Rethinking the salary cap

[David Votoupal]

I'm going to be a tad controversial here.

I understand, as we all do, that the salary cap is there in reason, to keep the A-League competitive and ensure financial responsibility. However, at the same time, with more players leaving, the too-restrictive salary cap and short season are becoming increasingly an albatross around the neck of the A-League.

We are in a global game where professional leagues on all other continents are competing for the services of current players and potential recruits, both Australian and foreign. Not just the big leagues of Europe, or the lower divisions thereof, but the medium to smaller leagues in Europe, as well as the MLS, Latin America, East Asia, Middle East and North Africa. The too restrictive nature of the cap effectively hinders us in this regard. This is unlike the AFL or NFL, who have no external competition for players, and the NFL has a large market and talent pool to be able to fill rosters adequately.

What is also concerning me is that too many players leaving the country without adequate replacement will adversely affect the quality of football, as we saw in V3. In fact, the setup of the league promotes and rewards mediocrity- and you might even say prevents well-run clubs like Adelaide United, Melbourne Victory and Central Coast Mariners from achieving what could be their full potential. What do you consider more important, an even league or a higher quality league with more entertaining football?

On one hand, the restrictiveness of the cap might prevent clubs from signing better players- but if the cap were to be lifted or outright scrapped, who's to say that the same average to crap players that populate the league won't be asking for more $$$$ as a result? All the cap is doing now, in this regard, is preventing poorly-run clubs from spending themselves into oblivion.

I don't know where to draw the line here.

 

[FFC Mariner]

I understand why we have a salary cap even though it gives other leagues an advantage over us.

Personally, I would allow 2 or even 3 marquees to sit outside the cap.

 

[David Votoupal]

My worry is that like the old NSL, there isn't the depth to withstand the player drain that there is in other parts of the world.

 

[scottmac]

My worry is that like the old NSL, there isn't the depth to withstand the player drain that there is in other parts of the world.

There is the player depth, they just are not up to the level.........yet. Football is the largest participation sport in Australia, the players are there. Give the national plan a chance and in 5 - 10 yrs you will see the result of SSG's being played amongst our youngest. (as long as a good youth training program can be implemented, eg the mariners project)

Until then if we do not have a cap, then the words of one Rebbeca Wilson come to mind, "Gone the way of the old NBL". Small increases in the cap here and there as the profitibility of the game rises will do.

If we do not have an even competition how long will crowds keep turning up. And not the die hards that live and breath football such as some of the people we find on this forum or in bay 16. But the new crowd, the people who come to see something different from league afl or union. The people who want to be a part of a global sport.

We have some rich owners, some smart business men, and some knobs with control of our game at the moment. We can not afford to let people make their own rules when they may not have the games best interest at heart.

 

[skilbeck]

maintain, it will help the a league through uncertain economic times, then we can talk about increasing it

 

[Jesus]

Only 2 clubs have ever made money. What point is there of getting rid of the cap when the clubs can not afford the current one? The cap will increase as the clubs have more money. Funnily enough the more players clubs sell, the more money they have, the more likely the cap will rise by bigger margins.

No salary cap = end of football in this country.

Trying to keep up with asia at this stage in waged = epic fail. We dont have oil money like the middle eastern states, and we dont have one of the largets economies in the world with 100/100's of millions of people eg japan and china.

We are a small fish, but we are growing.

In truth the money Oz players can make in asia is a massive plus for football in this country. No longer do you have to be a harry kewell to make a solid quid in this game. The extra monetary incentives to be had playing all over asia/the world WILL lead to more young players playing the game through to professional level, not ditching for other sports for the financial reasons.

 

[Redline]

Everyone needs to remember that we're only a few years old. Japan is the best tool to use to measure how we're coming along, being they're one of the newer leagues that has progressed far in a relatively short space of time, compared to the altar pieces of the EPL, Serie A etc.

 

[clarence]

maintain, it will help the a league through uncertain economic times, then we can talk about increasing it

+1, for now.

Maybe they (FFA & A-League clubs) could work out a better formula for assessing the salary cap though?

If the main motivation for having the salary cap is to provide the competitiveness and long term viability of all involved clubs, then maybe they could figure out a way of 'floating' the cap from here on.

I understand that initially, when the A-League started they had to strike a figure, one that was sustainable and one that would represent their forecasted earnings for the new league.

But now we've had 4 seasons of gate takings, pre seasons, main seasons and now Finals series.

The FFA have also got a solid understanding of the worth of the 'product' through the numerous sponsorships and the Foxtel deal.

Surely they could look at what the A-League earns in total (and by that I do mean total - player sponsorships, game day sponsorships, shirt sponsorships, merchandising, club sponsors, A-League sponsors FFA sponsors, TV rights, gate takings from all games etc.), then negotiate with the A-League clubs & PFA what % of all this income should be going to the players in direct payment.

Once the % has been established and divided up to all participating clubs, then it's just a matter of taking in each successive season into the total earnings figure and adjusting the cap $ amount. If the A-League has a bumper season, then the average would rise a bit, likewise, a bad season and the $ amount would drop a bit. Obviously, existing player contracts would have to be honoured, so a season where the actual cap would drop would mean the clubs would have to look at younger (ie less expensive) players to recruit after the contracted players within the squad have been accounted for.

If a club buys players too close to one season's salary cap figure, then the next season are faced with a  drop in the cap, they have to be more prudent in the latter season with their recruiting, even to the point of having no room to buy more players.

 

[NewyForever]

Only 2 clubs have ever made money. What point is there of getting rid of the cap when the clubs can not afford the current one? The cap will increase as the clubs have more money. Funnily enough the more players clubs sell, the more money they have, the more likely the cap will rise by bigger margins.

Teams will still have wage budgets, so I don't see what's wrong with scrapping it

It is weighing us down

 

[kevrenor]

Only 2 clubs have ever made money. What point is there of getting rid of the cap when the clubs can not afford the current one? The cap will increase as the clubs have more money. Funnily enough the more players clubs sell, the more money they have, the more likely the cap will rise by bigger margins.

Teams will still have wage budgets, so I don't see what's wrong with scrapping it
It is weighing us down

You obviously weren't around when a parade of clubs in the NSL (with player budgets) went belly up for overspending. Salary cap stays but can be amended.

 

[northernspirit]

yeah we dont want a repeat of the NSL days, it could be likened to the rugby league super league when players were paid more than clubs could afford

its not sustainable, we just need to hope that revenue from tv, sponsorships etc increases so we can increase the cap but it should stay - plus it also means the league is less predictable ala EPL

 

[Jesus]

Only 2 clubs have ever made money. What point is there of getting rid of the cap when the clubs can not afford the current one? The cap will increase as the clubs have more money. Funnily enough the more players clubs sell, the more money they have, the more likely the cap will rise by bigger margins.

Teams will still have wage budgets, so I don't see what's wrong with scrapping it

It is weighing us down

Perth and you buggers already do not spend all of the cap. Well perth not all of the cap, you guys no ASA's.

Seriosuly who could afford a higher cap? In theory if we maintain a profit, which isnt given, we could use a couple of '000k. Melb a bit more. Everone else is behind already, and will spend more money to keep up, without having the income for it.

Greater revenue = larger cap.
If the clubs want a higher cap, then they need to work hard to increase revenue. If we get a very solid tv deal it is likely the cap could just about double and still be financially acceptable to all clubs. But til then i think we shall only see smaller increases.

 

[David Votoupal]

Flip side of the argument:

The greatest football dynasties in the history of the game have included:
Real Madrid (50s to 80s)
Benfica (the 60s era of Eusebio and Colua)
Ajax (60s/70s era of Cruyff, Neeskens, etc)
Celtic (the 9 in a row side)
Santos (the Pele era)
Cruzeiro (60s/70s era of Piazza, Dirceu Lopes and Tostao)
Independiente (60s to 80s, and especially when Ricardo Bochini was playing)

and so on. Did such domination of the game do any damage to football? No, because those teams were simply fabulous to watch and crowds just flocked to see those teams play spectacular football.

 

[Jorome Alexander Bennett]

Flip side of the argument:

The greatest football dynasties in the history of the game have included:
Real Madrid (50s to 80s)
Benfica (the 60s era of Eusebio and Colua)
Ajax (60s/70s era of Cruyff, Neeskens, etc)
Celtic (the 9 in a row side)
Santos (the Pele era)
Cruzeiro (60s/70s era of Piazza, Dirceu Lopes and Tostao)
Independiente (60s to 80s, and especially when Ricardo Bochini was playing)

and so on. Did such domination of the game do any damage to football? No, because those teams were simply fabulous to watch and crowds just flocked to see those teams play spectacular football.

What were the ratings on Foxsports 3 for the bottom of the table clashes in those leagues?

The fist tv deal for new football was negotiated without a product....

We have a great product that is exciting week in week out, partly due to salary cap. When the new TV deal is negotiated and the clubs' revenues rise significantly we will see a similar rise in the cap....

The risks of raising the cap prematurely far outweigh the potential positives. Our small populations and competitive sporting market are unlike the football powerhouse nations that can see top dissolve or dominate and power on.

The league is only 4 versions old. Some patience will be requeried if you wish to see parity with wealthy, populous Asian nations.

The situation isn't as dire as it may first seem. We are losing good players to wealthier clubs. On our horizon looms a huge financial boost.

 

[David Votoupal]

The problem lies in recruiting. Stop signing old players based on past reputation (e.g. Fowler is linked to NQ, and he's a player whose best football years was well over 10 years ago), or making simplistic assumptions that a player is going to be good on the basis of his nationality.

 

[typool]

fowler is good for the game, one of the best in the past 20 yrs in the EPL and will help build the A-Leauge, but i can agree where u are coming from though... (fowler aside)

 

[David Votoupal]

I mean, Fowler's career has been in continuous decline since the late 90s, and that's why he's a big risk if he came here.

But onto the point I was making before, the current system offers no incentive for personal or collective betterment. That's why planned, rigidly Communist economies failed and why no Communist country ever adopted such a system to football.

Fans want to see entertainment, they want to see exciting attacking football, and how much of it have we seen in our league? That's what the above teams I mentioned brought to the game.

 

[kevrenor]

..
Fans want to see entertainment, they want to see exciting attacking football, and how much of it have we seen in our league? ..

Well I've seen quite a bit ... and between live and Optus that's out of over 50% of the games in 4 seasons.  Sure there was some dross, but so is a lot of the EPL etc.

 

[NewyForever]

Only 2 clubs have ever made money. What point is there of getting rid of the cap when the clubs can not afford the current one? The cap will increase as the clubs have more money. Funnily enough the more players clubs sell, the more money they have, the more likely the cap will rise by bigger margins.

Teams will still have wage budgets, so I don't see what's wrong with scrapping it
It is weighing us down

You obviously weren't around when a parade of clubs in the NSL (with player budgets) went belly up for overspending. Salary cap stays but can be amended.

no mate i wasnt

but, we now have guys like palmer and traktovenko who are willing to spend millions on the game and attract the best talent to their sides and we should let them do it.

if we dont have the salary cap, then what about a "soft" salary cap,  which is used in the NBA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salary_cap#Salary_cap_in_the_NBA

 

[FFC Mariner]

Jest have an owner who seems to be in dire need of cash ,are recruiting players who are worse than those they have lost and are likely to struggle badly next season too.

It is therefore reasonable to assume that their gates will fall further and sponsorship will be harder to come by.

They wont go near to spending the cap because they dont have the $$. The cap is designed to put a ceiling on wages and therefore is probably relevant more to clubs with good resources and not the "poorer relations"

What people seem to forget is we have an 8 (soon to be 10) team comp. UK has 92 clubs on 4 divisions, if one fails due to mismanagement (Leeds for example) there is always another ready to take their place.

A lop sided 10 team comp would be a disaster, look at the NZ Knights experience.

Therefore, the cap needs to stay to constrain the bigger clubs