Does football need a salary cap?
April 22nd 2008 02:36
Should there be a salary cap imposed in world football? Now, before you all jump up and down and say it cannot be done and the big clubs will oppose it, all I am asking is should it. Remember that “can” does not mean the same thing as “ought”. I am well aware that FIFA attempting to employ a salary cap in a system which has existed for so long without one - what is more, across several continents – would be a diplomatic and logistical nightmare. However, the dominance of three or four clubs in most European leagues (but for the sake of simplicity, I will focus on the English Premier League) makes one wonder if it has all become a little bit silly. Clearly, short of supplying all 20 teams with their own Russian billionaire, the imposition of a salary caps seems the most likely means of restoring some sense of competitiveness.
Firstly, what are the disadvantages of the current situation? The fact that there are consistently only three or four realistic contenders for the title is usually the thing that leaps out at a casual observer. Only four teams (Manchester United, Chelsea, Arsenal and Blackburn) have ever won the Premier League since its inception in the 1992-93 season. This, however, is comparable to the six winners of the NBA (which does have a salary cap) in the same period. The difference is more obvious, however, when you hear that (including the teams that have won it) sixteen teams have played off for the title, whereas only seven sides have finished in the top two of the Premier League. The NBA is actually a very good comparison given the magnitude of the salaries received in that league. However, with a salary cap in place, there is usually a maximum of three players on each side who might be considered “stars” (e.g. Garnett, Pierce and Allen; or Bryant, Odom and Gasol), and the best team is usually the one that drafts good youngsters, builds a solid supporting cast and is well coached. Anyone who has paid even a passing interest to the basketball this year will have noticed how competitive it has been.
Clearly, many people would like to see a more competitive system in the EPL. With things as they are, the richest clubs obviously have the best choice of players. The added disadvantage is that there is then little incentive to acquire young players and build a side, when you can simply buy ready-made superstars (see the sudden improvement of Chelsea). Some have pointed to the success of Arsenal with a young side as a case for the defence, however, their drop-off at the end of the season shows that (contrary to conventional wisdom) a team of champions will ultimately defeat a champion team.
The disparity in quality between the best and the rest is exacerbated by the number of top-quality players routinely sitting on the bench – or in the reserves - at the big clubs (Shevchenko, Wright-Phillips, Hargreaves, Gilberto etc.). Obviously, when a club is playing in four competitions, there must be some room for rotation, and - if you have the money - you would attempt to keep quality high. However, just consider the loss to football of all these players scarcely getting on the pitch, when vastly inferior players are running around week after week in the same league. If a salary cap were imposed, even an extremely high one, it may not prevent clubs loading the pitch with stars, but it might stop the stars rotting in the stands. The inevitable effect would be that other clubs pick them up and the overall quality of football improves.
However, is that what we want? The wonderful thing about the unlimited spending of the big clubs is that we get to see some amazing football. Returning to the basketball comparison, the only time you get to see a similar collection of star players is at an All-Star game or the Olympics (neither of which anybody seems to take seriously). Furthermore, with the necessity of team rotation due to the demands of playing in multiple competitions, a quality squad is required. The standard of competitions like the Champions League (where the big clubs come up against each other) would be severely diminished if they were fielding tired, burnt-out players, or rotating numerous second-rate players through their sides. However, that would be a situation where clever recruitment and coaching come to the fore.
Whatever can be said for the quality of the game when played by the best teams, I cannot go past the unfairness of a competition where the vast majority of teams start the year without a realistic chance. I also cringe at the thought that great players (motivated by championships or money) are sitting in the stands week after week. A salary cap will most likely never be introduced (at least without some kind of amazing goodwill on the part of the big clubs), but I have no doubt that it would be an improvement.
Firstly, what are the disadvantages of the current situation? The fact that there are consistently only three or four realistic contenders for the title is usually the thing that leaps out at a casual observer. Only four teams (Manchester United, Chelsea, Arsenal and Blackburn) have ever won the Premier League since its inception in the 1992-93 season. This, however, is comparable to the six winners of the NBA (which does have a salary cap) in the same period. The difference is more obvious, however, when you hear that (including the teams that have won it) sixteen teams have played off for the title, whereas only seven sides have finished in the top two of the Premier League. The NBA is actually a very good comparison given the magnitude of the salaries received in that league. However, with a salary cap in place, there is usually a maximum of three players on each side who might be considered “stars” (e.g. Garnett, Pierce and Allen; or Bryant, Odom and Gasol), and the best team is usually the one that drafts good youngsters, builds a solid supporting cast and is well coached. Anyone who has paid even a passing interest to the basketball this year will have noticed how competitive it has been.
Clearly, many people would like to see a more competitive system in the EPL. With things as they are, the richest clubs obviously have the best choice of players. The added disadvantage is that there is then little incentive to acquire young players and build a side, when you can simply buy ready-made superstars (see the sudden improvement of Chelsea). Some have pointed to the success of Arsenal with a young side as a case for the defence, however, their drop-off at the end of the season shows that (contrary to conventional wisdom) a team of champions will ultimately defeat a champion team.
The disparity in quality between the best and the rest is exacerbated by the number of top-quality players routinely sitting on the bench – or in the reserves - at the big clubs (Shevchenko, Wright-Phillips, Hargreaves, Gilberto etc.). Obviously, when a club is playing in four competitions, there must be some room for rotation, and - if you have the money - you would attempt to keep quality high. However, just consider the loss to football of all these players scarcely getting on the pitch, when vastly inferior players are running around week after week in the same league. If a salary cap were imposed, even an extremely high one, it may not prevent clubs loading the pitch with stars, but it might stop the stars rotting in the stands. The inevitable effect would be that other clubs pick them up and the overall quality of football improves.
However, is that what we want? The wonderful thing about the unlimited spending of the big clubs is that we get to see some amazing football. Returning to the basketball comparison, the only time you get to see a similar collection of star players is at an All-Star game or the Olympics (neither of which anybody seems to take seriously). Furthermore, with the necessity of team rotation due to the demands of playing in multiple competitions, a quality squad is required. The standard of competitions like the Champions League (where the big clubs come up against each other) would be severely diminished if they were fielding tired, burnt-out players, or rotating numerous second-rate players through their sides. However, that would be a situation where clever recruitment and coaching come to the fore.
Whatever can be said for the quality of the game when played by the best teams, I cannot go past the unfairness of a competition where the vast majority of teams start the year without a realistic chance. I also cringe at the thought that great players (motivated by championships or money) are sitting in the stands week after week. A salary cap will most likely never be introduced (at least without some kind of amazing goodwill on the part of the big clubs), but I have no doubt that it would be an improvement.
| 54 |
| Vote |
Shared on
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Harry
World Art
Sydney Diary
Personals
Video Games
Brisbane Diarystar
Films Found
Zoo Parent
I agree though -- it will never happen.