should there a limit on how much a club can spend in buying players? this way a top club like chelsea can not buy all the top talent with dirty oil money and win the top competitions. its time to stop ruining the sport with """""monetary""" doping!!
I've been thinking lately about it.
But where could the limit be considered "fair"? It's not like in America, where every team would gladly fill their salary cap without problems.
Some teams would never reach said limit, but that wouldn't stop top teams from doing it. But if you keep it too low, then the top teams wouldn't be able to use all of their resources, the money from the TV/Sponsorships/stadium wouldn't be invested in the team and I bet the fans wouldn't be pleased with it.
>where every team would gladly fill their salary cap without problems.
>player wages are now capped at £20 per hour (double time for matchdays)
>maximum contract length of 3 years
>no transfer fees, just an offer of a nice ham to the player's family (or fish platter for Jewish/Muslim players)
>players under 18 cannot be transferred if under contract
>agents are now banned from the game and each club has a player rep who deals with contract negotiations
>performance related bonuses set by the individual league
>live TV broadcasting now banned
>maximum ticket price allowed is £10
Result - Players workrate increases as they struggle to afford to feed their families, more obscure clubs no longer lose fans to the 'fashionable' clubs on TV, attendances rise, transfer fees dramatically reduced and 'big' clubs no longer able to bully others with money.
there should be a limit on how much talents a club can waste
and if a talent proves himself he should stay with the club for at least 5 years
>squad size limits
>no loans/third party ownership or other trickery
>33%+ of the team need to be under the age of 21
>quality control in youth academies
>flexible but binding youth contracts
It wouldn't, teams (especially bigger ones, with more financial resources) would still find a way to pay players more.
Its the same as putting a wage maximum cap on top managers and CEO's, companies find a way around it.
A wage cap on your MATCHDAY squad.
Want to play that £200kpw striker? No problem, just balance it out by naming some low earners in your matchday squad. Means a club can't effectively pool a load of high earners.
Say, average wage across the squad can be no higher than £40kpw.
Imagine you are the parent of a young impressionable footballer. What would you rather?
a) Greasy middle-aged men grooming your child online and robbing them blind (current system)
b) Polite and respectable club reps visiting your house and bringing delicious hams as a token of respect
Yes OP, good idea. I mean, who cares if this means the top teams will hoard young players because they are cheap, both stunting their progresses and making it hard for every other club, we managed to reduce the amount of money spent.
It's exactly like the FFP, top teams will find a way around it and shit teams will get the short end of the stick.
That will be the death of youth teams, meaning less professional players around, lower competition at high levels leading to players not trying hard enough. At the same time it will make lower level (youth teams) extremly competitive favouring players who are already good, often these good players are those with good physical skills over the ones with technical skills.
It would lead to a decrease in the number of players and lower quality. It will also mean that more and more teams will buy other teams, like City with the MLS and Australian League teams, so they can loan the youth there and make them play there.
It would help spread talent around as these youngsters would be available on free transfers for lower league teams.
It'd also help rush youngins into senior football (any level) and reduce player hoarding.
>>It would help spread talent around as these youngsters would be available on free transfers for lower league teams.
Lower league teams would have no power over them, in fact for a big team it would be better to buy the whole team and use them as B or even C team.
Why is rushing youngsters a good thing? it wouldn't reduce player hoarding, the top teams would all start doing what Chelsea are doing but on a bigger scale and more efficiently.
How? Chelsea would have to play all these youngsters on a regular basis or risk losing them.
Buying clubs isn't a thing in developed football countries and banning such cheating could easily be banned too.
Basically, if you don't use a player, you lose them. It'll mean youth leagues become irrelevant over the age of 18, the age when players really should be looking at playing regularly.
Chelsea would loan them to a team they own, be it India, Holland, Lower league in Italy, pick where ever you want. The Pozzo did it with Watford and Granada for god's sake.
And again, forcing youth players to be good at 18 will completely destroy a generation of technical players because the clubs will need good players asap and will favour the short time option of using tall big players.
>to a team they own
Which is why owning other clubs will be banned. It's dodgy as fuck.
If a player isn't capable of playing a few first team football matches by 18 then he isn't good enough. The idea is rather than sitting in a premier league reserve side doing nothing they'd be freed up to join a League One/Two side or whatever, prove themselves on the pitch and work their way back up to the top.
There's too many 23 year olds who've had all of 10 senior appearances who then just disappear.