Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
Uhh, wrong? Like, provably, obviously wrong, from all the sports that do successfully implement it. There isn't a single Australian league of note without a salary cap, including the soccer A League and T20 cricket Big Bash. American sports also largely have salary caps.
You're not wrong that there are problems and loopholes that need to be carefully addressed, but that is not a reason not to do it at all. It's a reason to look to examples elsewhere and learn from their successes and mistakes, and improve upon them.
It's a matter of fairness and good competition. A team with huge pockets being able to win half the time is grossly unfair and against the spirit of sport. And it's not fun as a fan or spectator when the same few teams win over and over again.
I don't think this is necessarily relevant to a salary cap discussion. Maybe a team gets its funding from Old Money. Maybe it gets them from oil. But with a salary cap, the impact of either of those is much less, since a much higher percentage of funding will be directly from revenue generated by the team itself, and the league more generally.
Fwiw though my answer is yes. Old Money did crimes decades and centuries ago. And that's obviously less bad than ongoing crimes today. By analogy: if you had to pick, which is better: to put someone in gaol for a murder they committed 40 years ago, or prevent someone else from being able to commit murder later this year? For me the answer is obvious.
It works in american sports bc there is no promotion or relegation. Can't work in a sport with it. I know the big bash has no more teams than the few that participate and cricket economic model is even worse.
American sports play under one federation. Who do you want enforcing the rules? Uefa? Fifa? The national fa? The national league? Other national sporting authorities? Other European sporting authorities? Other global sporting authorities?
Who's laws do they follow? National? Continental? International? Regional? How do you create an even field when some teams are getting UCL money and dominating local leagues?
Do you make man city give their UCL winnings tk Southampton? How do you account for the Italian tax system?
Again its not possible in football. Not that no financial law is possible, just that the salary cap won't work. Bc the revenue of teams can never be the same.
Barca can spend 40% of their revenue on sporting expenses and so can Cadiz. They just have different revenues.
How do Cadiz get the big revenue? Either outside investment like psg etc or long term European football (nearly impossible and only viable for a couple of clubs in every league).
So the uneven nature will exist so long as:
For the old money thing. All profit and the money of capitalists is exploited and the surplus value of labour of the workers. All investors are the same. They can't have money now if they aren't exploiting someone now.
But let's drop this argument, it never goesnto a natural conclusion.
The EPL would enforce it for the EPL. La Liga would enforce it for La Liga, etc.
The unusual stratification of soccer leagues lends itself some difficulty in obtaining consistency, but that is not a good enough reason not to try. Especially for EPL, which really is professional (non-international) soccer for most of the world. People in Vietnam or Namibia know about and often pick a side in the Liverpool–ManU feud. Far fewer could tell you about Bundesliga teams.
Relegation also causes difficulty, but again, shouldn't be insurmountable. A sort of "grandfather" clause to allow players in teams that get relegated to not have to immediately take a big pay cut (assuming lower leagues would have a lower salary cap), similar to how BBL allows international players exemptions and A-league already allows each team one player who can simply ignore the salary cap entirely.
I'm not pretending it's simple. Just that the problems a salary cap is designed to fix are huge problems with the integrity of the sport, and the difficulty of implementing it is far outweighed by the benefit that would be obtained.
Currently salary caps are based on percentage of revenue and the way to enforce em varies.
I think its as good as it gets. An objective cap is just a way of making sure players leave your league for another.