You're right, it isn't sustainable. 3 UCLs in a row isn't sustainable. 4 in 5 isn't sustainable. Soon to be 5 in a decade isn't sustainable either.
Last edited:
Champions League
- Thread starter El Flaco
- Start date
You're right, it isn't sustainable. 3 UCLs in a row isn't sustainable. 4 in 5 isn't sustainable. Soon to be 5 in a decade isn't sustainable either.
Total-Football
Senior Member
My mind tells me Indian or Asian. Europeens too dull to be troll masters like urself.
Kul_z
Senior Member
No its not. They are clutch against same level or better opponent , but they never dominate. They always somehow scratch the upperhand in those duels, while in most of the games during the year where they are the favourites they dont know what to do. Thats what i meant non sustainable. Their gameplay sucks. Every madrid fan that i know spends 90% on their mobile phone during the madrid games.
Luftstalag14
Culé de Celestial Empire
Understood and agreed, same here. However, it is odd that you are supporting Putin who is not too different.
Luftstalag14
Culé de Celestial Empire
Salary caps will be there all over Europe soon, 70% of the total revenue spent on salaries starting 2025, I believe.
Yannik
Senior Member
This isn't really a good solution, this still makes it so richer clubs have higher caps. We need hard caps counting for everyone. X amount can be spend on fees, X amount can be spend on wages. Need to be fairly low aswell, so not only 2 or 3 top clubs actually exceed them.
Luftstalag14
Culé de Celestial Empire
I don't like hard caps for several reasons, mainly because it isn't feasible nor fair. Clubs who are doing better financially shouldn't be constrained to spend only as much as clubs that are doing much worse, for example, Bayern shouldn't be spending the same amount of money as Augsburg on transfers and wages; and if we turn this around, it is also not feasible to expect Augsburg to spend the same amount of money as Bayern does, which might be too much for Augsburg and becoming a huge burden for them.
The problem I have with UEFA's new FFP (salary cap based on a percentage of total revenue) is it doesn't seem to have safeguards to stop the "oil clubs" from receiving a lot of sponsorship deals from their own countries but all at deemed fair market value (something apparently UEFA will be checking), and hence pumping up their total revenue and consequently their salary caps in a bogus way.
Richard.H
Senior Member
I will have to disagree. Their football is a lot more sustainable than ours. You know why? Because they prioritize winning AT ALL COSTS. No Catalan racism, no "must have Barca DNA", no crazy ridiculous transfers, no nepotism. It is purely about winning. Someone not playing well? Great, they will be benched or sold. With us, god forbid the player is Catalan. Being Catalan ensures at least 5 seasons at the club.
Yannik
Senior Member
A salary cap does not dictate that Augsburg must spend up to the cap, it simply means they cannot spend more but they may feel free to spend less. I absolutely do believe that financial superiority should have limited advantages on the pitch. Top clubs or the PL hoarding half the worlds talent can not be in the interest of fairness or competition any longer. Football needs to reverse to a state where money is an assistant to generate success, but not a necessity.
The underlying idea behind the thought of caps is that "Money needs to leave the system" in order for football to deflate. Now for a start we can't actually tell City, PSG or the PL that they need to give away all their money, or share it with the rest of Europe. They have no reason to agree to this. But what we can do is limit the power money has on the market, aka transfer/salary caps. An oversimplified example would be this: Even though ManCity has €300m to spend on players this summer, a transfer cap limits them to spend just 100m on new players. The other 200m must be used for other purposes.
This still creates incentive to generate wealth, as it can be helpful to generate success. Richer clubs will continue to have an advantage, as they have more funds to expand training facilities, build academy camps in developing countries, or modernize stadiums (urgently necessary in Italy for example), clubs may invest more into technology or advancements togain an advantage by improving training efficiency. Generally things which are also excellent for the game itself, and this must be our goal: Reward those that seek to improve the game.
But wealth will only have so much power to influence the competition. There will be less "super teams" and a landscape of players split out more evenly to more teams. Midtable teams can have access to great players and aren't being raided by those up the food chain. Generally teams will not feel like they now have to get a sportswashing sugardaddy aswell to stay relevant. There will be more incentive to develope youth players and improve the infrastructure of football. And also very importantly: This can help Non-top 5 leagues aswell as lower divisions to catch up with the top and not act as feeders with no chance of escape.
Yes, this is also why I think "revenue" based caps can't be trusted over hard caps. City has one of the highest revenues, thanks to sponsorship deals with companies noone has ever heard of that have no staff, sell no products, and are being run out of a mailbox in London like "Wega" or "3Key". Revenue can be artificially pumped up, making FFP pretty much worthless.
Last edited:
Luftstalag14
Culé de Celestial Empire
I understand what you are saying (that smaller clubs don't have to spend to the cap), but still, it is simply not realistic to have a one-size-fit-all cap on all clubs, big and small. If it does happen one day, I think it might encourage the development of some sort of "caps trading" market just like what we have for carbon trading, where clubs which want to or need to exceed their salary cap or spending cap purchase "credits" from those clubs who still have a lot of room to reach their allocated caps.
Then it defeats the purpose of having caps, even though smaller clubs might actually benefit from selling their unused credits. Anyways, I think it is unrealistic to expect money to leave football (or any sport) with the help of hard spending caps. This certainly will not discourage sportswashing by states as they don't mind splashing money into clubs and they don't need to worry about returning a profit, plus it's not clubs that reach out to potential buyers saying "buy me, buy me!", it is usually those buyers looking for clubs to purchase, as a PR stunt, ie. sportswashing. It might discourage some non-state billionaire owners and potential buyers from wanting to buy or invest in clubs, if they believe their hands are tied to the point that they can't freely invest and spend at their will to return the kind of profits they were looking for, which is the very incentive they bought/invested in these clubs in the first place. If this happens, it might even make the football landscape more lopsided than it is today, with some private money leaving football but state-money from states will continue to be poured into certain clubs to make them relatively stronger and much more dominant.
Last edited:
Yannik
Senior Member
If it does happen one day, I think it might encourage the development of some sort of "caps trading" market just like what we have for carbon trading, where clubs which want to or need to exceed their salary cap or spending cap purchase "credits" from those clubs who still have a lot of room to reach their allocated caps.
I'm not sure I understand that right. Would you care to give an example of how that would work, for better visualization?
Sportswashing is just the political version of brand advertizement, but mostly a bit more evil. As any sort of advertizement this works better if your club is being seen, for example through reaching the CL final (which today it didn't). That's why these sheikhs invest so much, cause it works better when you are succesful. If Qatar owns a club that is capped to the same salary, as Augsburg, then there is no guarantee that their club is beating Augsburg competetively for them in order to pump their message out for everyone to see.
In current football being allowed to pump 300 Million on world class players does however heavily boost your chances of being seen, heard and spoken about.
Clubs turn to ownership models or throw their shares out on stock exchange if they feel they need artificial cash injections for a competetive advantage. Hard caps mean you nullify the incentive for them to do that, because cash injections are not as mandatory to compete if the clubs budget already scratches the agreed cap anyway.
Last edited:
They're literally winning all the time.
Attempting to reach 2008-2012 levels of possession football is the real unsustainability here.
This 100%. Like for god's sake Sergi Roberto is still fucking here and as recently as two years ago people here were constantly arguing to keep him on the team as a midfielder LOL. Would've been sold 7 years ago if he was in Madrid. Either that or permanently benched.
Last edited:
Barcilliant
Senior Member
Preach on. Exactly. Not only Catalan but we ate obsessed with Spain and La Liga. There is a very insular attitude at the club very similar to what we have here in Australia. Madrid only care about winning. That's a sustainable attribute.
Barcilliant
Senior Member
If anything Peps failure to win the CL with City shows that even with a billion spent it's hard to get this style to work in cl.
Home of Barca Fans
