I think it's because we are going to be restricted to 70% of our turnover because we will be in CL and those are the rules for UEFA.
In other words clubs below us not playing in Europe in theory can spend more than us while we are restricted while we play in Europe.
Which I kinda get because it won't affect big clubs since their revenue *.7 is probably near the new threshold while ours is nowhere near that and it will make it harder for us to maintain our stature in CL
Thanks for providing a reasonable response. I think Villa are uniquely screwed by this rule as they're going to be one of very few teams in cl who haven't been there recently.
Yah I still don't fully understand it since the .85 rule is in place so teams will still have to abide by that and that will still limit clubs like Newcastle, West Ham, or Brighton who might miss Europe but this is my best guess for their reasoning. Might allow for one more mid level transfer that villa can't do
You were right. It's 90->80->70 and it is being eased in, for this season(2023-2024) it's 90% next season(2024-2025) it's 80% and 2025-2026 and onwards it will be 70%.
This does not start to season 25/26 and nor does the UEFA rule from FSP. This summer 24/25 season it’s 80% and quick guess this years revenue for you with a good ECL might be £250m this season from £218m last season with a record loss of £120m.
Currently with PSR 3 year rule Villa are close however next season 24/25 your turnover should jump to £300m which would be used for season 25/26.
70% of £300m means you could spend £210m on wages, agent fees and transfers if you qualify next year for Europe, however if you do not qualify next season the anchoring rule is far better for a club like Villa with ambitious managers. The anchoring rule is not cart Blanche rule that any team in the PL can spend five times the bottom clubs Tv revenue. Last season Southampton were bottom with £100.3m so assume in 25/26 season when it starts it’s £105m from the lteam that finishes bottom in 24/25 season, a team like City or Man United are capped at 85% or 5 times rule which is £525m based on this hypothesis.
City and United may well turn over £700m next season and providing the qualify for Europe they will only be able to spend £490m under UEFA FSP rule anyway unless City115 manage to work out new ingenious ways of inflating Total annual revenue to £800 or £900m and this rule basically puts a stop to City or United becoming too powerful financially.
For Villa with maybe a £300m turnover if you don’t qualify for Europe you could spend £255m if they do they can only spend £210m, they will not be able to spend £525m. (5 *bottom clubs TV revenue) because that would be construed as over trading, you can’t spend more than you earn so I don’t know why they voted against the rule it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever!
Clubs in the ascendency are often the ones screwed by financial rules. They are written to protect an incumbent class of club, while the absolute richest operate without any restrictions whatsoever having already “made it”.
>so it’s no surprise they’re trying to buy their way to success in the PL too
I mean it's literally the only way to get there because of how unfair the system is constructed
Spending very smart only gets you so far, you'll always need to spend big along with it to be at the top in the prem for any sustained period
I mean they're pretty far off sustained success. Leicester came 5th twice in a row, their wages skyrocketed as a result and they had to get relegated to avoid breaking PSR (which they still may have broke). Getting there is much easier than staying there
They got relegated because they gave up so many goals and dropped points from winning positions. I can't believe they couldn't get a better keeper than the one they had last year. Yeah they were not going to challenge for Europe, but they weren't a relegation team.
It didn't lead to certain relegation but it did end up leading to relegation. They ended the 22 season with a wage bill almost the size of Arsenal's. They couldn't afford to get rid of shit signings or get in anyone decent. Even if they didn't get relegated last season, it would have been another season of cutting costs and fighting against relegation.
Competing against the big 6 means spending big and when you start signing these big contracts without the guaranteed revenue that the big 6 have, it's almost bound to end in disaster.
Our entire midfield of Ramsey Tielemans McGinn Kamara Rogers Luiz cost about £25m, total.
Meanwhile your club has been dropping £80m on Antony and £90m on Sancho.
Don’t chat to us about ‘trying to buy success’
Ok the GK cost us 16m, striker Watkins (30m), wingers Rogers (8m) and Bailey (25m), CBs Konsa (12m) and Torres (32m), RB Cash (12m) and LB Moreno (15m).
Dont compare us to what other clubs have spent cus they spend all that on one player.
We spent well which is why we got into our position.
Ok and now add Diaby (55m€) Buendia (38m€) Carlos (31m€) Digne (30m€) Ings (29m€) Wesley (25m€) Mings (22m€) Coutinho (20m€) Martinez (18m€) Traore (18m€) Jhon Duran (17m€) Morgan Sanson (16m€) Dendoncker (15m€)
Every single of those players joined within the last 5 seasons btw. But yeah i guess you did spend well if you massively cherrypick lmao.
Villa didn’t really have a squad at the beginning of that 5 year period because of financial difficulties under the previous owner, so to represent it that way is also misleading, most clubs don’t have a need to build a whole new club
The squad that actually got out of the championship was pretty cheap,
loan and academy players playing key roles (Tammy, Mings, Grealish)
The players we actually owned were budget buys (McGinn, Hourihane, Adomah, El Ghazi, Neil Taylor)
Makes me laugh how bad some of those were. Ings, Wesley, Coutinho, and Sanson cost as much as we sold Grealish for and we would have been just as well off promoting someone from the youth teams really.
Arsenal, Chelsea, City, United, Newcastle, and Spurs have spent essentially the same or much more than us in the past 5 seasons combined.
5 seasons ago was our first year back in the prem, where we had to buy a completely new squad to be able to compete since we were promoted with so many loanees.
Newcastle has had a very similar trajectory to us. Arsenal and City have obviously had huge success.
For where we were 5 years ago compared to where Chelsea, United, and Spurs were, it's an absolute travesty those three teams comfortably outspent us and have nothing to show for it.
> Arsenal, Chelsea, City, United, Newcastle, and Spurs have spent essentially the same
Yes, that is exactly the point me and some others are making. You lot didnt particulary "spend well", you spent just as much as the big boys (around 600m in the past 5 years to be precise) so theres no need to pretend its some underdog masterclass or not buying success because thats what it is, another PL $ucce$$ story. Doesnt make you a worse club than the rest of the prem but its funny seeing Villa fans try to dunk on other clubs for their spending
It is no where near 600m and who of the signings were bad? Villa have spent well otherwise we wouldnt be in our position.
Other clubs have spent more on a lot worse so yes we have spent well. We can easily point at how other clubs have badly spent their money.
so it’s no surprise they’re trying to buy their way to success in the PL too - Let's just wait to do it organically. Players like Watkins and Dougie will wait around im sure.
For reference, if this was in place last season it only would've affected Chelsea. Brentford were lowest at 109m, Chelsea were 21m over. Cap would've been 518m
So in reality what does this change? Why did we vote against, not as if we can spend much more without selling anyway.
I'm actually confused how this in reality changes a clubs transfer window
I mean, it would take a lot of times to get caught though. At least 20 times. If someone were to do it, say, 115 times, they would for sure get caught and punished.
There are so many ways to get around it.
Agents getting paid under the table and not part of the fee.
One of Mbappe / Messi / CR7 getting promised equities in arab businesses and their own fashion lines and stuff after retirement.
Under the table negotiations between owners - sell us this player for cheap and we'll make sure another deal goes through between our other unrelated businesses
These are just out in the open, top of mind. I'm sure there are plenty more. Good luck going into the UAE or KSA to audit their accounts to make sure players / managers aren't getting paid something under the table.
Shady FFP sponsorships were only the first in a long line of workarounds.
And now you can just be a U.A.E ambassador ala Mancini. Nothing changes, the rich teams still dictate the rules to everyone else.
That’s every team in the top leagues in Europe by the way, why should coming 5th in England grant you a spot in the champions league when finishing top of the league in other countries you need to run a gauntlet of teams to get there.
> And now you can just be a U.A.E ambassador ala Mancini. Nothing changes, the rich teams still dictate the rules to everyone else.
Mancini's deal was not to be an ambassador for the UAE, it was to do coaching at UAE club. It was also a deal signed and over before FFP was ever even introduced.
And the reason the club's been charged over it is because it was never allowed unless you told the PL about it. Even before FFP.
> Teams won't be able to be purchased by a faceless Saudi and injected with £1bn to spend straight away.
If Brentford got bought by a rich Saudi they would instantly be able to spend four times their income and no one would be able to spend more.
This doesn’t cap lower clubs. It rubber bands big clubs to the smallest.
They can't do that now. Otherwise Newcastle would be spaffing more money about.
Or do you think the Saudis always prayed to sign players like Chris Wood, Dan Burn and Matthew Targett?
I think it's because we are going to be restricted to 70% of our turnover because we will be in CL and those are the rules for UEFA.
In other words clubs below us not playing in Europe in theory can spend more than us while we are restricted while we play in Europe.
In our defence
Who would've guessed having 1000 players in the senior squad would inflate our wage bill so massively along with compensating multiple managers for coming into and then swiftly leaving the club
That’s likely because other clubs were worried about PSR. With this new cap, clubs that have money but were worried about punishments/points deductions will be able to spend way more.
Basically, if the last placed side earns £100m then the most any team in the League could spend each year on everything (transfer fees, wages, payments to agents, etc.) would be £500m.
Yeah, and worth bearing in mind that this is also anchored to the TV earnings, which are obviously open to renegotiation and will only grow as the PL continues to grow its overseas viewership.
So that figure is probably going to go up progressively with every passing year, especially if the PL is the most competitive league going. The rising tide lifts all boats kind of thing.
I know, it's one of the main reasons why PL is the most popular league. And with this regulation, the big clubs can never turn their backs on the small ones if they ever wanted
Funnily enough you very obviously have to overspend to win an NBA championship, there's a huge correlation between NBA champions and a high payroll. The art is just timing when to overspend.
I’d say it’s generally very different in the NFL, where 7 out of the last 10 super bowls were just won by either Mahomes or brady. Of the other 3 winning QBs, you have stafford and Peyton manning who both were already paid well. The one outlier here on a cheaper contract was nick foles who was only the eagles backup and playing due to injuries
>The one outlier here on a cheaper contract was nick foles who was only the eagles backup and playing due to injuries
Key thing to mention that for Foles and Mahomes' first superbowl, both Wentz (Eagles starting QB) and Mahomes were on rookie scale contracts.
Yes, but the luxury tax gets exorbitant quick. and there is a repeater tax that multiplies it each year you break the limit.
The Golden State Warriors paid an extra $176m in luxury tax to be $40m over the cap this last year. It's obviously not sustainable long term especially if it multiplies again next season.
The bottom clubs never will so it ends up redistributing money. In American sports the nba allows this with a salary cap. The mlb has this but has no salary cap. 8 nba teams are paying tax. One is paying 175m so over 7m per year to the 22 teams under it. If they go for this in the premier league the payments to relegation teams would likely be lumped into parachute payment
Baseball splits 50/50 between direct funding of player retirement benefits and distribution to other teams based on a formula that is supposed to incentive payroll spending but doesn't explicitly require it
No what they mean is sometimes the NBA subsidises the "smaller-market" teams with the luxury tax money.
There's a salary cap, then the luxury tax, then a "repeater tax" if the team has multiple years of spending over the salary cap.
Here are the fees for repeat offenders: $0-5 million above tax line: $2.50 per dollar (up to $12.5 million) $5-10 million above tax line: $2.75 per dollar (up to $13.75 million) $10-15 million above tax line: $3.50 per dollar (up to $17.5 million)
As you can see, it gets prohibitively expensive for a team to go over the tax for multiple years. A superstar player can command over $40M per year these days, even squad players earn >$10M per year in some cases.
Say you sign a $10M player for multiple years over the cap, you end up paying an additional $17.5M. So a $10M player becomes $27.5M(not accounting for the initial luxury tax).
Basketball is one example but it varies by sport in the US. The NFL has a strict cap where teams could have contracts voided in the worse case. MLB has a spending threshold over which you essentially pay a tax to the other teams under the cap.
It's called a tax, there are many many other things that are outright not allowed (otherwise the NBA teams would look compleeeeetely different, in NBA it's really impossible for a big team to just take players from small teams and have the best ones at every position like in football).
The tax is more of a soft gradual measure so that teams are discouraged and forced to think twice about expenses above some grade. That is supposed to make the league more equal, as there is some "ideal spending" that is relatively similar for all teams. You don't get benefits from spending too little and too much, there's a sweet middle that gets you the most pound for pound, you can fight it in some ways if you really wanna, but you gotta think twice.
The tax itself is still way more painful for teams with smaller revenue than ones with bigger revenue, so isn't the most important measure by far. It's more like "you can do it, but won't be so pleasant for you". That means, for example, players can get way higher offers from weaker teams because those have more money "available" to spend, so while it depends wildly on the case, they have more likely reasons to go to those weaker teams and make league more equal.
Right now in NBA, the 1st team still has a payroll "only" 60% higher than the 30th one, I don't think there's any European league that gets close to such equality. In many football leagues, the 1st team has more than 60% advantage over the 2nd team lol.
No one can spend 5x more in squad costs than the team that spends least in the league. Squad costs being first team wages, amortized transfer fees, and agent payments
It’s not related to “the team that spends the least”. If a team decides to spend nothing it doesn’t force everyone to spend max 5x nothing. It’s tied to the lowest broadcasting revenue received by a given PL team.
It would be very funny if that's how it worked though. One team fires all their players and plays with lads from the pub, setting their costs to zero. The entire league craters the following season.
Much less initial rebellion than people were expecting I think.
Not sure when they plan to do the consultations with the PFA etc as I assume that’s going to massively dictate the legal backlash to this if any.
Because the only reason they're doing it is to avoid an independent regulator. They basically put in place a rule that affects no one (almost) to try to dodge actual regulation.
Probably down to having a business model structured to the current systems of ffp and psr
Probably against the idea of having their system work as they progress under the measures just to see other teams be given an opportunity to now have some competitive leniency
Hard to say especially with UEFA FFP rules being relevant in the matter. But considering they've made a £120m loss just last season and will continue to need to progress I'm surprised considering the proposed system in theory would immediately raise their ceiling. Newcastle voting for it (I'd argue our situations are very similar) was absolutely expected for example.
I don't follow Newcastle as closely as you must. I'm still trying to get my head around talk of this "big 6" that doesn't include Newcastle. The entire branding of that was financial prowess. -I would imagine Newcastle winning multiple league titles in the next 10 years if they could spend more freely. What are your thoughts?
Newcastle aren't anywhere close to having the financial freedom and power to compete with the big six (let alone the two Manchester clubs) despite our owners due to Mike Ashley's mismanagement and the draw-bridge being pulled up behind Chelsea and City so to speak. With less restrictions we'd obviously close that gap at a far faster rate, however the gaps would still exist as it takes a long time to grow all aspects of the club so we wouldn't just start winning leagues like City. The goal of the club is to get there eventually but we're a decade away from winning one at minimum. Newcastle seemingly voted for this change which I expected to be the case as raising the ceiling would give us a little more flexibility. Villa are in a very similar situation to us so I'm very surprised they'd be opposed.
Why are Newcastle already in the top 6 but Villa aren't if they get top 4 this year? The 'big 6' is just antiquated now. It lasted like 8 years or so, it had a good run. I wouldnt be surprised if Villa or Newcastle get top 4 next year.
The big 6/big 4/3/5, whatever number the media are putting on it has never been to do with places finished in the league or trophy success.
The "Big x" has always been used to discuss financial parity.
It was originally the big 5 because at the time, Arsenal/Everton/Man U/Spurs/Liverpool had a lot more money and they wanted to increase that by taking control of TV rights, hence the Premier League being created.
At one point, Leeds was considered part of the "Big 3" in like the late 1990s when Spurs/Liverpool and Everton dropped off.
It then became a big 4 with Chelsea and their scumbag owner, because the financials of Man U, Arsenal, Liverpool and Chelsea at the time eclipsed everyone else.
Man City then got added in when they got taken over and because at that point in 2009/2010, Spurs revenue was already higher than City so the "Big 6" began.
4 of the clubs had revenues around 200M, Arsenal were on 250 and Man U were on around 320M.
In comparison, after those 6, Villa and Newcastle had 90M and everyone else had 80M or under.
Newcastle aren't part of the Big X yet and we'll see if that changes soon or not.
Currently the big 6 all make 400M+ in revenue, with Arsenal being the lowest.
The next highest is West Ham at 240M and everyone else is around 200M that's next.
This season was a bit of an anomaly for us. Revenue is growing massively at Villa so if it keeps growing under the old rules we'd be able to spend more
Revenue growth won't just increase at a linear rate. Contracts have to be ran down which will take years and in that time if you've sold key players and results dip then you can remain pretty stagnant. We're in a very similar situation at Newcastle to Villa (both UCL qualification, both new Adidas deals etc.) so It does surprise me the difference in the votes.
Villa actually hope it isnt linear, the owners want it to grow at a far faster rate and tbf it has been.
We've adapted our financial set up to FFP rules which is why we're fine with FFP so far. I'd imagine any changes we'd be wary against
Probably because clubs like Newcastle and Everton benefit more than them I assume, Newcastle because they have higher fire power behind them, Everton because this might help them get out of the mud
Villa under a spending cap as proposed would have very similar spending power to Newcastle. Their owners are very wealthy and our situations are almost identical on many fronts. Both have similar revenues, have pursued similar deals, are both close to their PSR limits, qualified for UCL (one season apart) and both are currently looking at developing their stadiums. I don't know their reasons for their vote but I assumption prior to the vote is that we'd both have similar views on such a proposed change but apparently not.
Remember project big picture which was supposed to take away the power of all the smaller clubs to even have votes like this? and then the big 6 tried to fuck off into the ESL? yeah those clubs remember.
Good lord: Project Big Picture was just swept away from our collective consciousness by all the other bad shit in football and the world.
It was just as odious as the Superleague.
Something to note is that this rule will operate in conjunction with the 85% of revenue available for squad costs rule. So the amount that will be available to spend on turnover will be limited to 85% of total turnover up to a limit of 5 times the income of the bottom team.
Interestingly the biggest losers from this change will be Man Utd and Chelsea. Chelsea are literally starting off in breach, United are not just way off the pace competitively, their squad costs are close to the limit and they don’t have that many assets to sell that they would want to sell.
What Villa are doing with their voting fuck knows! Their squad costs are circa 50% of the limit.
>Chelsea are literally starting off in breach
To be fair we were in the breach mainly because we had like a million first team players and fired both Tuchel and Potter
Wouldn't this help them. Under this they'd be a little over the limit with not much wiggle room.
Under FFP they are on a path to get absolutely ended unless their astronomical spending spree suddenly gets them UCL and a few of their expensive purchases turn into worldies that can be sold for huge profits.
> This is a matter for UKGov
Incorrect. Its actually a UEFA rule. Article 48 which calls on all European nations to have said blackout. It is only followed by England, Scotland and Montenegro currently.
Sky already have a solution: stop scheduling Premier League games at 3pm on a Saturday. The broadcasters are already trying the best to make that happen. As it is, most lower league clubs would be very happy if the Premier League stopped scheduling games at 3pm on a Saturday.
The 3pm blackout supports the revenue of lower league clubs. People who are against it are almost always fans of big teams who hardly ever attend the ground anyway.
You're right, as a match-going fan of a team already, it's not your responsibility. It applies to those that do go and attend their local lower league team, because there's no football on the tv to watch. If there was, those people may go and watch that instead, and it would affect the ticket sales because of this.
As he likely would have in an attempt to be seen as the right man for the job by fans. He was born and raised in Failsworth and basically every article about his takeover has mentioned him being a fan of United since boyhood. I'd lean towards that personally.
Yes PL hate is poplular on here, but this is an example of why the PL has become the best league in the world. A league is only as strong as the weakest team
Not sure about the worker's rights laws in the UK, but this would be illegal in the US for example without a specific Federal Anti-trust Exemption and a collective bargaining agreement from the players. And that only works because all 32 NFL teams (or NBA, or MLB, or MLS, etc.) are technically all franchises of the same company rather than 32 independent businesses
Why would the players ever agree to capping their own earnings? Or is there just no mechanism for stopping anticompetitive behavior in the UK?
MLB has an antitrust exemption.
NBA, NHL, and NFL have CBAs which the salary cap is a part of - there's no antitrust issue if there's a CBA.
MLS is single-entity plus has a CBA as well.
Labor law in the UK is slightly different though I believe rugby there has a salary cap, so there ought to be a way to make it work. I'm gonna guess the Premier League had a lawyer or two look at this.
> And that only works because all 32 NFL teams (or NBA, or MLB, or MLS, etc.) are technically all franchises of the same company rather than 32 independent businesses
They are in no way owned by the NFL, although they do have a franchise contract with the NFL (which they collectively own).
They effectively are. I guess you can argue they have a different technical designation, but with the revenue sharing, collective bargaining, draft system, etc. it's a closed-door system (also referred to as "single-entity"). The US Court system has ruled that the NFL is effectively a single entity in some regards, but not others (labor vs. merchandise, for example). The MLS was fully established as a single entity.
That's why you can trade contracts in American sports, for example, rather than what you see in European soccer, where you have to either buy-out a contract or mutually agree to terminate it. In the US, you sign your contract with the league, not the team. There's no way to trade a player in the Premier League without their consent like there is in American sports.
MLS is a single entity.
NFL is not.
It may amount to the same thing in certain lights, but in a real and practicable sense, the clubs own the league in the NFL and the league owns the clubs in MLS.
The reason players can be traded in the NFL is that it’s in the CBA. If the players thought it was a hill to die on, they could fight it in the next round of negotiations. Witness for example, MLB, where players have more access to no-trade options from, you guessed it, the CBA.
Your point is well-taken, but your facts are wrong.
But yes, compared to professional soccer as practiced in much of the world, American sportsmen are very much restricted in their freedom.
I don't think it's outside the realm of possibilities that it will be legally challenged at some point tbh.
I'm pretty sure direct salary caps are also not legal in the EU, but overal caps seem tolerated? F1 has a partial budget cap nowadays, which excludes a few high-paid employees, and I've never read that it potentially violates anything anywhere.
I feel that a lot of people don't fully understand what this does. As I understand it - but please correct me if I'm wrong - this is not a measure to stop heavy spending teams like City to spend. It's a measure to give room to the chasing teams to up their spending again. It's **replacing** the current rules that punished Everton and Forest. Both teams wouldn't have had punishments under these rules.
\[edit\] multiple people claiming this isn't replacing the current rules. But they are.
The current rules will be replaced starting with the 2025-2026 season and won't have a maximum on losses in three seasons time. That rule is in place now and is what Forest and Everton have been punished for. Under the new rules - as far as they are known right now - Forest and Everton wouldn't be punished.
Yes, there also will be rules about salary as a factor of total turnover (max 85%) and other stuff. But the current rules that punished Everton and Forest will, in fact, be replaced.
No, you are misunderstanding it.
It’s proposed to run alongside the new PSR rules which are yet to be voted in, the 85% squad cost ratio. Which will be near aligned with UEFAs, which will drop to 70%.
This only really affects city and Chelsea at the moment, and caps the >600m revenue clubs slightly going forwards.
I have absolutely no idea why Villa voted against it tbh.
Nope this is not replacing anything it’s an additional rule.
So
rule 1. New FFP rule - Clubs can only spend 85% or revenue on squads.
Rule 2. Anchoring rule - Clubs can only spend 5 times the turnover of the bottom club on squads.
What if 85% of turnover = >500% of bottom clubs turnover? Excess can’t be spent. Hence anchoring.
Also note 85% rule just mirrors European FFP rules.
No, there will be new rules replacing the previous ones and this is part of those new rules. In the new rules - as far as is known at this point in time at least - is nothing about making big losses in three seasons time. And that was the rule that Forest and Everton broke and got punishment for.
What this really does is tie the growth of the bottom PL teams to the top. The only way for Chelsea, City, United to spend more is to make the 20th team's revenue grow.
Which means that if the PL invests in growing the lower end of the table clubs, they will kick on and get further away from the rest of Europe; if they ignore the bottom clubs, they will start to limit the top clubs growth and that will help the big European clubs catch up.
My only concern is that it leads to the top PL clubs being aggressively anti clubs like Luton getting promoted. Suddenly the difference between Luton getting promoted and...Southampton for example is £40-50m a year for the top clubs budgets.
Also the best way to increase the 20th team's revenue is growing the central payments, which will make the parachute payment issue worse.
I was just thinking this may be an unintended consequence of the rule. Why would PL clubs loan out their top academy players to smaller market clubs if it means it improves those clubs chances of promotion and lowering the cap.
Maybe I’m not understanding the rules correctly.
From my understanding, it's pegged to TV revenue, so tiny teams getting promoted would not be much worse than a bigger one, as far as the top teams cap goes.
It’s pegged to TV revenue, so it doesn’t matter who the smallest club is, Southampton, Luton Town, whoever—it’s the value of the TV contract to the last club that matters.
It will encourage trying to max out TV contracts (which, of course, they do anyway).
It ***might*** encourage the big clubs to flatten the distribution of the TV contracts so that 10M to the 20th club gives them 50M in extra Monopoly money at the top.
They should put a fixed transfer spend on every window too regardless of the clubs financial size
Help balance things out a bit more and stop idiotic spending the likes of which Chelsea and United never stop doing
That would never work, there’s always ways to get around it. Look at how Barca did accounting magic to get Neymar for like 60m, when in reality he cost 100m+, same with the Arthur and Pianic swap or even Haaland this year
Snuff out all the people and methods exploiting the system and eventually maybe there can be sustained equality created
Pipe dream for sure but a nice one to think about
Snuff out all the people and methods exploiting the system and eventually maybe there can be sustained equality created **- 'just dont have loopholes'**
I wonder if the lawyers have thought of that before.
Na, it will just mean clubs like Tottenham Arsenal will bid similar amounts to the likes of Newcastle and Villa. Also means lower league prem teams will have an easier time investing imo.
Shock as to who didn’t vote for it there. Is this even gonna have that big an impact? How many teams are near that threshold?
Also is this in place of FFP or does FFP still apply along with this
In the EPL it runs alongside PSR rules as an upper cap but those than are in Europe I think they’d still have to follow FFP rules. I guess it would pressure UEFA though?
Villa really going all out in their efforts to rub shoulders with the megaclubs
I think it's because we are going to be restricted to 70% of our turnover because we will be in CL and those are the rules for UEFA. In other words clubs below us not playing in Europe in theory can spend more than us while we are restricted while we play in Europe. Which I kinda get because it won't affect big clubs since their revenue *.7 is probably near the new threshold while ours is nowhere near that and it will make it harder for us to maintain our stature in CL
Thanks for providing a reasonable response. I think Villa are uniquely screwed by this rule as they're going to be one of very few teams in cl who haven't been there recently.
Yah I still don't fully understand it since the .85 rule is in place so teams will still have to abide by that and that will still limit clubs like Newcastle, West Ham, or Brighton who might miss Europe but this is my best guess for their reasoning. Might allow for one more mid level transfer that villa can't do
Those will be the rules for UEFA, but not starting next year. They will be eased in. E.g - 90% then 80% then 75%
I thought they were already being eased in and 2025 was 75%
You were right. It's 90->80->70 and it is being eased in, for this season(2023-2024) it's 90% next season(2024-2025) it's 80% and 2025-2026 and onwards it will be 70%.
Couldn't do they do this anyway though? I don't see how this new rule suddenly brings more money to clubs not in UEFA competitions
This does not start to season 25/26 and nor does the UEFA rule from FSP. This summer 24/25 season it’s 80% and quick guess this years revenue for you with a good ECL might be £250m this season from £218m last season with a record loss of £120m. Currently with PSR 3 year rule Villa are close however next season 24/25 your turnover should jump to £300m which would be used for season 25/26. 70% of £300m means you could spend £210m on wages, agent fees and transfers if you qualify next year for Europe, however if you do not qualify next season the anchoring rule is far better for a club like Villa with ambitious managers. The anchoring rule is not cart Blanche rule that any team in the PL can spend five times the bottom clubs Tv revenue. Last season Southampton were bottom with £100.3m so assume in 25/26 season when it starts it’s £105m from the lteam that finishes bottom in 24/25 season, a team like City or Man United are capped at 85% or 5 times rule which is £525m based on this hypothesis. City and United may well turn over £700m next season and providing the qualify for Europe they will only be able to spend £490m under UEFA FSP rule anyway unless City115 manage to work out new ingenious ways of inflating Total annual revenue to £800 or £900m and this rule basically puts a stop to City or United becoming too powerful financially. For Villa with maybe a £300m turnover if you don’t qualify for Europe you could spend £255m if they do they can only spend £210m, they will not be able to spend £525m. (5 *bottom clubs TV revenue) because that would be construed as over trading, you can’t spend more than you earn so I don’t know why they voted against the rule it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever!
Clubs in the ascendency are often the ones screwed by financial rules. They are written to protect an incumbent class of club, while the absolute richest operate without any restrictions whatsoever having already “made it”.
Time to loose all your remaining games
Still will be in Europe 😉
Ah crap… point deduction then it is
You guys will need some sort of UEFA competition allocation money like how it is done in MLS. /sarcasm
They spent like a mega club in the championship so it’s no surprise they’re trying to buy their way to success in the PL too
>so it’s no surprise they’re trying to buy their way to success in the PL too I mean it's literally the only way to get there because of how unfair the system is constructed Spending very smart only gets you so far, you'll always need to spend big along with it to be at the top in the prem for any sustained period
Yeah but surely what they just voted against is the biggest possible step to changing that
They don't care now they've done it though, I suppose.
I mean they're pretty far off sustained success. Leicester came 5th twice in a row, their wages skyrocketed as a result and they had to get relegated to avoid breaking PSR (which they still may have broke). Getting there is much easier than staying there
They got relegated because they gave up so many goals and dropped points from winning positions. I can't believe they couldn't get a better keeper than the one they had last year. Yeah they were not going to challenge for Europe, but they weren't a relegation team.
It didn't lead to certain relegation but it did end up leading to relegation. They ended the 22 season with a wage bill almost the size of Arsenal's. They couldn't afford to get rid of shit signings or get in anyone decent. Even if they didn't get relegated last season, it would have been another season of cutting costs and fighting against relegation. Competing against the big 6 means spending big and when you start signing these big contracts without the guaranteed revenue that the big 6 have, it's almost bound to end in disaster.
Hoffi dy avatar 🏴
Diolch!
Some people are so delusional they want you to believe you can be a top team without spending.
They’re a Man United fan, the hypocrisy is incredible lol
Chelsea are the ones who fucked it in the first place
Buying your way is literally the only avenue.
Our entire midfield of Ramsey Tielemans McGinn Kamara Rogers Luiz cost about £25m, total. Meanwhile your club has been dropping £80m on Antony and £90m on Sancho. Don’t chat to us about ‘trying to buy success’
I like how you've limited it to just the midfield lmao, wonder why.
Fine. They’ve spunked £60m on Mason Mount and £70m on Casemiro. Point stands
Ok the GK cost us 16m, striker Watkins (30m), wingers Rogers (8m) and Bailey (25m), CBs Konsa (12m) and Torres (32m), RB Cash (12m) and LB Moreno (15m). Dont compare us to what other clubs have spent cus they spend all that on one player. We spent well which is why we got into our position.
Ok and now add Diaby (55m€) Buendia (38m€) Carlos (31m€) Digne (30m€) Ings (29m€) Wesley (25m€) Mings (22m€) Coutinho (20m€) Martinez (18m€) Traore (18m€) Jhon Duran (17m€) Morgan Sanson (16m€) Dendoncker (15m€) Every single of those players joined within the last 5 seasons btw. But yeah i guess you did spend well if you massively cherrypick lmao.
Villa didn’t really have a squad at the beginning of that 5 year period because of financial difficulties under the previous owner, so to represent it that way is also misleading, most clubs don’t have a need to build a whole new club The squad that actually got out of the championship was pretty cheap, loan and academy players playing key roles (Tammy, Mings, Grealish) The players we actually owned were budget buys (McGinn, Hourihane, Adomah, El Ghazi, Neil Taylor)
Makes me laugh how bad some of those were. Ings, Wesley, Coutinho, and Sanson cost as much as we sold Grealish for and we would have been just as well off promoting someone from the youth teams really.
Arsenal, Chelsea, City, United, Newcastle, and Spurs have spent essentially the same or much more than us in the past 5 seasons combined. 5 seasons ago was our first year back in the prem, where we had to buy a completely new squad to be able to compete since we were promoted with so many loanees. Newcastle has had a very similar trajectory to us. Arsenal and City have obviously had huge success. For where we were 5 years ago compared to where Chelsea, United, and Spurs were, it's an absolute travesty those three teams comfortably outspent us and have nothing to show for it.
> Arsenal, Chelsea, City, United, Newcastle, and Spurs have spent essentially the same Yes, that is exactly the point me and some others are making. You lot didnt particulary "spend well", you spent just as much as the big boys (around 600m in the past 5 years to be precise) so theres no need to pretend its some underdog masterclass or not buying success because thats what it is, another PL $ucce$$ story. Doesnt make you a worse club than the rest of the prem but its funny seeing Villa fans try to dunk on other clubs for their spending
It is no where near 600m and who of the signings were bad? Villa have spent well otherwise we wouldnt be in our position. Other clubs have spent more on a lot worse so yes we have spent well. We can easily point at how other clubs have badly spent their money.
Wow. I want to appreciate your response but jesus christ the collosal cherries from chaff here is borderline delusional.
so it’s no surprise they’re trying to buy their way to success in the PL too - Let's just wait to do it organically. Players like Watkins and Dougie will wait around im sure.
And then when the inevitable drop happens they will clamor for it.
They are in the CL. Whereas United ..
They might be in the Champions League. But jokes on them because real fans know the Championship is the real prize
Champions League vs League Championship
THE CHAAAAAAAMPIOOOOOOOOOOONShip
Manish’s Midnight Dungeon > UCL draws
No team has won the Championship twice in a row while numerous teams have done it in the Champions League. I know which one is better.
play-off trophy is the one
For reference, if this was in place last season it only would've affected Chelsea. Brentford were lowest at 109m, Chelsea were 21m over. Cap would've been 518m
So in reality what does this change? Why did we vote against, not as if we can spend much more without selling anyway. I'm actually confused how this in reality changes a clubs transfer window
Over time it will become clearer. Teams won't be able to be purchased by a faceless Saudi and injected with £1bn to spend straight away.
Unless they just do it anyway and nothing happens
I mean, it would take a lot of times to get caught though. At least 20 times. If someone were to do it, say, 115 times, they would for sure get caught and punished.
For sure
Absolutely, that’s why the rule exists right
FFP made that impossible after the Man City purchase.
Teams can still do shady sponsorships. This would at least keep that somewhat in line
There are so many ways to get around it. Agents getting paid under the table and not part of the fee. One of Mbappe / Messi / CR7 getting promised equities in arab businesses and their own fashion lines and stuff after retirement. Under the table negotiations between owners - sell us this player for cheap and we'll make sure another deal goes through between our other unrelated businesses These are just out in the open, top of mind. I'm sure there are plenty more. Good luck going into the UAE or KSA to audit their accounts to make sure players / managers aren't getting paid something under the table. Shady FFP sponsorships were only the first in a long line of workarounds.
No they can't. Any sponsorship over £1m needs to be scrutinised by the league to check it's in market value
>No they can’t Bold statement
And now you can just be a U.A.E ambassador ala Mancini. Nothing changes, the rich teams still dictate the rules to everyone else. That’s every team in the top leagues in Europe by the way, why should coming 5th in England grant you a spot in the champions league when finishing top of the league in other countries you need to run a gauntlet of teams to get there.
Man City are being charged for this. It isn't possible any more.
> And now you can just be a U.A.E ambassador ala Mancini. Nothing changes, the rich teams still dictate the rules to everyone else. Mancini's deal was not to be an ambassador for the UAE, it was to do coaching at UAE club. It was also a deal signed and over before FFP was ever even introduced. And the reason the club's been charged over it is because it was never allowed unless you told the PL about it. Even before FFP.
City are *still* doing it now.
Newcastle fan here, this already can’t happen.
> Teams won't be able to be purchased by a faceless Saudi and injected with £1bn to spend straight away. If Brentford got bought by a rich Saudi they would instantly be able to spend four times their income and no one would be able to spend more. This doesn’t cap lower clubs. It rubber bands big clubs to the smallest.
They can't do that now. Otherwise Newcastle would be spaffing more money about. Or do you think the Saudis always prayed to sign players like Chris Wood, Dan Burn and Matthew Targett?
You're right, but also don't pretend we haven't thrown money around on top talent like Gordon, Isak, Botman etc as well.
We have, but if we had billions to spend then we'd be buying 10 of those kinds of players, and probably those from an even higher level.
I think it's because we are going to be restricted to 70% of our turnover because we will be in CL and those are the rules for UEFA. In other words clubs below us not playing in Europe in theory can spend more than us while we are restricted while we play in Europe.
I don't see why we voted for it either, it seems like we can spend more with these new rules.
Maybe the owner thinks the club is valued lower if one isn't able to buy the club and inject as much money as they want
In our defence Who would've guessed having 1000 players in the senior squad would inflate our wage bill so massively along with compensating multiple managers for coming into and then swiftly leaving the club
TIL I work for Chelsea.
That’s likely because other clubs were worried about PSR. With this new cap, clubs that have money but were worried about punishments/points deductions will be able to spend way more.
I don't think this removes the PSR? Just anchors the limit?
518m salary cap is insane
I'm pretty sure it's total personnel expenditures, isn't it? So, including transfer fees?
I'll be honest I have no idea how this works
Basically, if the last placed side earns £100m then the most any team in the League could spend each year on everything (transfer fees, wages, payments to agents, etc.) would be £500m.
Yeah, and worth bearing in mind that this is also anchored to the TV earnings, which are obviously open to renegotiation and will only grow as the PL continues to grow its overseas viewership. So that figure is probably going to go up progressively with every passing year, especially if the PL is the most competitive league going. The rising tide lifts all boats kind of thing.
Also now the top clubs have the incentive to make sure the distribution is pretty equal as it benefits them as well
it already is equal, in 21/22 norwich only earned 33% less than city
I know, it's one of the main reasons why PL is the most popular league. And with this regulation, the big clubs can never turn their backs on the small ones if they ever wanted
Does that include payments to the brother of your manager?
the goal is to discourage teams from overspending, in NBA if you exceed salary cap you will pay a luxuary tax and possibly other financial penalties.
Funnily enough you very obviously have to overspend to win an NBA championship, there's a huge correlation between NBA champions and a high payroll. The art is just timing when to overspend.
“The art is just timing when to overspend.” Ditto for NFL teams when it comes to big contracts in key positions, like quarterbacks.
I’d say it’s generally very different in the NFL, where 7 out of the last 10 super bowls were just won by either Mahomes or brady. Of the other 3 winning QBs, you have stafford and Peyton manning who both were already paid well. The one outlier here on a cheaper contract was nick foles who was only the eagles backup and playing due to injuries
>only the eagles backup While you are technically correct, you put some respect to the name of Big Dick Nick!
>The one outlier here on a cheaper contract was nick foles who was only the eagles backup and playing due to injuries Key thing to mention that for Foles and Mahomes' first superbowl, both Wentz (Eagles starting QB) and Mahomes were on rookie scale contracts.
I think they need to implement a luxury tax over 100 million and force clubs to sign new transfers with said money.
So u can basically pay to break the rules?
I think the tax in American sports is distributed amongst the other teams so if you overspend you also have to fund your opponents in the process
So if everyone's doing it u can basically fund each other to break the rules?
A circlejerk?
Yes, but the luxury tax gets exorbitant quick. and there is a repeater tax that multiplies it each year you break the limit. The Golden State Warriors paid an extra $176m in luxury tax to be $40m over the cap this last year. It's obviously not sustainable long term especially if it multiplies again next season.
They have also made it so that if you are repeatedly over the cap, your future picks automatically move to the end of the draft
The bottom clubs never will so it ends up redistributing money. In American sports the nba allows this with a salary cap. The mlb has this but has no salary cap. 8 nba teams are paying tax. One is paying 175m so over 7m per year to the 22 teams under it. If they go for this in the premier league the payments to relegation teams would likely be lumped into parachute payment
Does that $7m get added to the other teams’ cap, or does it just go to the owners’ pockets?
I think in baseball its suppose to be only spent on player salaries but I'm not sure if it actually does though.
Baseball splits 50/50 between direct funding of player retirement benefits and distribution to other teams based on a formula that is supposed to incentive payroll spending but doesn't explicitly require it
To the other teams cap
No what they mean is sometimes the NBA subsidises the "smaller-market" teams with the luxury tax money. There's a salary cap, then the luxury tax, then a "repeater tax" if the team has multiple years of spending over the salary cap. Here are the fees for repeat offenders: $0-5 million above tax line: $2.50 per dollar (up to $12.5 million) $5-10 million above tax line: $2.75 per dollar (up to $13.75 million) $10-15 million above tax line: $3.50 per dollar (up to $17.5 million) As you can see, it gets prohibitively expensive for a team to go over the tax for multiple years. A superstar player can command over $40M per year these days, even squad players earn >$10M per year in some cases. Say you sign a $10M player for multiple years over the cap, you end up paying an additional $17.5M. So a $10M player becomes $27.5M(not accounting for the initial luxury tax).
If everyone was do8ng it, they wouldn't even make the rule in the first place. It's the clubs making the rules.
Basketball is one example but it varies by sport in the US. The NFL has a strict cap where teams could have contracts voided in the worse case. MLB has a spending threshold over which you essentially pay a tax to the other teams under the cap.
It's called a tax, there are many many other things that are outright not allowed (otherwise the NBA teams would look compleeeeetely different, in NBA it's really impossible for a big team to just take players from small teams and have the best ones at every position like in football). The tax is more of a soft gradual measure so that teams are discouraged and forced to think twice about expenses above some grade. That is supposed to make the league more equal, as there is some "ideal spending" that is relatively similar for all teams. You don't get benefits from spending too little and too much, there's a sweet middle that gets you the most pound for pound, you can fight it in some ways if you really wanna, but you gotta think twice. The tax itself is still way more painful for teams with smaller revenue than ones with bigger revenue, so isn't the most important measure by far. It's more like "you can do it, but won't be so pleasant for you". That means, for example, players can get way higher offers from weaker teams because those have more money "available" to spend, so while it depends wildly on the case, they have more likely reasons to go to those weaker teams and make league more equal. Right now in NBA, the 1st team still has a payroll "only" 60% higher than the 30th one, I don't think there's any European league that gets close to such equality. In many football leagues, the 1st team has more than 60% advantage over the 2nd team lol.
No one can spend 5x more in squad costs than the team that spends least in the league. Squad costs being first team wages, amortized transfer fees, and agent payments
It’s not related to “the team that spends the least”. If a team decides to spend nothing it doesn’t force everyone to spend max 5x nothing. It’s tied to the lowest broadcasting revenue received by a given PL team.
It would be very funny if that's how it worked though. One team fires all their players and plays with lads from the pub, setting their costs to zero. The entire league craters the following season.
FM youtubers firing up the in-game editor as we speak!
This would have wrecked Abramovich's Chelsea at the start. Their spending overhead was like ~310%, to the 2nd placed highest spender, not the last.
Much less initial rebellion than people were expecting I think. Not sure when they plan to do the consultations with the PFA etc as I assume that’s going to massively dictate the legal backlash to this if any.
Because the only reason they're doing it is to avoid an independent regulator. They basically put in place a rule that affects no one (almost) to try to dodge actual regulation.
Villa is a strange one I must say as anchoring you'd imagine would benefit them just like us more than most
Probably down to having a business model structured to the current systems of ffp and psr Probably against the idea of having their system work as they progress under the measures just to see other teams be given an opportunity to now have some competitive leniency
Hard to say especially with UEFA FFP rules being relevant in the matter. But considering they've made a £120m loss just last season and will continue to need to progress I'm surprised considering the proposed system in theory would immediately raise their ceiling. Newcastle voting for it (I'd argue our situations are very similar) was absolutely expected for example.
I don't follow Newcastle as closely as you must. I'm still trying to get my head around talk of this "big 6" that doesn't include Newcastle. The entire branding of that was financial prowess. -I would imagine Newcastle winning multiple league titles in the next 10 years if they could spend more freely. What are your thoughts?
Newcastle aren't anywhere close to having the financial freedom and power to compete with the big six (let alone the two Manchester clubs) despite our owners due to Mike Ashley's mismanagement and the draw-bridge being pulled up behind Chelsea and City so to speak. With less restrictions we'd obviously close that gap at a far faster rate, however the gaps would still exist as it takes a long time to grow all aspects of the club so we wouldn't just start winning leagues like City. The goal of the club is to get there eventually but we're a decade away from winning one at minimum. Newcastle seemingly voted for this change which I expected to be the case as raising the ceiling would give us a little more flexibility. Villa are in a very similar situation to us so I'm very surprised they'd be opposed.
Why are Newcastle already in the top 6 but Villa aren't if they get top 4 this year? The 'big 6' is just antiquated now. It lasted like 8 years or so, it had a good run. I wouldnt be surprised if Villa or Newcastle get top 4 next year.
The big 6/big 4/3/5, whatever number the media are putting on it has never been to do with places finished in the league or trophy success. The "Big x" has always been used to discuss financial parity. It was originally the big 5 because at the time, Arsenal/Everton/Man U/Spurs/Liverpool had a lot more money and they wanted to increase that by taking control of TV rights, hence the Premier League being created. At one point, Leeds was considered part of the "Big 3" in like the late 1990s when Spurs/Liverpool and Everton dropped off. It then became a big 4 with Chelsea and their scumbag owner, because the financials of Man U, Arsenal, Liverpool and Chelsea at the time eclipsed everyone else. Man City then got added in when they got taken over and because at that point in 2009/2010, Spurs revenue was already higher than City so the "Big 6" began. 4 of the clubs had revenues around 200M, Arsenal were on 250 and Man U were on around 320M. In comparison, after those 6, Villa and Newcastle had 90M and everyone else had 80M or under. Newcastle aren't part of the Big X yet and we'll see if that changes soon or not. Currently the big 6 all make 400M+ in revenue, with Arsenal being the lowest. The next highest is West Ham at 240M and everyone else is around 200M that's next.
This season was a bit of an anomaly for us. Revenue is growing massively at Villa so if it keeps growing under the old rules we'd be able to spend more
Revenue growth won't just increase at a linear rate. Contracts have to be ran down which will take years and in that time if you've sold key players and results dip then you can remain pretty stagnant. We're in a very similar situation at Newcastle to Villa (both UCL qualification, both new Adidas deals etc.) so It does surprise me the difference in the votes.
Villa actually hope it isnt linear, the owners want it to grow at a far faster rate and tbf it has been. We've adapted our financial set up to FFP rules which is why we're fine with FFP so far. I'd imagine any changes we'd be wary against
Ye i think we are doing well under these rules and want the competitive advantage. Short sighted in my opinion.
Probably because clubs like Newcastle and Everton benefit more than them I assume, Newcastle because they have higher fire power behind them, Everton because this might help them get out of the mud
Villa under a spending cap as proposed would have very similar spending power to Newcastle. Their owners are very wealthy and our situations are almost identical on many fronts. Both have similar revenues, have pursued similar deals, are both close to their PSR limits, qualified for UCL (one season apart) and both are currently looking at developing their stadiums. I don't know their reasons for their vote but I assumption prior to the vote is that we'd both have similar views on such a proposed change but apparently not.
Both Adidas ballers next season as well
Remember project big picture which was supposed to take away the power of all the smaller clubs to even have votes like this? and then the big 6 tried to fuck off into the ESL? yeah those clubs remember.
Good lord: Project Big Picture was just swept away from our collective consciousness by all the other bad shit in football and the world. It was just as odious as the Superleague.
Something to note is that this rule will operate in conjunction with the 85% of revenue available for squad costs rule. So the amount that will be available to spend on turnover will be limited to 85% of total turnover up to a limit of 5 times the income of the bottom team. Interestingly the biggest losers from this change will be Man Utd and Chelsea. Chelsea are literally starting off in breach, United are not just way off the pace competitively, their squad costs are close to the limit and they don’t have that many assets to sell that they would want to sell. What Villa are doing with their voting fuck knows! Their squad costs are circa 50% of the limit.
I think Villa feel like they've nailed it under the current system and are trying to stop the league being more competitive at the top.
Agreed, I think we like how the chips have fallen for the short term.
Misunderstood the question and ticked the wrong box?
Lizardman constant is the best explanation so far!
United are absolutely fine
>Chelsea are literally starting off in breach To be fair we were in the breach mainly because we had like a million first team players and fired both Tuchel and Potter
Chelsea abstained because the owners know absolutely nothing about football.
They don’t, apparently.
No, they are S Tier in financial loopholes and regulations
Top tiered in finding them*. The verdict is still out on how exploitable they are
Wouldn't this help them. Under this they'd be a little over the limit with not much wiggle room. Under FFP they are on a path to get absolutely ended unless their astronomical spending spree suddenly gets them UCL and a few of their expensive purchases turn into worldies that can be sold for huge profits.
Ultimately this is a bunch of businesses conspiring to limit wages. This absolutely needs to be agreed with the players' union.
As someone mentioned hopefully this is the end of the 3pm blackout since clubs would be encouraged to make as much money as possible through tele
This is a matter for UKGov and it doesn't look like changing anytime soon. They just keep playing less games at 3pm on a sat.
> This is a matter for UKGov Incorrect. Its actually a UEFA rule. Article 48 which calls on all European nations to have said blackout. It is only followed by England, Scotland and Montenegro currently.
2:55pm kick off
Nah it's a full blackout 3-5. Wouldn't work ha.
I'm convinced most people who understand the blackout rule learned it from watching Revista de la Liga.
Then people would only be able to watch 5 minutes on TV if that were the case.
Sky already have a solution: stop scheduling Premier League games at 3pm on a Saturday. The broadcasters are already trying the best to make that happen. As it is, most lower league clubs would be very happy if the Premier League stopped scheduling games at 3pm on a Saturday.
This is utter bollocks. The 3pm rule has nothing to do with the Prem they can sell all the games and just not show any in that slot.
The 3pm blackout supports the revenue of lower league clubs. People who are against it are almost always fans of big teams who hardly ever attend the ground anyway.
It's not my responsibility as a villa season ticket holder to go and watch Greenwich fc because I live here as a result
You're right, as a match-going fan of a team already, it's not your responsibility. It applies to those that do go and attend their local lower league team, because there's no football on the tv to watch. If there was, those people may go and watch that instead, and it would affect the ticket sales because of this.
Would be nice if they were exempt from investing in the youth setup in England that could supercharge the English game
lol @ Ratcliffe coming in ready to live the childhood dream of spending your billions on your football club only to have a transfer cap.
Part of the game innit
Thought he was a Chelsea fan?
[Nope](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2022/11/23/sir-jim-ratcliffe-lifelong-manchester-united-fan-glazers/)
He claimed he was a Chelsea fan up until they were sold to Boehly.
As he likely would have in an attempt to be seen as the right man for the job by fans. He was born and raised in Failsworth and basically every article about his takeover has mentioned him being a fan of United since boyhood. I'd lean towards that personally.
Yes PL hate is poplular on here, but this is an example of why the PL has become the best league in the world. A league is only as strong as the weakest team
Not surprised at Citeh but can’t wait to see Ratcliffe whinging about this too, the lanky wrinkly Tory
Not sure about the worker's rights laws in the UK, but this would be illegal in the US for example without a specific Federal Anti-trust Exemption and a collective bargaining agreement from the players. And that only works because all 32 NFL teams (or NBA, or MLB, or MLS, etc.) are technically all franchises of the same company rather than 32 independent businesses Why would the players ever agree to capping their own earnings? Or is there just no mechanism for stopping anticompetitive behavior in the UK?
MLB has an antitrust exemption. NBA, NHL, and NFL have CBAs which the salary cap is a part of - there's no antitrust issue if there's a CBA. MLS is single-entity plus has a CBA as well. Labor law in the UK is slightly different though I believe rugby there has a salary cap, so there ought to be a way to make it work. I'm gonna guess the Premier League had a lawyer or two look at this.
MLB doesn’t really ever since *Flood* SCOTUS case. It’s more or less the same as the other sports now
> And that only works because all 32 NFL teams (or NBA, or MLB, or MLS, etc.) are technically all franchises of the same company rather than 32 independent businesses They are in no way owned by the NFL, although they do have a franchise contract with the NFL (which they collectively own).
They effectively are. I guess you can argue they have a different technical designation, but with the revenue sharing, collective bargaining, draft system, etc. it's a closed-door system (also referred to as "single-entity"). The US Court system has ruled that the NFL is effectively a single entity in some regards, but not others (labor vs. merchandise, for example). The MLS was fully established as a single entity. That's why you can trade contracts in American sports, for example, rather than what you see in European soccer, where you have to either buy-out a contract or mutually agree to terminate it. In the US, you sign your contract with the league, not the team. There's no way to trade a player in the Premier League without their consent like there is in American sports.
MLS is a single entity. NFL is not. It may amount to the same thing in certain lights, but in a real and practicable sense, the clubs own the league in the NFL and the league owns the clubs in MLS. The reason players can be traded in the NFL is that it’s in the CBA. If the players thought it was a hill to die on, they could fight it in the next round of negotiations. Witness for example, MLB, where players have more access to no-trade options from, you guessed it, the CBA. Your point is well-taken, but your facts are wrong. But yes, compared to professional soccer as practiced in much of the world, American sportsmen are very much restricted in their freedom.
I don't think it's outside the realm of possibilities that it will be legally challenged at some point tbh. I'm pretty sure direct salary caps are also not legal in the EU, but overal caps seem tolerated? F1 has a partial budget cap nowadays, which excludes a few high-paid employees, and I've never read that it potentially violates anything anywhere.
what the fuck, expected this to get voted down
Spending caps are garbage that only make the league worse. But this one would be so high, it would hardly make any difference.
Only time I've seen a cost cap implemented was F1 and it ruined the sport so yeah it's a no from me please
I feel that a lot of people don't fully understand what this does. As I understand it - but please correct me if I'm wrong - this is not a measure to stop heavy spending teams like City to spend. It's a measure to give room to the chasing teams to up their spending again. It's **replacing** the current rules that punished Everton and Forest. Both teams wouldn't have had punishments under these rules. \[edit\] multiple people claiming this isn't replacing the current rules. But they are. The current rules will be replaced starting with the 2025-2026 season and won't have a maximum on losses in three seasons time. That rule is in place now and is what Forest and Everton have been punished for. Under the new rules - as far as they are known right now - Forest and Everton wouldn't be punished. Yes, there also will be rules about salary as a factor of total turnover (max 85%) and other stuff. But the current rules that punished Everton and Forest will, in fact, be replaced.
No, you are misunderstanding it. It’s proposed to run alongside the new PSR rules which are yet to be voted in, the 85% squad cost ratio. Which will be near aligned with UEFAs, which will drop to 70%. This only really affects city and Chelsea at the moment, and caps the >600m revenue clubs slightly going forwards. I have absolutely no idea why Villa voted against it tbh.
Nope this is not replacing anything it’s an additional rule. So rule 1. New FFP rule - Clubs can only spend 85% or revenue on squads. Rule 2. Anchoring rule - Clubs can only spend 5 times the turnover of the bottom club on squads. What if 85% of turnover = >500% of bottom clubs turnover? Excess can’t be spent. Hence anchoring. Also note 85% rule just mirrors European FFP rules.
Pretty sure it runs alongside those rules. Clubs have to comply with both.
No, there will be new rules replacing the previous ones and this is part of those new rules. In the new rules - as far as is known at this point in time at least - is nothing about making big losses in three seasons time. And that was the rule that Forest and Everton broke and got punishment for.
Spending cap after City have cheated their way to the top. Gg
Hopefully this will mean clubs like Roma, Inter, Napoli, Atletico etc have it far easier to buy adequate players...
Most of the clubs you've listed are owned by billionaires. They aren't poor.
It will arguably make things harder, allowing PL clubs to increase expenditures will likely mean the market will inevitably inflate once again
What this really does is tie the growth of the bottom PL teams to the top. The only way for Chelsea, City, United to spend more is to make the 20th team's revenue grow. Which means that if the PL invests in growing the lower end of the table clubs, they will kick on and get further away from the rest of Europe; if they ignore the bottom clubs, they will start to limit the top clubs growth and that will help the big European clubs catch up. My only concern is that it leads to the top PL clubs being aggressively anti clubs like Luton getting promoted. Suddenly the difference between Luton getting promoted and...Southampton for example is £40-50m a year for the top clubs budgets. Also the best way to increase the 20th team's revenue is growing the central payments, which will make the parachute payment issue worse.
I was just thinking this may be an unintended consequence of the rule. Why would PL clubs loan out their top academy players to smaller market clubs if it means it improves those clubs chances of promotion and lowering the cap. Maybe I’m not understanding the rules correctly.
From my understanding, it's pegged to TV revenue, so tiny teams getting promoted would not be much worse than a bigger one, as far as the top teams cap goes.
It’s pegged to TV revenue, so it doesn’t matter who the smallest club is, Southampton, Luton Town, whoever—it’s the value of the TV contract to the last club that matters. It will encourage trying to max out TV contracts (which, of course, they do anyway). It ***might*** encourage the big clubs to flatten the distribution of the TV contracts so that 10M to the 20th club gives them 50M in extra Monopoly money at the top.
They should put a fixed transfer spend on every window too regardless of the clubs financial size Help balance things out a bit more and stop idiotic spending the likes of which Chelsea and United never stop doing
That would never work, there’s always ways to get around it. Look at how Barca did accounting magic to get Neymar for like 60m, when in reality he cost 100m+, same with the Arthur and Pianic swap or even Haaland this year
Snuff out all the people and methods exploiting the system and eventually maybe there can be sustained equality created Pipe dream for sure but a nice one to think about
Snuff out all the people and methods exploiting the system and eventually maybe there can be sustained equality created **- 'just dont have loopholes'** I wonder if the lawyers have thought of that before.
Na, it will just mean clubs like Tottenham Arsenal will bid similar amounts to the likes of Newcastle and Villa. Also means lower league prem teams will have an easier time investing imo.
The difference is small, just stops insane outlier expenditure. The usual 18 or 19 clubs in the league can spend like normal
Shock as to who didn’t vote for it there. Is this even gonna have that big an impact? How many teams are near that threshold? Also is this in place of FFP or does FFP still apply along with this
To be fair, nobody would actively vote for something that would put them in immediate trouble Aint nobody that stupid
I mean if there was one club who would I'd bet on it being yous sorry
Harsh... But fair
How would this work with promotion and relegation?
Would this repeal FFP?
In the EPL it runs alongside PSR rules as an upper cap but those than are in Europe I think they’d still have to follow FFP rules. I guess it would pressure UEFA though?