 |
| A different sort of cap, from a different sort of era. |
So the sun has risen on a new era of salary caps. Is this a post covid football austerity that crushes the ambitions of lower league clubs or a brave new dawn of sensible finance?
Here, we'll explore some of the potential outcomes of the decisions as well as expressing some of the questions this new legislation throws up.
The first few parts are quite positive. The final part descends into some frankly astonishing stats and explores a wider picture. We'll look at the way players salaries are increasingly indicative of a an era in which football seems to resemble to separate games, separated by a financial chasm that shall ne'er be bridged.
The basics:
Leagues 1 and 2 confirmed a cap of £2.5 million and £1.5 million respectively. Rumour suggests that Championship clubs may agree to a somewhat more generous £18 million salary cap though at the time of writing that was far from certain.
How drastic are the numbers?
On the surface, £2.5m is a huge drop from the average wage budget of approx £7m in League 1. The 1.5m cap in League is being placed at roughly 50% of the average squad cost in 19/20. However, there a number of aspects that make the headline figures a bit misleading.
- Firstly, any high earners who are in contract will be treated as earning the 'divisional average' for the length of their contract. With several League 1 players earning around £1m a year, this caveat is significant in both the short and long term. In the immediate future, it will protect the likes of Will Grigg at Sunderland from needing to be offloaded immediately and in the longer term, it will mean any sides relegated from the Championship won't be required to engage in a spectacular fire sale.
The basics:
Leagues 1 and 2 confirmed a cap of £2.5 million and £1.5 million respectively. Rumour suggests that Championship clubs may agree to a somewhat more generous £18 million salary cap though at the time of writing that was far from certain.
How drastic are the numbers?
On the surface, £2.5m is a huge drop from the average wage budget of approx £7m in League 1. The 1.5m cap in League is being placed at roughly 50% of the average squad cost in 19/20. However, there a number of aspects that make the headline figures a bit misleading.
- Firstly, any high earners who are in contract will be treated as earning the 'divisional average' for the length of their contract. With several League 1 players earning around £1m a year, this caveat is significant in both the short and long term. In the immediate future, it will protect the likes of Will Grigg at Sunderland from needing to be offloaded immediately and in the longer term, it will mean any sides relegated from the Championship won't be required to engage in a spectacular fire sale.
 |
| Will Grigg's (not) on fire(sale) |
- Secondly, players under the age of 21 aren't included in the total cap so a club with a strong emphasis on youth development and a significant number of youth players involved in their squad won't need to cut back this provision and will be well positioned to use their salary cap aggressively.
This said, there is no question that these figures are significant attempt to cut costs. Blackpool's last published wage bill was around 4.5 million per/annum (total salaries, not playing budget alone) though that represents figures from the 18/19 season, as opposed to those relevant to the current regime. Under the previous regime, Blackpool didn't have a spectacular budget for anything and yet we'll be required to bring our budget to levels that even the famously frugal (a very generous description) Oystons didn't manage.
Squad size...
Last season, the average squad size at League 1 level was 28 players (26 at league 2). Over the last 30 years, we've seen a gradual creep in the size of football squads and a belief growing that you need at least two players to cover every position and that 'competition within a squad' leads to good performances on the pitch.
In 1980/81 Aston Villa won the league championship using only 14 players with 7 players ever present. That side was then good enough to lift the European Cup 12 months later.
 |
| Frankly, we're knackered... |
Whilst it's unlikely we'll see squads cut quite so thinly, there are interesting potential effects of the salary cap.
1) The return of the utility player.
For me, this role is epitomised by Alan Harper who played almost every position on the pitch for Everton such was his versatility. In the 1980s, substitutes were limited and thus a player like Harper who could slot in almost anywhere and do it well was worth his weight in gold. In an era where the more players you have, the less competitive the wages you can offer, having a player who can cover two or three positions in reserve becomes valuable.
Look at the difference in salaries:
28 man squad - average wage = £1,700 p/w
20 man squad - average wage = £2,400 p/w
With talk of a limitations on squad size yet to come (rumours being 22 senior players, falling to 20 over a two year period) that need to embrace flexibility may come sooner rather than later.
Will we see a return to managers reinventing players to fit particular needs? I have (possibly false) memories of Dave Bamber filling in a centre back right at the end of his career in a crisis and more definitely recall both Paul Warhurst and Chris Sutton being converted from one end of the pitch to the other. Necessity is the mother of invention and all that...
2) Youth players filling gaps.
Will we see managers more likely to risk younger players in first team action? If you really want compete with rivals in order to sign a few high class footballers, then it would make sense to make some of the best players from your youth system step up. For each u21 player, you potentially double the amount you can pay your stars as they're a free hit against your salary cap. For me, this is no bad thing as it makes league 1 and 2 arguably more attractive to young players in giving them a more clear pathway to first team involvement.
1) The return of the utility player.
For me, this role is epitomised by Alan Harper who played almost every position on the pitch for Everton such was his versatility. In the 1980s, substitutes were limited and thus a player like Harper who could slot in almost anywhere and do it well was worth his weight in gold. In an era where the more players you have, the less competitive the wages you can offer, having a player who can cover two or three positions in reserve becomes valuable.
Look at the difference in salaries:
28 man squad - average wage = £1,700 p/w
20 man squad - average wage = £2,400 p/w
With talk of a limitations on squad size yet to come (rumours being 22 senior players, falling to 20 over a two year period) that need to embrace flexibility may come sooner rather than later.
Will we see a return to managers reinventing players to fit particular needs? I have (possibly false) memories of Dave Bamber filling in a centre back right at the end of his career in a crisis and more definitely recall both Paul Warhurst and Chris Sutton being converted from one end of the pitch to the other. Necessity is the mother of invention and all that...
 |
| Back to the future? |
2) Youth players filling gaps.
Will we see managers more likely to risk younger players in first team action? If you really want compete with rivals in order to sign a few high class footballers, then it would make sense to make some of the best players from your youth system step up. For each u21 player, you potentially double the amount you can pay your stars as they're a free hit against your salary cap. For me, this is no bad thing as it makes league 1 and 2 arguably more attractive to young players in giving them a more clear pathway to first team involvement.
At Blackpool, we've seen a couple of youngsters given game time and being talked up by the manager. Is this part of a strategy around wages to maximise our potential negotiating power when it comes to further player signatures?
3) Loan wages will count
Whilst it's very rare for a lower league club to take a really highly paid player on loan and cover his wages in full, the costs of loaning players from the Premier League is substantial. Whilst players like Kieran Dewsbury Hall and Seamus Coleman are amongst some of the best signings we've made, there have been numerous flops and with wages tighter than ever, will clubs be as willing to pay for the chance to trial other teams' youngsters? If the limit on squad sizes is to come into play, then there will be interesting maths to consider
Last year Blackpool had six players on loan at any one time in a squad over 30 deep. With a maximum squad size potentially as few as 20, a high number of loans will place considerable pressure on the squad, especially if the club's stated aim is to develop and progress its own talent. Many of the players who can't get anywhere near a game at the top level are 21 and over. What will happen to them? Will they be more likely to need to go abroad for experience of competitive football if English lower league clubs are less inclined to take them?
Will we see Premier League clubs 'giving' loans away in order to get their players much needed competitive experience?
3) Loan wages will count
Whilst it's very rare for a lower league club to take a really highly paid player on loan and cover his wages in full, the costs of loaning players from the Premier League is substantial. Whilst players like Kieran Dewsbury Hall and Seamus Coleman are amongst some of the best signings we've made, there have been numerous flops and with wages tighter than ever, will clubs be as willing to pay for the chance to trial other teams' youngsters? If the limit on squad sizes is to come into play, then there will be interesting maths to consider
Last year Blackpool had six players on loan at any one time in a squad over 30 deep. With a maximum squad size potentially as few as 20, a high number of loans will place considerable pressure on the squad, especially if the club's stated aim is to develop and progress its own talent. Many of the players who can't get anywhere near a game at the top level are 21 and over. What will happen to them? Will they be more likely to need to go abroad for experience of competitive football if English lower league clubs are less inclined to take them?
Will we see Premier League clubs 'giving' loans away in order to get their players much needed competitive experience?
On the surface, loans seem to be an easy way for lower league clubs to get high class players playing for them now, but at any club with an emphasis on financial stability, it's clear that am over reliance on this method undermines their ability to promote and nurture their own assets.
On the other hand, clubs could see themselves almost duty bound to take X number of youngsters from the EPL reserves given the monopoly on young talent that huge academies and lifting of restrictions on signing young players has created. Are clubs in a position to promote the future of their own talent when Premier League sides have hoovered up so much of the available pool? Do we see the lower leagues as a defacto proving ground for the elite clubs?
 |
| Actually, no, I'm not signing. Pass me the phone, I want to speak to Critch... |
4) Squad mentality versus star and supporting cast?
One of the most interesting aspects for me, is the tactics behind operating in a capped structure.
Will we see managers try and build a true footballing 'ensemble' - essentially offering the first team the same wage and aiming for a togetherness and egoless footballing style in which the sum of the parts is bigger than the whole, or will they dismiss that as hippy happy claptrap and try and tempt a few key players with higher than average wages and support this pay by accepting the players alongside them will be lesser footballers.
The impact of the salary cap in US Sport can create some astonishing disparity in pay as a franchise superstar earns multi-millions whilst a reserve player (who may be called into action to play for the first team) earns something close to an everyday wage.
 |
| The sum of the parts etc... |
5) The end of player power?
The salary cap has predictably been criticised by the PFA. Whilst I find Gordon Taylor repugnant, I think the PFA do have a valid case around a lack of consultation. It's sad (but not entirely unexpected) to see that football governance does consist of (mostly men) in suits talking about how they want the game to be run.
Whilst players have had a very good deal in the last few decades, they, alongside supporters are the game itself. There's two vital ingredients of the football match outside of some grass and ball. Neither of them are club owners.
The biggest impact of the change is likely to be the readiness of sides to award contracts to journeymen pros with limited sell on value. With player sales representing a significant income for most clubs, the pressure to ensure your squad of (as few as) 20 is as full of potential salable assets will be considerable and it's likely that it's the 32 year old reserve left back nursing an ongoing injury who is going to suffer.
It feels wrong in a lot of ways that the largesse of the Premier League which has driven the wages and price of success up goes unchecked, whilst journeymen lower league players face the scrapheap. At the best of times, football can be a cruel, cruel mistress and a precarious existence in the lower leagues and this measure will make it even more so. We'll expand much more on this below.
The biggest impact of the change is likely to be the readiness of sides to award contracts to journeymen pros with limited sell on value. With player sales representing a significant income for most clubs, the pressure to ensure your squad of (as few as) 20 is as full of potential salable assets will be considerable and it's likely that it's the 32 year old reserve left back nursing an ongoing injury who is going to suffer.
It feels wrong in a lot of ways that the largesse of the Premier League which has driven the wages and price of success up goes unchecked, whilst journeymen lower league players face the scrapheap. At the best of times, football can be a cruel, cruel mistress and a precarious existence in the lower leagues and this measure will make it even more so. We'll expand much more on this below.
6)Karl (son of an estate agent) Oyston's dream comes true... Wither agents?
The flipside of the pitiful sight of a balding ex fullback with a dodgy knee limping his way to the labour exchange is the potential of the change to impact on the world of football agents as fees paid to them count towards your salary cap total.
The flipside of the pitiful sight of a balding ex fullback with a dodgy knee limping his way to the labour exchange is the potential of the change to impact on the world of football agents as fees paid to them count towards your salary cap total.
This shadowy world is often maligned but seen objectively, it does make sense that young lads have some kind of advice and support when embarking on signing contracts. I've never, ever understood why the role of the agent can't be wrapped up in the PFA's role, whereby a player can receive independent advice and guidance from a registered figure.
I've also never understood why a standard fee can't apply to agents, nor why an agent deserves to remunerated in the millions for doing what often seems to be obvious work that would have happened anyway regardless. At a lower level, an agent probably has more of a useful role to play. A mega transfer yields a major fee but Real Madrid didn't need an agent to bring Gareth Bale to their attention. Nor does it seem a particularly unique skill to sit in an office and say "Gareth wants more money" till you reach the breaking point of the team who want to sign him.
I've also never understood why a standard fee can't apply to agents, nor why an agent deserves to remunerated in the millions for doing what often seems to be obvious work that would have happened anyway regardless. At a lower level, an agent probably has more of a useful role to play. A mega transfer yields a major fee but Real Madrid didn't need an agent to bring Gareth Bale to their attention. Nor does it seem a particularly unique skill to sit in an office and say "Gareth wants more money" till you reach the breaking point of the team who want to sign him.
Further down the pyramid there are thousands upon thousands of hopeful or out of work footballers who need someone to showcase their abilities to clubs whose scouting networks don't extend to every corner of the globe. This is where a good agent comes into play, finding a player work where there may otherwise not be any and ensuring the player isn't exploited in the bargain. Lower league players are often in the opposite position to the likes of Bale, wherein the power lies with club. This in and of itself isn't a problem, but the size of the payments received are surprising and ultimately are lost to the game.
 |
| "So, let me get this right... we can either buy the right back or we can give the agent a new swimming pool extension, but we can't do both?... Leave it with me..." |
Ipswich Town last season paid agents around £325,000 - Compared to the money spent in the elite leagues, that's a drop in the ocean but in a new salary capped world, that represents 13% of their entire salary cap. That's worth more than 2 or even 3 players in these straightened times. Players who are prepared to pay their own agents fees or deal directly with a club will possibly be in a much better position than those with agents who demand excessive fees. With smaller squads and lots of released players and the aforementioned youth bias built in, it's not a time for agents to be asking players to wrap in a 100k sweetener for themselves...
The Ipswich figures suggest that even in the third tier the sort of one off sums paid for routine transfer dealings are equal to or greater than yearly salaries paid to club employees.
I've no figures to back this up, but we're oft told that football is an entertainment industry and that 'what fans want' is the ethos behind the governance of the game. I'd imagine if you asked the majority of supporters who they felt offered more value to their experience from the following list:
...
- ticket office staff
- the community liason team
- football agents
... then the latter might see themselves bottom of the voting by some margin.
7. The return of 'the gaffer?'
7. The return of 'the gaffer?'
 |
| Not undermined by his superstar players... |
The salary cap applies to players alone (currently.) Over the last 30 years, there has been a gradual disempowerment of the role of 'the boss.' It's routine for managers whom are ultimately responsible for results to be paid significantly less than their star players. Even the most elite managers can't expect to take home more money than the best players can, despite them arguably shouldering a much higher and more constant workload. Even Pep (the absolute definitive modern 'super manager') earns less than his star players.
With 'ambitious' club owners more limited than ever in terms of spending sprees for players, it would make sense that those who want to use their wallet to assert influence on their team's prospects of success turn to the backroom staff and seek the absolute best manager available.
Whilst clearly, no one goes out and deliberately signs a 'duff' manager, there's unquestionably an interesting debate about whether a manager with a small budget who keeps their club mid table is actually a better manager than one with an open cheque book who wins the league. That chequebook manager is going to find things harder in League One and Two.
Will we see good managers able to get players to play above themselves venerated again in a way that runs counter to the direction of many years? With much less room to spend, it will be harder for directors to demand 'instant results' and arguably the importance of youth, getting the most out of what you have, an eye for an unpolished gem and the ability to motivate players will all become more important.
8: What happens to the excess money? (if there is any...)
Will we see good managers able to get players to play above themselves venerated again in a way that runs counter to the direction of many years? With much less room to spend, it will be harder for directors to demand 'instant results' and arguably the importance of youth, getting the most out of what you have, an eye for an unpolished gem and the ability to motivate players will all become more important.
8: What happens to the excess money? (if there is any...)
It's seems that the low bar has been set in order to to mitigate against empty stadia or low crowds and take into account revenue already lost. Add in the cost of continuous Covid testing for an as yet unknown period of time and there's plenty of reasons why even some of the bigger clubs supported a cap this tight.
By my reckoning, Blackpool are somewhere between the 8th and 10th biggest club in the division and if we were relying on season ticket revenue alone for a season, our total income would be around £1.5 million pounds, leaving us needing to sell £1 million worth of shirts and sponsorship to cover just the playing budget (leaving aside maintenance, coaching, other staffing etc) - Blackpool is fortunate in having other revenue streams and a benevolent owner, as well as a newly enthused and engaged fanbase but other clubs in the division don't have this luxury. For some, even with the cap in place, the season will not be a walk in the park.
However, there are other clubs whose potential income dwarfs the salary cap. The obvious case in point are Sunderland. If we set aside the fact that Sunderlands real wage bill won't be 2.5 million (unless they don't get promoted until all their contracts have expired) and set aside the covid issues which may reduce crowds then we can see a circumstance where they are making money hand over fist...
Sunderland reported 8.6m income from gate receipts alone for their first season in League 1. It doesn't take a genius to work out that leaves over 6.1million pounds of excess income. Of course, a club like Sunderland has to pay the rest of the staff, maintain a stadium and so on, but operating within salary capped restrictions could become very tempting for a business person who knows the cost of the product at this level will be potentially 7.2 times lower than in the division above.
In that circumstance, what will Sunderland do with that money? In their particular position, you'd hope it would be *clear the debts and get the club on an even keel* but that assumes responsible ownership as a norm.
It seems far fetched, but Mike Ashley has run Newcastle in a deliberately unambitious way for many years, knowing that the status quo would happily net him his dividend. For years at Blackpool a feeling persisted that the Oyston's actively didn't want promotion and the increased costs that would yield.
Whilst a salary cap isn't going to net Andy Holt at Accrington a mega windfall any time soon, it could see 'frugal' owners exploiting larger clubs where the gates will take some years and much disenfranchisement to fall below a break even level. With such a huge gap to Championship spending levels, a side like Sheffield Wednesday, Leeds or Sunderland in the third tier are strangely more lucrative than competing at a higher level.
By my reckoning, Blackpool are somewhere between the 8th and 10th biggest club in the division and if we were relying on season ticket revenue alone for a season, our total income would be around £1.5 million pounds, leaving us needing to sell £1 million worth of shirts and sponsorship to cover just the playing budget (leaving aside maintenance, coaching, other staffing etc) - Blackpool is fortunate in having other revenue streams and a benevolent owner, as well as a newly enthused and engaged fanbase but other clubs in the division don't have this luxury. For some, even with the cap in place, the season will not be a walk in the park.
However, there are other clubs whose potential income dwarfs the salary cap. The obvious case in point are Sunderland. If we set aside the fact that Sunderlands real wage bill won't be 2.5 million (unless they don't get promoted until all their contracts have expired) and set aside the covid issues which may reduce crowds then we can see a circumstance where they are making money hand over fist...
Sunderland reported 8.6m income from gate receipts alone for their first season in League 1. It doesn't take a genius to work out that leaves over 6.1million pounds of excess income. Of course, a club like Sunderland has to pay the rest of the staff, maintain a stadium and so on, but operating within salary capped restrictions could become very tempting for a business person who knows the cost of the product at this level will be potentially 7.2 times lower than in the division above.
In that circumstance, what will Sunderland do with that money? In their particular position, you'd hope it would be *clear the debts and get the club on an even keel* but that assumes responsible ownership as a norm.
It seems far fetched, but Mike Ashley has run Newcastle in a deliberately unambitious way for many years, knowing that the status quo would happily net him his dividend. For years at Blackpool a feeling persisted that the Oyston's actively didn't want promotion and the increased costs that would yield.
Whilst a salary cap isn't going to net Andy Holt at Accrington a mega windfall any time soon, it could see 'frugal' owners exploiting larger clubs where the gates will take some years and much disenfranchisement to fall below a break even level. With such a huge gap to Championship spending levels, a side like Sheffield Wednesday, Leeds or Sunderland in the third tier are strangely more lucrative than competing at a higher level.
The mantra that 'football is a business these days' is an oft repeated one. If that's true, then we should expect businesses finding their niche and working to maintain their place in the market. A store like Home Bargains provides a product that sits at a particular price point. It doesn't seek to become Marks and Spencers or Harrods because that doesn't suit its business model.
Mike Ashley exposes the problem with the 'football as business' model by running Newcastle like a business. If we do see similar issues in League 1 as a result of the financial opportunity, it might perhaps be wise to review the truism that has underpinned much of football thinking in the last 30 years.
9: Shenanigans.
I'm not going to give undue attention to this section for the details of clubs daring attempts to circumnavigate existing legislation are writ large in various sources. Today's stadium sales and cunning rebadging of debt and assets aren't directly related to salary caps, but you can be sure that clubs are already calculating how to exploit any loopholes.
A 5% overspend margin punishable by a financial penalty is an odd inclusion. Can it be that hard to add up the wages of 20ish footballers. I've got a grade C in GCSE maths from a fairly ropey comprehensive school and I reckon I could do it. There are such things as spreadsheets and calculators these days as well. It's almost certain that clubs will gamble that the reward of promotion will outweigh the financial cost of the punishment and once one does it....
 |
| Tip for chairmen: (1700*52)*28=2500000 (+ you can even do this on your phone these days!) |
Going right back in history, the early days of non professionalism were filled with players doing non-jobs in the week, ostensibly employed in the owners mill or mine, but rarely if ever setting foot there.
In the maximum wage era, creative ways to reimburse players abounded with business opportunities, cars and competitive rents on property being a few examples of off book sweeteners.
Imagining this won't happen is naive. That said, news travels faster and scrutiny is more intense than in the era above. Because a law will be broken shouldn't mean a law isn't made and if nothing else, creative speculation on exactly what has tempted the clubs star striker to sign on the dotted line will add a bit of colour to up till now predictable conclusion of 'more cash'
 |
| Lionel Messi today signed a 100 million pound contract to pick litter for an hour a year at Blackpool Pleasure Beach. In his spare time he is expected to play for Blackpool FC. As a hobby. |
10: The decision in context of the rest of football:
Fans are rightly concerned about the impact on 'ambition' - but in and of itself measuring ambition simply by the amount of money an owner is willing to spend on player wages is a narrow definition.
Were a sensibly tiered salary cap applied to the whole of the professional game, I'd argue (and have done so) that we could see 'ambition' expressed in more effective ways which would benefit the game as a whole - Spending on coaching, youth development, stadium improvements and so on could take the place of hyper inflated player wages which offer diminishing returns.
There's really no argument against the fact we're seeing hyper inflation in football - In the final season of the Football League, Division One players earned an average wage of £1,600p/w or 83,200p/a. The most recent figure for the average top flight wage is £61024 p/w or a cool £3.17 million p/a.
That's an astonishing (I had to resist the urge to put that in tabloid style capital letters) increase of 3714%.
The cost of living has increased by 116% since 1991 so in basic terms, footballers salaries have increased by 3598% more than the average salary.
The average house price (an oft quoted figure used to warn of the unsustainability of modern economic thinkong) of has risen from 62,445 to to 231,885 - a measley 271.2% increase, worrying on a real world level, but practically non-existent when placed alongside the fantastical dreamland context of footballers wages.
 |
| It takes an average person about 9 and a bit years to pay for this. An average Premier League footballer can buy one every five weeks. |
If we set this increase alongside an average supporters wage - In 1991, the typical top flight footballer earned around £1,285 more than the typical fan per week (1991 average income - all full time adult males), £314 pw . Their wages dwarfed the average fan by around 400%. Even then, people (well, my mum for one) complained about over paid pampered prima-donna footballers but now those wages look incredibly good value for money when we consider the next figure.
In 2019, the difference between the average wage and footballer's wages is about 10500%
These statistics are of course, not entirely relevant to the lower league footballer whose average wage is a modest £2300 per week (rising to 4,500 p/w for the average highest earner at a club) or about 450% higher than the average supporter. Third tier wages in 1991 were around £420 p/w average - today's wages representing a 471% increase - still higher than house price increases or the rise in the cost of living but signficantly lower than the average wage increase in the Premier league. (more than 3200% smaller.)
They're shared as a reminder of the astonishing level of wage inflation in the the Premier League. A final stat will serve to underline this further. In 1984/5 a top flight player earned on average about 2.1 times the salary of his (then) Div 3 counterpart. By 1991 the gap had grown to around 2.9 times the salary. Now, an average Premier League player can expect to earn 26.5 times more than their lower league counterparts.
All of this begs a very clear question. If we're serious about tackling the burden of player wages, why have we started by addressing the salaries which have shown the least inflation? It's a bit like asking the shop floor workers to take a pay cut whilst the executives continue to pay themselves bonuses. As if that would happen in the real world eh?!
The hyper inflation in football hasn't been driven by Rochdale or Accrington players but it is they who will find their earnings capped as a result of their clubs striving to keep up with the spending in leagues above them. The cost of ambition has risen and so therefore has the cost of just staying afloat.
The real danger of a salary cap is that when done partially, it fails to have the intended effect. By manufacturing an even vaster gap than already exists between the divisions there's a genuine concern that any talent in league and two will become even easier for the top clubs to pick off. Without measures against this kind of talent grabbing (such as squad limits in the divisions above) then it becomes even cheaper to tempt the leading lower league players away from their clubs.
Trying to build a squad capable of challenging in the league above becomes considerably harder and the same issues that currently haunt the championship (the financial dominance of relegated clubs due to parachute payments) could impact on League One in a different form. Let's imagine a big spending club, let's say for sake of argument, Derby County, falls into League One.
Clubs who've played at that level for a while will be at most spending 2.5 million per/annum on their wages, whilst Derby could theoretically maintain an entire squad of players worth 18 million (or even more if they like Sunderland fall twice in two years)
On a practical level, that gap doesn't trouble me too much. For a start, if that squad has been relegated twice, can it really be worth that money?
On a practical level, that gap doesn't trouble me too much. For a start, if that squad has been relegated twice, can it really be worth that money?
Furthermore it's quite rare for Premier League clubs to sign players directly from Leagues One and Two - it's simply not fashionable to do so when a Premier League brand demand exotic and seemingly 'ambitious' signing to satiate the fan base. (Youth players are a different matter as you can pass of a player filched from another club's system as 'one of our own.')
If Championship clubs agree a salary cap, then the same limitations on their squad development will apply. They'll want to have the maximum quality within the available number of players and will want to pay the biggest wages they can to attract the highest quality players possible. It's not in their interests to stockpile players from the league below for the sake of it so I'd argue we'll see the players who would have been targeted anyway being subject to moves to the Championship.
My real concerns are more structural and moral than that my side will be any more at risk of rapacious evisceration by giant vultures than it already is.
When the Premier League was formed, it had one purpose in mind. To allow the biggest clubs to get bigger and attract the sort of money to the game that would make those at the top table rich and powerful. It has succeeded at that goal, beyond, I'd suggest, the wildest dreams of even those who dreamt the idea up in the first place.
 |
| Imagine your job being listed as 'investor.' Just imagine that. |
The cost of that has been the togetherness of football. A sense of a fluid league where competition is at its heart. As you saw above, in 1984, whilst Liverpool dominated Europe, the difference between the earnings of the top and third tier footballer was relatively small. Now, that gap has grown to an astonishing level and the only real competitive justification is the performance of a few elite sides in Europe.
The argument that 'money makes players better' or 'hungrier' is palpable nonsense. Liverpool's Ray Kennedy inspired European success in Rome was preceded just 2 years earlier by the Aston Villa triumph mentioned above, which in turn was preceded by 2 wins for Nottingham Forest. English footballers were paid well, but like paupers in contrast to today's money. That didn't prevent them being the best players in Europe. Times have, of course, changed and now a few elite leagues compete for a few elite players and we all literally pay the cost for that.
The figures above show just absurd the gap between the rich and the (relative) poor has become. Of course, it's hard to call a footballer earning around 100k a year 'poor' but it's an economy of scale. The salary cap is borne of necessity and of the relative penury of lower league sides. It speaks of a schism in finances wherein Premier League sides are gifted well over £100 million every single year and League One sides get £700 thousand, League 2 sides less again. It speaks of a game that is fractured, where the self interest of the richest clubs wins out because they've taken their ball to a different field.
The figures above show just absurd the gap between the rich and the (relative) poor has become. Of course, it's hard to call a footballer earning around 100k a year 'poor' but it's an economy of scale. The salary cap is borne of necessity and of the relative penury of lower league sides. It speaks of a schism in finances wherein Premier League sides are gifted well over £100 million every single year and League One sides get £700 thousand, League 2 sides less again. It speaks of a game that is fractured, where the self interest of the richest clubs wins out because they've taken their ball to a different field.
It's a football world where a league 1 or 2 side is literally told that its value to the game as a whole is worth less than 1% of the value of a Premier League club. Sooner or later that has to have an impact on the idea of the English game as a glorious whole.
Whilst there is no question that Manchester United or Liverpool are bigger and more marketable than Rochdale or Tranmere, the 'bigness' and the 'glamour' of clubs is relative. Being the biggest and best of 92 (or indeed an entire pyramid) is a worthy achievement. Being the best of a self contained league of a few clubs has far less satisfaction, sporting merit or competitive validity.
The EPL is like a powerful group of people gathered in a penthouse level, quaffing champagne whilst the base of the building crumbles, refusing to imagine that should the structure be compromised it might also affect them. Perhaps they have a helicopter at the ready, ready to head to the land of a Super League and more and better champagne... but some of the suits should note, it only seats 6 at most.
There has been more or less silence from the elite on the issues facing the clubs lower down the pyramid and that speaks of the sheer absurdity of the way football is governed. It's not the EFL's fault that they can't tackle wage inflation at the top of the game, because the EFL have no say in what happens in the top flight.
It's an almost surreal situation, as the purpose of every club within the league structure is to try and get to the Premier League (and ultimately to try and win it) but at any one time most of them have no say over the way it is governed. It has become an Emerald City, a far off dream, a fantastical destination but if your currently Bradford City or Newport County, then you've as much chance of affecting any change to the way it runs as you have of influencing a mirage.
Within the football league, we know there are clubs at risk and that risk applies even with salary caps in place, if the current situation persists over winter, some of those at risk clubs will be in a very parlous state indeed. Outside of the league, we've seen clubs going right to the brink and beyond, with little or no financial help from the top table even though the sums involved are the sort of money the Premier League would pop in a copper jar.
Within the football league, we know there are clubs at risk and that risk applies even with salary caps in place, if the current situation persists over winter, some of those at risk clubs will be in a very parlous state indeed. Outside of the league, we've seen clubs going right to the brink and beyond, with little or no financial help from the top table even though the sums involved are the sort of money the Premier League would pop in a copper jar.
I don't know the exact sums required to keep Dover Athletic running as a professional club, but I'd be very surprised if the wages of Andy Lonergan (Liverpool's 4th choice goalkeeper) wouldn't have sorted the problem in an instant (and with some left over). Certainly a fraction of the performance payments based on league position would have done so.
A responsible structure would recognise that inflation running at well over 10000% was dangerous and would seek to curb that. If you simply give all that money to players, you aren't leaving any legacy from the boom times. No one is objecting to the best players being well remunerated for their skills or that players deserve the money more than most, if not all other people in the game, but the notion that football exists to make as many millionaires as is possible and nothing else is a strange one.
The money in football is right there, ready to be used to save clubs, to invest in grassroots, to save fans money on their tickets, to negate the need to convert more and more of stadia into expensive dining facilities and so on and so forth. All of this is true and clearly possible if only the game were controlled by those who wished it to be so. Paying a footballer 10 or 10,000 times the average wage won't make him play better but choosing the former will leave a lot left over to do much more with.
Imagine if the EFL gave a 'mere' £90 million to each club and did away with prize money for league positions. That would create a fund of around £500 million pounds to reinvest in the game as whole to mitigate the impact of Covid19 and engage in positive projects - what cost would that be to the clubs really?
The money in football is right there, ready to be used to save clubs, to invest in grassroots, to save fans money on their tickets, to negate the need to convert more and more of stadia into expensive dining facilities and so on and so forth. All of this is true and clearly possible if only the game were controlled by those who wished it to be so. Paying a footballer 10 or 10,000 times the average wage won't make him play better but choosing the former will leave a lot left over to do much more with.
Imagine if the EFL gave a 'mere' £90 million to each club and did away with prize money for league positions. That would create a fund of around £500 million pounds to reinvest in the game as whole to mitigate the impact of Covid19 and engage in positive projects - what cost would that be to the clubs really?
The division would still be, by some margin one of the richest in the world game. The cost to the top clubs might be one or at most two players. The potential gain to everyone else is so large it defies listing.
Looking at the salary cap brings to the fore the disparity in wages between those at the top and those below. It reminds us of the absolute insanity of the last 28 years of growth. It also brings to mind economic questions about society as a whole. Sport run like this, holds a perfect mirror to a broader message - that it's ok to be incredibly rich and fritter your money on anything and everything you want and fuck everyone else.
Looking at the salary cap brings to the fore the disparity in wages between those at the top and those below. It reminds us of the absolute insanity of the last 28 years of growth. It also brings to mind economic questions about society as a whole. Sport run like this, holds a perfect mirror to a broader message - that it's ok to be incredibly rich and fritter your money on anything and everything you want and fuck everyone else.
 |
| A mirror to the truth maaaaaan. |
It's smaller clubs tightening belts and shedding excess whilst the rich spend 40, 50, 60 million (and more) on a single player and regard it as a bargain. It's the 'poor' who are dealing with poverty whilst the rich whistle and carry on, insulated from the impact and confused as to why anyone would ask them to moderate their behaviour or accept a renegotiated position, even though it would represent a modest rebalancing that would barely impact upon them.
It's almost as if the elite reject cause and effect.
I'll leave you with one more stat.
Kevin De Bruyne next year will earn more than 7.2 salary capped league one squads and more than 12 salary capped league 2 squads.
I'll leave you with one more stat.
Kevin De Bruyne next year will earn more than 7.2 salary capped league one squads and more than 12 salary capped league 2 squads.
I'll repeat a stat from above again: In 1984, the average top flight player earned 2.2 times their third tier counterpart and 2.99 times their 4th tier counterpart. In simple terms, a Div One player was worth 2 (or 3) lower league players. In the modern age, Kevin De Bruyne is worth around 150 League players and around 260 League 2 players. Is he that much better than Dalglish, Brady, Lineker, Whiteside or any of the other players of that era? Is paying him such sums worth the competitive neutering of entire divisions?
We're here, not simply because 'the EFL decided to have a salary cap.' We're here because the highest level of the game won't countenance change, won't countenance any form of financial responsibility and even in the midst of a pandemic, the severity of which caused the first curtailed league season outside of global war, won't countenance even the most meagre of redistribution in the interests of the game as a whole.
Finally, let's consider if there are any realistic responses we can expect from the elite. The absolute bare minimum we could reasonably expect (outside of any releasing of their vice like grip on the purse strings of football,) is limiting squad sizes to stop the stockpiling huge squads of players they don't really need and perhaps even more urgently, agreeing to limit their academy sizes.
We're here, not simply because 'the EFL decided to have a salary cap.' We're here because the highest level of the game won't countenance change, won't countenance any form of financial responsibility and even in the midst of a pandemic, the severity of which caused the first curtailed league season outside of global war, won't countenance even the most meagre of redistribution in the interests of the game as a whole.
Finally, let's consider if there are any realistic responses we can expect from the elite. The absolute bare minimum we could reasonably expect (outside of any releasing of their vice like grip on the purse strings of football,) is limiting squad sizes to stop the stockpiling huge squads of players they don't really need and perhaps even more urgently, agreeing to limit their academy sizes.
This would go some way to mitigating the impact of the lower wages and ensure that the football league clubs are able to develop their own high quality players as well as releasing some of the available talent into the marketplace. If lower league clubs are to be limited to X amount of players and they're expected to a) compete in the same competitions and b) to build squads capable of competing in the higher tier, it's only fair that the same basic notions apply equally within a competition.
No one would argue that Manchester United aren't allowed to pay more money than Oldham or not allowed to have better facilities. It just seems reasonable to give Oldham (or whoever) a *sporting* chance of competing with them one day. Oldham need a salary cap. Lots of clubs in the lower leagues do. But more than that, they need a slice of the pie that the biggest clubs receive. Last year's champions effectively received £250,000,000 in subsidy (called 'prize money') and Oldham received about £500,000. A system which subsidises those most able to generate their own income is, when viewed objectively, really very odd. Especially when you factor in that this is supposed to be a competitive structure.
What we have now is clearly two games, played by off the pitch different rules and subject to different systems of refereeing on it. Given as the whole point of a footballing pyramid is to be a competition, then expecting the Premier League to adopt some small changes that help put its rules at least in the same ballpark (or football stadium) and show at least a passing awareness of the rest of the pyramid.
A salary cap applied in part is a bit like buying one shoe and hoping it to have the effect of a pair or wanting a single earphone to have a stereo effect.
Still, none of that helps the 32 year old left back with the dodgy knees. I really hope the PFA have some good retraining schemes.
Sources:
I am indebted to the brilliant, in depth and extremely simple to understand work of Nick Harris (https://www.sportingintelligence.com) for many of the statistics in this blog.
Other stats come from ONS/Gov.uk data and a few are sourced from reputable newspaper reports.
The only stat I didn't have total confidence in was the league 1 average wage of £2,300 which appeared in multiple places but didn't itself appear to be sourced. A recent MEN article gave a credible figure for the average highest earner per club (sourced from an EFL survey) but didn't corroborate a divisional average.
If you enjoyed this, it would be very much appreciated if you could share it.
In the unlikely event you want more discussion of a similar nature, there's lots more on the blog and also this episode of the fantastic 'When Sky Invented Football' wherein I got the giddy thrill of sharing a discussion with the brilliant writer John Nicholson and the radio and fanzine legend Adrian Goldberg.
If you enjoyed this, it would be very much appreciated if you could share it.
In the unlikely event you want more discussion of a similar nature, there's lots more on the blog and also this episode of the fantastic 'When Sky Invented Football' wherein I got the giddy thrill of sharing a discussion with the brilliant writer John Nicholson and the radio and fanzine legend Adrian Goldberg.
UTMP
No comments:
Post a Comment