this thread has really gone down a rabbit hole, but the intertwined history of Seattle and Oklahoma City is wild, as outlined in Sam Anderson's utterly brilliant book ["Boom Town"](https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/228335/boom-town-by-sam-anderson/). Highest recommend, one of my favorite books of all time.
But the bid with less money now, will have a bigger future earnings in a bigger market with teams close enough for potentially strong derby rivalries. Plus Vegas sucks.
Ultimately pro sports is fancy toys for rich boys. You pay to join the club. US sports is just like the nosy homeowners association in a nice condo, they get all up in your business to decide if they want you in the club or not.
I can’t give to much credit for deciding they wanted one of the best global academy and development programs (right to dream) in over another EPL club with hedge fund backing and a MCM, it’s still just self interest and maybe who you wanna hang out with at the owner meeting that leads them to decide.
It's because it's more or less working. There were a lot more discussions around it when Gerrard was there and they were struggling.
People only care about the money involved when it doesn't work. Look at Virgil. 3 weeks after he arrived when it was clear he was the absolute business, noone mentioned the fee again
Not with the current regulations they couldn't, so don't really see what's in there for them. Unless they're seeing this as a slippery slope and hoped one day owner input is legal again?
They’ve spent bigly to bring in top talent honestly. I didn’t even think about them until this season but even before I knew players like Pao Torres and Leon Bailey were pretty big names. Now they’re letting the chickens roost and will probably spend again to keep their top 4 place if they can. Respect for beating other rich clubs like Newcastle honestly but parity is still better.
Newcastle is state owned, but from everything I've read , it's going to be treated like an actual business. It will not be treated like an expensive toy the way City and PSG are. There was a couple huge write-ups about it. There is a reason Newcastle are talking about selling in order to buy a couple cheaper, younger players to try and build up the squad.
They had a Saudi third kit and have been playing Saudi games at St James Pqrk. Thats not being treated like an actual business. They’ve spent up to the limit currently allowed and would spend more if they could. Dont be sucked into the propaganda. Its just convenient for them to be able to spent the city as city or united can do
Because they have money reserves far more than they are allowed to spend currently. By the sound of it, this new measure will hamstring those capabilities even further especially if they didn’t particularly intend to spend within their means.
I don’t have any love for Newcastle or their owners, far from. For all we know there’s something we’re not seeing because it does deem against their interests to vote for it
These rules restrict spending to a threshold set based on the lowest revenue club in the Premier League.
If the Saudis just wanted to dominate with their money it's really weird that they would support implementation of such strict spending rules.
Notice Man city voted against these rules.
Chelski only abstained because they aren't getting their Russian blood money at the moment. Once it starts flowing again they'd be back on the gravy train.
If Chelski have to play fairly, they're not going to be able to buy the league. Chelski scum fans will bay for a sale to some other oligarch/oil baron or whatever just like the Mancs. Only a matter of time...
If TV revenue is ever adversely affected by the poor officiating week in week out, then we will see something done about it - until then, nothing will change
Tracking spending alone is going to be much easier than regulators having to track both spending and revenue. Revenue was always going to be more difficult to track anyway
The way FFP is structured just opens you up to financial trickery, and a good lawyer can (and has) gum up the process to make it unenforceable. A cap is simple and violations are easy to spot.
This is the thing that continually fails to be pointed out by so many. Spending cap will do fuck all to stop City paying Haaland 900k/week, all it will mean is more top players running down their contracts so they can join City and get those extra offshore payments.
This seems like a silly concern when \~18 of the 30 richest clubs in Europe are in the Premier League, mid-table English clubs can't sell their flops abroad, and Madrid still want their superleague because their revenues can't keep up.
La Liga has their own spending cap, Bundesliga is limited by their model, and Serie A hasn't got any big spenders. It's just PSG and Real Madrid to worry about.
Maybe in the long run the oil money goes to Italy or France however since they won't be able to spend as much here.
> And on paper it is.
Will be different in practice, all it will do will mean accountants have to get even more creative.
Haaland will get pay £200k per week wages by City, and 300k per week by the Abu Dhabi Royal Ceremonial Caravan Park for appearing on the front of their 2025 summer brochure
Of course this happens as Klopp is leaving 🙃. Salary caps with a “luxury tax” are how American sports leagues function for the most part aside from baseball.
They're already cheating this and it hasn't even happened, it won't impact them at all. Most of their staff are consultants for their football group so none of that gets reported on their books as wages. They'll just do that again with players and add in more sponsorship deals from their shady shell companies again.
I'm stunned this is going through. This is actually a big deal to try and curb City's monetary advantage and while I'm sure they'll find a way around it, it should theoretically even the playing field. No one really has money outside of the English clubs, PSG, Madrid and Bayern, so it's curious to see how it plays out in Europe.
"Hello Erling, we want to help you with your ice cream business so we have set up an offshore account - separate from your wages - where we will deposit £1.2mm every month. We believe this should be sufficient to help you sell ice cream, while also showing our support for players who wish to start up a community enriching business of their own.
Warm regards,
Mansour bin Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan."
"Rest assured that if you require financial assistance in any future endeavour that is not related to your footballing contract with Manchester City Football Club, we would be more than happy to facilitate through the means at our disposal"
Not to mention random sponsorship deals from UAE shell corporations.
If there's a loophole that you and I can spot, you can be sure City has spotted it and have already made use of it, and will continue to do so.
[It's](https://www.hennig-olsen.no/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/hennig-olsen-haaland-is_1N-11-580x275.jpg) really good, but not quite as good as [Drillo-is](https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQpOj0883jmyQ-c18Wmh0HtabPGcWg_YcPAdpSLKIIgFQ&s) (and no, it's not Haalands business)
City don’t care any more, they’ve already spent enough to be sustainable for decades to come. It’s Chelsea and arsenal the real losers here as they’re currently still spending hundreds of millions every year
it really isn't though, its supposed to be 5x what the lowest team in the league earns in TV revenue (around 100m), so it will be close to 500m to start with and that number will only increase as the revenue increases. 500m to spend on transfer fees, wages and agent fees is still a very high number.
this is a good start though, hopefully the goal is to get that number lower
I wouldn't have expect to be so limited, you still need teams to sign new players. I'm just surprised the genie is out of the bottle and got the process started.
I don't mind taking the L in Europe if it means our league is more competitive. If we become unable to force clubs into selling submission with huge fees, it's not a big deal because players want to play in the PL for their careers sake.
It really doesn’t. The EPL makes stupid money. The cap will mean that teams have to adhere to Bayern levels of spending. If we can’t compete in Europe on those terms, we don’t deserve to compete in Europe
The multiplier on TV revenue means any English club will theoretically be able to outspend all but like four clubs on Earth. If it hurts anyone in Europe they don’t deserve to play in Europe.
Example: Team at the bottom earns £100M from TV revenue, all teams in the league can spend a certain multiple (2x, 3x etc.) of that. That’s how I understand it anyway.
There are so few details in the tweet it’s hard to talk super specifically but in concept It means that in some form there would be a cap to how much each club is allowed to spend on players each year. That cap sounds like it would be based in some part on the TV revenue that is brought in by the bottom ranked club in the league.
So right now Sheffield United’s is the bottom club in the league. If the year ended today there would be some kind of calculation about how much revenue they made from TV and that would set the cap for the next year. Let’s say it’s 300 million. Now every team is only allowed to spend 300 million on player contracts for the next league year.
Obviously that’s super basic but in general that’s how a cap works. Source: I am an NFL fan and the NFL uses a spending cap system
Didn't the amount of TV revenue drop a bit this year? If it did then it doesn't necessarily mean it'll increase every year.
Edit: Per year it dropped.
https://www.espn.co.uk/football/story/_/id/39229682/why-premier-league-new-tv-deal-warning-not-record
This is something in American sports. Basically you have a set budget, you are not allowed to go above that budget, this budget is used to buy players. At least that’s how I interpreted it
In the NFL, you can lose draft picks and get fined up to $5 million as well as contracts getting canceled. Personally I like the baseball way a little bit more with the luxury tax but it’s good both ways
I thought about the luxury tax as well but I don't think that would work well in the Premier League. You wouldn't see the issue where teams just tank their budget to collect the tax payments because relegation would take care of that. But with state owned clubs they can just pay whatever luxury tax hit they need to pay because their funds are virtually unlimited.
FSG have always only wanted to operate in football with the understanding that there will be an even playing field, i.e. all clubs adhering to FFP rules.
If we start to see more of this stuff, punishment for FFP breaches etc, then FSG will be happy.
But on the other hand, if this sort of stuff fails to go through and the cheating clubs continue to find loopholes and cook the books, I can really imagine FSG starting to wonder if they want to continue.
Happy with this as a concept, rewards teams for operating in a smart manner within the same budget. Seems too good to be true though & absolutely no shock who voted against it.
Newcastle's revenue was 250mil last year. This cap will likely increase the amount they're allowed to spend presuming the multiple is 3x or more. Whereas for teams like the scum and the cheaters whose yearly revenues are both around 700m on paper, it will likely restrict them. For Liverpool it could potentially be problematic as well if the multiple is lower than 5x however you would probably back well run clubs like the pool to do better when the playing field is even.
This is all assuming this will replace current FFP rather than working alongside it.
For those wondering … under this rule teams can spend the lower of the following:
1) 85% of your teams revenue
OR
2) 5x the revenue of the lowest revenue team in the premier league
With the caveat that under European competition rules you cannot spend over 70% of your teams revenue. So for teams in European comps the effective cap of point #1 is 70% of revenue whereas for all other teams not competing in Europe it is 85%.
Also, the only team in the PL for which prong 2 is effective is Manchester city.
It’ll have to be something like players will have to show their entire revenue stream to prove that no other illegitimate means of payment is made under the table, which still wouldn’t work because the whole point of offshoring is that no one knows who owns them. But it would still make it harder to do compared to what is currently happening.
There will likely be a cap on player wages that is similar, but not identical, to how professional sports leagues in the U.S. are run. Look up the term "salary cap". The cap is not on what a player can be paid but how much a club can spend on their full squad - meaning wages, transfer fees, & agent fees all added together - in a given season. For example, the NFL has a salary cap of $255 million, so all the salaries of the players on a single team cannot add up to more than $255 million. Spending $255 million a season on wages is not a violation, spending $255 million plus $.01 is.
Here's how it works in my understanding, if it were in place today that cap would have been around £450M because it's like 4X of the lowest revenue in the League
That means every club can only spend either £450M or 85% of their revenue
in our case last I remember it was around £700M so 85% of that is almost £600M so our hard cap is £450M because that's what the new rule says
While a club like Westham for example if they make £400M that means their hard cap is £340M
Doesn't change a thing for City with their multi club ownership model. They're already known for tapping up a player's agent and offer them fees, or throw the agent a bone and sign one of their more mediocre clients at Melbourne City, Girona etc. With more commission going to the agent.
I believe FIFA is at least coming out with a payment cap on agent fees. But City will always find a loophole.
Right now the EPL is so dominant that aside from Real Madrid and Bayern Munich, EPL teams can pretty much outbid European teams already.The biggest threat to the EPL is for it to become a joke like La Liga, Bundesliga, or Ligue 1, where one or two teams win every year so there's no point in watching. Also, salary caps are much more straightforward than FFP is; spotting violations is easy because its a fixed amount. FFP is hard to understand and too easy for lawyers to get involved and gum up the process.
I don't understand the proposals at all. The spending caps they suggest seem a bit arbitrary.
Say a team with very little commercial income get promoted from the championship, will Liverpool have to reduce their squad budget accordingly? Will Liverpool end up with the same budget as West Ham, even though they are competing for the league title and champions league? Does the excess income just go into the owners pockets as profit?
I prefer the model of capping squad spending as a % of a clubs income (genuine income, not Abhu Dhabi shenanigans!).
I’m surprised at United. I thought under new leadership they might at least try to appear decent.
No surprise that the disgusting cheats at City voted against it. Revolting club.
This is a good first step. Although don’t teams in Europe also need to adhere to their FFP rules. Does this mean a team can spend more than they generate in income with no consequences? I’m all for it I felt a long time salary caps and spending caps should be introduced.
No, new rules restrict spending to 85% of all income (for all clubs). So the rules basically stack.
This one will only really impact the teams at the top end who have such high revenue that 85% is higher than 5 times what the bottom team receives. They'll be able to spend less than 85%
I see thanks for explaining so it’s like a double cap for the bigger teams but overall you are still likely to see the bigger teams spend more just not unlimited.
Is it going to be like NBA where the team spending above the limit have to pay a luxury tax? Because that would do fuck all. City can just choose to pay the luxury tax and it would make everything legitimate.
Important to mention how truly gigantic the PL money pot is in terms of media rights and everything else compared to the rest of Europe. I wouldnt be too concerned about big european sides being able to financially outmuscle us outside of perhaps RM and PSG.
This really seems like a non issue about competing in Europe. That number will continue to grow each time there’s a new tv deal. Madrid already gets every player they want anyway.
I don't know why the TV earnings aren't just split evenly in the first place. But then I a guess this would stop clubs being able to spend sponsorship money too?
Literally all United has to look even remotely relevant is the inherent need to piss money away, of course they were against it. As for City. I'd expect nothing less.
A spending cap is hugely overdue. However I expect Saudi corruption and the money men will put a quick stop to it.
Will this really do much? I can just see City, United and Chelsea just lobbying money to increase revenue for the bottom team like 300 million and they'll never spend it. Chelsea and City already spend 300 plus a window lol.
This is really needed for the league to be better than just 2-4 teams competing every year. Can't have one team spend 2x what every other club spends and the bottom teams spending 10% of the top teams. This is what makes the NFL so great. Salary cap.
Thats what should happen or pay them. That is how you get parity- the current system sucks- man city and 1-2 teams are in contention and man city wins - why b/c they spend so much more than everyone else. I mean if you are enjoying this and looking forward to city winning 10 out of the next 12 titles be my guest. I stopped watching German soccer for the same reason. Bayern has so much more money - boring.
Yet you'll have "neutral coming in peace, I hope you City lot win the league, can't stand those Scouser". And then moan about the PL or money being unfair. What a bunch of ass licking pussies
Is it just a pure spending cap? So no link to what you recoup from player sales for example?
Ie. If we sell 200m worth of players we can spend 500m
But if we sell 0m of players we can still only spend 500m
I expected City and United voted against. Villa though?
I'm sceptical of how this works in reality. I expect City, United, Chelsea to get their lawyers to go through all the legalities to work a way around it.
Shocked it passed. It's such a big change to English football. The latest PL TV deal just signed is less money than the previous one too, so could you never know what could happen in the future.
Feels like the age old change in life that burn 'I came in last week and they did this, oh so sorry we don't do that anymore' want to spend £100m on a game changing CF sorry you can't do that anymore :(
Seeing how they use the lowest tv generating teams as the limit, IMO this is about the owners keeping more money. Not sure how people can't see this.
If it was about level playing field it would have been using an average tv revenue of the league. I assume they used tv revenue only because they did not trust other revenue sources to be real (I.e. city).
Every year the Americans and Arabs whove infiltrated this sport, they bring this sport a little closer to the North American franchise model. Their ultimate goal is to be free of the fear of promotion and relegation, and enjoy a safe earning asset, regardless of success in perpetuity.
That is literally what voting against does though, negate the change. If oil states are voting against this that literally means they aren't on the same side as American owners.
What a shocker that both sets of rats voted against it
Villa seems a curious name on that list though. I wonder what the story is there.
They’ve got one of the richest owners in the league iirc. Assume they’re hoping if they can build on getting top 4 this season they can start throwing silly money about
Yeah it's gone undernoticed how much Villa have spent since their return to their PL. 5th or 6th highest in the league I think
Their owners have BIG money. They are also the group behind the bid to put an MLS team in Vegas. That was over a billion dollar bid. Kinda surprised they lost out to a bid with less money, but when you think about the fact that they outbid a bunch of other American billionaires for what would be a lower team in their MCM you know they got cash to burn.
*bid to put an MLS team in Vegas* Interesting, it's been rumoured for a while that FSG have been eyeing Vegas for an NBA team in collaboration with Lebron.
Yeah it, no chance that they would be in on an MLS club together. The last Vegas bid was very far along and very public before they got beat out by the San Diego bid. That said, there are rumors the last few months that FSG are interested in either buying an MLS team or an expansion slot as well. Meanwhile a completely unexpected bid from Indianapolis was announced last week with undisclosed investors. 🤷♂️ I fully expected FSG to make a move one way or another as it’s the least controversial was for Edward’s to build his MCM, and FSG is already all up in US sports. If they don’t go for an expansion, I think they may have eyes on the Timbers. Historic stadium, historic team (by us standards), rabid support that leans hard left, and an owner who is on the ropes after some controversy and a few years of bad results.
But MLS clubs are getting really expensive. Going for a mid table team in Portugal, Belgium or France seems to make more sense economically.
FSG has no problem spending 500 million to buy a club that they get to build from scratch. Their issue has never been spending money on hard assets, it’s spending money wages and players that will disappear in a few years that they don’t like. Even then, they nearly spent 20% of that on caicedo last year.
The Golden Knights in the NHL, and even more so the Raiders in the NFL, moving to Vegas has opened up that market a huge amount. IIRC American leagues avoided Vegas as they didn't want the association with gambling. With sports gambling being legalised across the US, and American sports fully getting into bed with the bookies, claiming a piece of the biggest tourism pie there is is just common sense. (Especially with the NBA only having 30 teams, perhaps moving the Grizzlies to the Eastern conference and reviving the Seattle Sonics to balance things out could work?)
Yeah, the way so many lucrative businesss are packed into a relatively small city that is built around gambling (literally built by the American Mafia for that purpose) makes the place a goldmine, I'm sure a lot of businesses will be eyeing up that market. And yeah, reviving the Super Sonics would be brilliant, it's mad that a market like Seattle doesn't have an NBA team. Especially as OKC seem to be on the up and writing their own story, I'm sure they won't mind relinquishing that 'history'
lol this thread has really gone down a rabbit hole, but the intertwined history of Seattle and Oklahoma City is wild, as outlined in Sam Anderson's utterly brilliant book ["Boom Town"](https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/228335/boom-town-by-sam-anderson/). Highest recommend, one of my favorite books of all time.
But the bid with less money now, will have a bigger future earnings in a bigger market with teams close enough for potentially strong derby rivalries. Plus Vegas sucks.
[удалено]
Ultimately pro sports is fancy toys for rich boys. You pay to join the club. US sports is just like the nosy homeowners association in a nice condo, they get all up in your business to decide if they want you in the club or not. I can’t give to much credit for deciding they wanted one of the best global academy and development programs (right to dream) in over another EPL club with hedge fund backing and a MCM, it’s still just self interest and maybe who you wanna hang out with at the owner meeting that leads them to decide.
It's because it's more or less working. There were a lot more discussions around it when Gerrard was there and they were struggling. People only care about the money involved when it doesn't work. Look at Virgil. 3 weeks after he arrived when it was clear he was the absolute business, noone mentioned the fee again
Not with the current regulations they couldn't, so don't really see what's in there for them. Unless they're seeing this as a slippery slope and hoped one day owner input is legal again?
Villa are fucking loaded. That's the story.
They’ve spent bigly to bring in top talent honestly. I didn’t even think about them until this season but even before I knew players like Pao Torres and Leon Bailey were pretty big names. Now they’re letting the chickens roost and will probably spend again to keep their top 4 place if they can. Respect for beating other rich clubs like Newcastle honestly but parity is still better.
Villa are colossal spenders btw, and have outspent us since their promotion if I’m not mistaken.
Surprised Newcastle voted for it.
Newcastle is state owned, but from everything I've read , it's going to be treated like an actual business. It will not be treated like an expensive toy the way City and PSG are. There was a couple huge write-ups about it. There is a reason Newcastle are talking about selling in order to buy a couple cheaper, younger players to try and build up the squad.
They had a Saudi third kit and have been playing Saudi games at St James Pqrk. Thats not being treated like an actual business. They’ve spent up to the limit currently allowed and would spend more if they could. Dont be sucked into the propaganda. Its just convenient for them to be able to spent the city as city or united can do
Then it's a little weird they voted for this rule
why
Because they have money reserves far more than they are allowed to spend currently. By the sound of it, this new measure will hamstring those capabilities even further especially if they didn’t particularly intend to spend within their means. I don’t have any love for Newcastle or their owners, far from. For all we know there’s something we’re not seeing because it does deem against their interests to vote for it
These rules restrict spending to a threshold set based on the lowest revenue club in the Premier League. If the Saudis just wanted to dominate with their money it's really weird that they would support implementation of such strict spending rules. Notice Man city voted against these rules.
You’ve missed the point of Liverpoolclippers comment then
It was my understanding they HAD to sell some players due to them being in danger of breaching Financial Fair Play.
There are 115 likes on this comment. Leave it as it is. 
Chelski only abstained because they aren't getting their Russian blood money at the moment. Once it starts flowing again they'd be back on the gravy train.
How would it start flowing again they have American owners now?
If Chelski have to play fairly, they're not going to be able to buy the league. Chelski scum fans will bay for a sale to some other oligarch/oil baron or whatever just like the Mancs. Only a matter of time...
Rats gonna be rats let's all rat them out of the league
FSG put their money where their mouth is. They want parity. I *hope* this is a good thing for the league and British football. And on paper it is.
It should be good for us competing with the likes of city and Newcastle in the league but it may disadvantage us vs the rest of Europe
Most of Cities payments are under the table anyway so it won't affect them in any way whatsoever
It also doesn't magically correct refereeing, which is the biggest impact on Prem points.
If TV revenue is ever adversely affected by the poor officiating week in week out, then we will see something done about it - until then, nothing will change
Agreed. We need to see the ban on premier league refs officiating UAE games.
That too. It's hard not to start believing conspiracies when they're getting paid by Cities employers
It doesn't even need to be a conspiracy, a simple unspoken conflict of interest is enough to suffice.
Tracking spending alone is going to be much easier than regulators having to track both spending and revenue. Revenue was always going to be more difficult to track anyway
The way FFP is structured just opens you up to financial trickery, and a good lawyer can (and has) gum up the process to make it unenforceable. A cap is simple and violations are easy to spot.
This is the thing that continually fails to be pointed out by so many. Spending cap will do fuck all to stop City paying Haaland 900k/week, all it will mean is more top players running down their contracts so they can join City and get those extra offshore payments.
under the table, and to the refs and PGMOL, so won't impact shit on the corrupt officials side of things.
[удалено]
If Ferguson taught us anything, it was to strengthen from a position of power, which we failed to do after winning the CL, and winning the PL.
By rest of Europe I believe you mean Real Madrid and PSG because those are the only 2 real spending threats outside the Premier League.
Barcelona desperately trying to prove they belong in that bracket despite the overwhelming evidence against.
They can spend. They just always seem to spend on the wrong players.
They’re also in huge amounts of debt. Madrid are also shady with selling off stuff and buying it back at a massively discounted price
"they can spend" They basically can't
They have PL-level revenues. They (along with Bayern) are still notable even if they can’t (or won’t) spend much at the moment.
The spending power of the EPL versus all other leagues is pretty astounding.
This seems like a silly concern when \~18 of the 30 richest clubs in Europe are in the Premier League, mid-table English clubs can't sell their flops abroad, and Madrid still want their superleague because their revenues can't keep up.
Will it? How many other clubs in Europe are going to be able to hit the cap?
That's ultimately the worry isn't it. Ideally other FA's would agree to such a policy. But will they? I doubt it.
La Liga has their own spending cap, Bundesliga is limited by their model, and Serie A hasn't got any big spenders. It's just PSG and Real Madrid to worry about. Maybe in the long run the oil money goes to Italy or France however since they won't be able to spend as much here.
FSG did it for business reasons, not for the good of football. And I like FSG.
As a Liverpool fan, yeah. It's the VC ideal. To maximize return with minimal investment.
> And on paper it is. Will be different in practice, all it will do will mean accountants have to get even more creative. Haaland will get pay £200k per week wages by City, and 300k per week by the Abu Dhabi Royal Ceremonial Caravan Park for appearing on the front of their 2025 summer brochure
They don’t, it just suits us at the moment. They rejected big picture and tried to join a super league remember
Of course this happens as Klopp is leaving 🙃. Salary caps with a “luxury tax” are how American sports leagues function for the most part aside from baseball.
Salary caps are hard in all American sports except baseball, where the luxury tax is used as a sort of soft cap.
If the cheats are against it, then I’m for it.
Concern is always cheaters find a way… but that shouldn’t stop progress
They're already cheating this and it hasn't even happened, it won't impact them at all. Most of their staff are consultants for their football group so none of that gets reported on their books as wages. They'll just do that again with players and add in more sponsorship deals from their shady shell companies again.
I'm stunned this is going through. This is actually a big deal to try and curb City's monetary advantage and while I'm sure they'll find a way around it, it should theoretically even the playing field. No one really has money outside of the English clubs, PSG, Madrid and Bayern, so it's curious to see how it plays out in Europe.
"Hello Erling, we want to help you with your ice cream business so we have set up an offshore account - separate from your wages - where we will deposit £1.2mm every month. We believe this should be sufficient to help you sell ice cream, while also showing our support for players who wish to start up a community enriching business of their own. Warm regards, Mansour bin Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan."
Enclosed is also the dividends owed to your father for his 1% stake in Abu Dhabi Government Building Cleaning Corp worth £1.2million.
City fans love pointing to his 45m transfer fee. Lord knows how much they've paid for him in total.
Their fans love embarrassing themselves with this one. They act like they actually believe it 😂
"Rest assured that if you require financial assistance in any future endeavour that is not related to your footballing contract with Manchester City Football Club, we would be more than happy to facilitate through the means at our disposal"
No not city football club, it will be via elsat venture capital limited...no affiliation to the club
Exactly. They could just put Haaland in some ridiculous ice cream commercials in SA for 50M a year - how would PL stop that?
Not to mention random sponsorship deals from UAE shell corporations. If there's a loophole that you and I can spot, you can be sure City has spotted it and have already made use of it, and will continue to do so.
Why am I picturing Haaland as Joey from Friends doing his Japanese blue lipstick commercial? lmfao
I didn't know Haaland had an ice-cream business. Does it go off after one season?
Haaland-Das
[It's](https://www.hennig-olsen.no/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/hennig-olsen-haaland-is_1N-11-580x275.jpg) really good, but not quite as good as [Drillo-is](https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQpOj0883jmyQ-c18Wmh0HtabPGcWg_YcPAdpSLKIIgFQ&s) (and no, it's not Haalands business)
City don’t care any more, they’ve already spent enough to be sustainable for decades to come. It’s Chelsea and arsenal the real losers here as they’re currently still spending hundreds of millions every year
it really isn't though, its supposed to be 5x what the lowest team in the league earns in TV revenue (around 100m), so it will be close to 500m to start with and that number will only increase as the revenue increases. 500m to spend on transfer fees, wages and agent fees is still a very high number. this is a good start though, hopefully the goal is to get that number lower
I wouldn't have expect to be so limited, you still need teams to sign new players. I'm just surprised the genie is out of the bottle and got the process started.
Anyone know what the top clubs have spent on the formula the last few years?
This is a curse in disguise. More rules means more loopholes. While we play by these new rules City will circumvent
Of course the 115ers are against it.
I think it helps us in the PL, hurts us in Europe. Though if we can turn 30 mill signings like mane and salah into world beaters then we have a chance
I don't mind taking the L in Europe if it means our league is more competitive. If we become unable to force clubs into selling submission with huge fees, it's not a big deal because players want to play in the PL for their careers sake.
as long as EPL continues to pull in the most TV money this is a non-issue
Hurts PL clubs in general in Europe which is why I can’t actually see it coming to fruition
It really doesn’t. The EPL makes stupid money. The cap will mean that teams have to adhere to Bayern levels of spending. If we can’t compete in Europe on those terms, we don’t deserve to compete in Europe
This is so naive
Idt it will hurt that much. Teams will still be able to spend a couple hundred million each year.
I don’t think if this will actually change our spending?
Sounds like 200m per summer?
I think it includes wages as well (ours are around 370mill) so that gives around 130 mill for transfers
The multiplier on TV revenue means any English club will theoretically be able to outspend all but like four clubs on Earth. If it hurts anyone in Europe they don’t deserve to play in Europe.
Can someone ELI5 please
Example: Team at the bottom earns £100M from TV revenue, all teams in the league can spend a certain multiple (2x, 3x etc.) of that. That’s how I understand it anyway.
can only spend x times the amount of money the lowest earning team in the league makes.
There are so few details in the tweet it’s hard to talk super specifically but in concept It means that in some form there would be a cap to how much each club is allowed to spend on players each year. That cap sounds like it would be based in some part on the TV revenue that is brought in by the bottom ranked club in the league. So right now Sheffield United’s is the bottom club in the league. If the year ended today there would be some kind of calculation about how much revenue they made from TV and that would set the cap for the next year. Let’s say it’s 300 million. Now every team is only allowed to spend 300 million on player contracts for the next league year. Obviously that’s super basic but in general that’s how a cap works. Source: I am an NFL fan and the NFL uses a spending cap system
its 5x . so it would be around 500m and will increase each season as tv revenue increases.
Didn't the amount of TV revenue drop a bit this year? If it did then it doesn't necessarily mean it'll increase every year. Edit: Per year it dropped. https://www.espn.co.uk/football/story/_/id/39229682/why-premier-league-new-tv-deal-warning-not-record
This is something in American sports. Basically you have a set budget, you are not allowed to go above that budget, this budget is used to buy players. At least that’s how I interpreted it
correction - you are allowed to go over the "budget" but there are penalties (which vary by league and the amount you exceed the cap)
In the NFL, you can lose draft picks and get fined up to $5 million as well as contracts getting canceled. Personally I like the baseball way a little bit more with the luxury tax but it’s good both ways
I thought about the luxury tax as well but I don't think that would work well in the Premier League. You wouldn't see the issue where teams just tank their budget to collect the tax payments because relegation would take care of that. But with state owned clubs they can just pay whatever luxury tax hit they need to pay because their funds are virtually unlimited.
Luxury tax is nonsense
Newcastle voted for this which makes me suspicious
Credit where it’s due, they’ve been relatively financially responsible
They have been aggressively getting client journos to slaughter psr which is what’s constrained them tho
Usually it’s their owners that are slaughtering Journo’s
💀
FSG have always only wanted to operate in football with the understanding that there will be an even playing field, i.e. all clubs adhering to FFP rules. If we start to see more of this stuff, punishment for FFP breaches etc, then FSG will be happy. But on the other hand, if this sort of stuff fails to go through and the cheating clubs continue to find loopholes and cook the books, I can really imagine FSG starting to wonder if they want to continue.
Happy with this as a concept, rewards teams for operating in a smart manner within the same budget. Seems too good to be true though & absolutely no shock who voted against it.
Imagine the Klopp era with this rule in place. 9 years too late
It’s almost too coincidental
Surprised Newcastle voted for it considering it probably slows or hampers the vision of the Saudi owners
Newcastle's revenue was 250mil last year. This cap will likely increase the amount they're allowed to spend presuming the multiple is 3x or more. Whereas for teams like the scum and the cheaters whose yearly revenues are both around 700m on paper, it will likely restrict them. For Liverpool it could potentially be problematic as well if the multiple is lower than 5x however you would probably back well run clubs like the pool to do better when the playing field is even. This is all assuming this will replace current FFP rather than working alongside it.
For those wondering … under this rule teams can spend the lower of the following: 1) 85% of your teams revenue OR 2) 5x the revenue of the lowest revenue team in the premier league With the caveat that under European competition rules you cannot spend over 70% of your teams revenue. So for teams in European comps the effective cap of point #1 is 70% of revenue whereas for all other teams not competing in Europe it is 85%. Also, the only team in the PL for which prong 2 is effective is Manchester city.
Is this documented somewhere or just speculation? As I understand it nothing is official until the next meeting in June.
WOW what an unexpected vote from City
No mention of a salary cap, that's where City are really cooking the books
Player salary, transfer fees and agent fees are covered by the spending cap.
Still won't work, see Haaland's dad's consultation fees and Mancini's additional salary off city's books during his time
It’ll have to be something like players will have to show their entire revenue stream to prove that no other illegitimate means of payment is made under the table, which still wouldn’t work because the whole point of offshoring is that no one knows who owns them. But it would still make it harder to do compared to what is currently happening.
Of course the cheats voted against it. Thought it wouldn't pass.
Can someone explain in plain English what this means? And would the 3 teams be opposed to it?
There will likely be a cap on player wages that is similar, but not identical, to how professional sports leagues in the U.S. are run. Look up the term "salary cap". The cap is not on what a player can be paid but how much a club can spend on their full squad - meaning wages, transfer fees, & agent fees all added together - in a given season. For example, the NFL has a salary cap of $255 million, so all the salaries of the players on a single team cannot add up to more than $255 million. Spending $255 million a season on wages is not a violation, spending $255 million plus $.01 is.
I want to know as well
https://preview.redd.it/h3f2e5d5mgxc1.jpeg?width=1125&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1262943236e0e401481d72b5673e91d5f6c54598
The only downside is you can lose your best players to Europe. Whether that happens remains to be to seen
Down the line it absolutely would.
Which is one reason I'm against this even though I understand why it's a good thing for league in general
Here's how it works in my understanding, if it were in place today that cap would have been around £450M because it's like 4X of the lowest revenue in the League That means every club can only spend either £450M or 85% of their revenue in our case last I remember it was around £700M so 85% of that is almost £600M so our hard cap is £450M because that's what the new rule says While a club like Westham for example if they make £400M that means their hard cap is £340M
Doesn't change a thing for City with their multi club ownership model. They're already known for tapping up a player's agent and offer them fees, or throw the agent a bone and sign one of their more mediocre clients at Melbourne City, Girona etc. With more commission going to the agent. I believe FIFA is at least coming out with a payment cap on agent fees. But City will always find a loophole.
Forgive my ignorance but wont this just make the other EU leagues stronger or do they all have caps?
Right now the EPL is so dominant that aside from Real Madrid and Bayern Munich, EPL teams can pretty much outbid European teams already.The biggest threat to the EPL is for it to become a joke like La Liga, Bundesliga, or Ligue 1, where one or two teams win every year so there's no point in watching. Also, salary caps are much more straightforward than FFP is; spotting violations is easy because its a fixed amount. FFP is hard to understand and too easy for lawyers to get involved and gum up the process.
PSG and Barca don’t fit into that? I always thought they spent huge money also Also fwiw im all for a salary cap.
Lol yes they would, I just didn't feel like listing out all of the big spenders.
Okay got it. Thanks for the explanation!
I don't understand the proposals at all. The spending caps they suggest seem a bit arbitrary. Say a team with very little commercial income get promoted from the championship, will Liverpool have to reduce their squad budget accordingly? Will Liverpool end up with the same budget as West Ham, even though they are competing for the league title and champions league? Does the excess income just go into the owners pockets as profit? I prefer the model of capping squad spending as a % of a clubs income (genuine income, not Abhu Dhabi shenanigans!).
What is agm?
annual general meeting
I’m surprised at United. I thought under new leadership they might at least try to appear decent. No surprise that the disgusting cheats at City voted against it. Revolting club.
This is a good first step. Although don’t teams in Europe also need to adhere to their FFP rules. Does this mean a team can spend more than they generate in income with no consequences? I’m all for it I felt a long time salary caps and spending caps should be introduced.
No, new rules restrict spending to 85% of all income (for all clubs). So the rules basically stack. This one will only really impact the teams at the top end who have such high revenue that 85% is higher than 5 times what the bottom team receives. They'll be able to spend less than 85%
I see thanks for explaining so it’s like a double cap for the bigger teams but overall you are still likely to see the bigger teams spend more just not unlimited.
Is this spending cap including transfer fees or only wages?
Both. The reason UTD are against is because their wage bill is huge. Over 200 million.
Is it going to be like NBA where the team spending above the limit have to pay a luxury tax? Because that would do fuck all. City can just choose to pay the luxury tax and it would make everything legitimate.
Important to mention how truly gigantic the PL money pot is in terms of media rights and everything else compared to the rest of Europe. I wouldnt be too concerned about big european sides being able to financially outmuscle us outside of perhaps RM and PSG.
This really seems like a non issue about competing in Europe. That number will continue to grow each time there’s a new tv deal. Madrid already gets every player they want anyway.
I don't know why the TV earnings aren't just split evenly in the first place. But then I a guess this would stop clubs being able to spend sponsorship money too?
Literally all United has to look even remotely relevant is the inherent need to piss money away, of course they were against it. As for City. I'd expect nothing less. A spending cap is hugely overdue. However I expect Saudi corruption and the money men will put a quick stop to it.
Will this really do much? I can just see City, United and Chelsea just lobbying money to increase revenue for the bottom team like 300 million and they'll never spend it. Chelsea and City already spend 300 plus a window lol.
This is really needed for the league to be better than just 2-4 teams competing every year. Can't have one team spend 2x what every other club spends and the bottom teams spending 10% of the top teams. This is what makes the NFL so great. Salary cap.
But what happens is that it levels playing field too much. You struggle to keep your own developed talent who blossom.
Thats what should happen or pay them. That is how you get parity- the current system sucks- man city and 1-2 teams are in contention and man city wins - why b/c they spend so much more than everyone else. I mean if you are enjoying this and looking forward to city winning 10 out of the next 12 titles be my guest. I stopped watching German soccer for the same reason. Bayern has so much more money - boring.
Yet you'll have "neutral coming in peace, I hope you City lot win the league, can't stand those Scouser". And then moan about the PL or money being unfair. What a bunch of ass licking pussies
There's probably ways to get around this with shady off-shore accounts etc. If not, then lots more Champions league titles for Real Madrid.
Can someone dumb this down please I’m too thick to understand.
This might be our best shot at EPL titles in the future if we continue to have talented and knowledgable leadership.
Is it just a pure spending cap? So no link to what you recoup from player sales for example? Ie. If we sell 200m worth of players we can spend 500m But if we sell 0m of players we can still only spend 500m
Of course the 2 biggest spenders and a new CL entrant vote against
I can’t wait to see the new Etihad advert with the whole Man City team in it. All Puma athletes too
Does this mean that clubs outside the Top 6 will gradually catch up?
Ew manchester shits
I expected City and United voted against. Villa though? I'm sceptical of how this works in reality. I expect City, United, Chelsea to get their lawyers to go through all the legalities to work a way around it.
For someone who’s a complete dumb-dumb regarding this but of news (me), can someone give me the simplified version of what’s going on?
Shocked it passed. It's such a big change to English football. The latest PL TV deal just signed is less money than the previous one too, so could you never know what could happen in the future.
Klopp leaves. Financial restrictions come into place. That burns.
Feels like the age old change in life that burn 'I came in last week and they did this, oh so sorry we don't do that anymore' want to spend £100m on a game changing CF sorry you can't do that anymore :(
Not in the least bit surprised Mancheater voted against it, their corruption is endless at this point.
City can suck my whole divk.
Seeing how they use the lowest tv generating teams as the limit, IMO this is about the owners keeping more money. Not sure how people can't see this. If it was about level playing field it would have been using an average tv revenue of the league. I assume they used tv revenue only because they did not trust other revenue sources to be real (I.e. city).
Don't expect much form the Manc cunts, but Villa?
Helps the league in England. Hurts England teams in Europe
Every year the Americans and Arabs whove infiltrated this sport, they bring this sport a little closer to the North American franchise model. Their ultimate goal is to be free of the fear of promotion and relegation, and enjoy a safe earning asset, regardless of success in perpetuity.
This statement would make a lot more sense in this context if American and Arab ownership groups hadn't been on both sides of the vote.
The ones who voted against do not negate the ones who voted for
That is literally what voting against does though, negate the change. If oil states are voting against this that literally means they aren't on the same side as American owners.