How To Reduce Player Wages Fifa 20

MADRID, SPAIN - JULY 06: New Real Madrid player Cristiano Ronaldo is presented to a full house at the Santiago Bernabeu stadium on July 6, 2009 in Madrid, Spain. (Photo by Denis Doyle/Getty Images)

Denis Doyle/Getty Images

Football is big business. The sums of money involved in the game at the highest level are truly incredible.

In an ESPN article last year, it was revealed that, on boilerplate, Barcelona'southward players earn $7,910,737 a yr—the nearly in the world. In second place, with an boilerplate of just $7,356,632, is Existent Madrid. In fact, five of the top 10 highest-paying sports clubs are football teams, with baseball and basketball clubs comprising the rest of the top x.

One time you add together in sponsorship deals, the amount of money that summit footballers are earning is stupendous. Wayne Rooney alone is said to be worth £37 million.

So, what is the problem with such large sums of money being spent on securing the services of the best players? After all, clubs like Manchester United, Real Madrid, Barcelona and Ac Milan generate huge amounts of revenue. Why shouldn't they exist able to spend that money how they please? Why do we need transfer and wage caps?

Well, for one thing, these tiptop teams aren't always profitable. Information technology was reported last summertime that Barcelona were in debt, to the tune of £400 million.

Manchester United, meanwhile, managed to reduce their debt last twelvemonth, by £69 meg, but they still have £439 million of debt, a sum not to be taken lightly.

Fifty-fifty Real Madrid, currently running large surpluses, have had their fiscal troubles. The Galácticos era was partially funded by the auction of their training basis that also dealt with their £165 million debt.

In light of the fiscal happenings in the wider world, companies and countries buckling under the weight of their debt—why should football game be immune to this? Afterward all, the moniker "too big to fail" has already been exposed as a prevarication.

As nosotros are seeing right at present, football game is non allowed. Rangers FC are battling for survival, the effect of poor ownership and overspending. Lower down the footballing nutrient concatenation, information technology was recently revealed that xx percent of Football game League clubs (Championship, League One and League Two clubs) are in fiscal difficulty.

Clubs like Barcelona and Manchester United have plenty of fourth dimension to sort out their finances; information technology volition take a considerable length of time for their lines of credit to dry upwards. For smaller clubs (and it'southward non just in England), time is more important. Coin is harder to come by, there are no (or at to the lowest degree fewer) players worth millions who can be sold, little take a chance of large prize money and fewer willing bank managers.

There is, still, a adept mode to start dealing with this financial nightmare, and I'thou not talking about Financial Fair Play. Why non? After all, only spending what you make is, fundamentally, a proficient idea. Even so, it basically removes whatever chance of a mid-table club ever condign a contender at the top of La Liga, the Premier League or Serie A.

The very top clubs tin, in theory, make a lot more coin than your average top-flight club. That means they can prise smaller clubs' all-time players away, tempting the players with higher wages, which ofttimes leaves the club with no selection but to sell—an unsettled thespian is of little use.

In that location is a reason that Manchester City have gone into a flurry of truly astronomical spending. They know if they can't get a squad of meridian players and massively boost their revenue before the new financial rules come into force, they will never be able to challenge the likes of Manchester United and Chelsea.

The merely fashion to break into Europe'southward aristocracy? Clint Hughes/Getty Images

Information technology should exist pointed out that if Barcelona, Real Madrid and Manchester United were to break the rules, there would be huge pressure to include the teams from sponsors and broadcasters.

Too, if their participation were not guaranteed, sponsorship and broadcasting revenue could well drop, which would not help cubs that rely on Champions League revenue.

And then, what is the reward of transfer and wage caps? They impose a lot more uniformity on clubs' ability to spend and besides assist to bring downwardly costs.

Obviously, FIFA—or at the very least, UEFA—need to be the ones to impose such restrictions. If Serie A decided to impose a €30,000 per week wage limit, many of the all-time players would be off to the Bundesliga, La Liga or the Premier League at the earliest opportunity.

Bold that a universal cap could be imposed, the benefits could be incredible. Imagine no player could earn more than £50,000 a week and could not be signed for more than £20 1000000. Top players could still be earning £2.vi million (earlier endorsements) a year and top clubs would yet be able to sign players other teams couldn't afford, not least because of the prestige that goes with a side similar Chelsea or Inter Milan.

Furthermore, a club like Southampton, which produces top-quality players, could still be rewarded for their work and might even be able to hold on to these players for an extra season given the reduced financial incentive, which would probably be good for the histrion likewise.

Producing top-quality players deserves bounty Clive Mason/Getty Images

Perhaps the biggest benefit would be reducing transfer fees. Cristiano Ronaldo is proving, fifty-fifty at £80 meg, to be very good value. Simply for every Ronaldo, there is an Andy Carroll. With a transfer cap, there would exist a chance to limit the harm of those disastrous deals and the offloading of such players would be far less painful.

This system, you could argue, has some flaws. Nether this system, Lionel Messi would earn and be worth the same every bit a whole litany of players. How is that fair? Don't players demand to be distinguished from one and other?

Well, for i thing, Messi would still earn more than. He is far more probable to get endorsements, royalties and the like than say Glen Johnson, who could also be earning £50,000 a week.

Also, surely if there was a transfer cap, players like Cesc Fabregas would take been left stranded at Arsenal, correct? Well, perhaps. After all, information technology was hard enough to prise him abroad when they were offering the globe. The thing is, though, would players commit to long-term contracts if the adventure of them being able to move was reduced by the lack of financial incentive for the guild? Probably not.

Furthermore, a player who does not want to be playing for a particular team is not a whole lot of use, fifty-fifty when he is every bit proficient as Cesc Fabregas.

Apparently, top players—and managers, if the caps were to be extended to them—would not be happy about this. A pay cut of £200,000 a week could, theoretically, be on the cards for some.

The process would take to be gradual. No new contracts over £50,000 and a gradual reduction for those on more than that at the moment (obviously current contracts would have to exist honoured) could be a way to make the transition.

Who wouldn't be upset at losing a £150,000 or so a week? Jasper Juinen/Getty Images

This is all very well and adept for the meridian leagues, simply what about lower divisions, where wages are far lower? (Championship wages are simply a fifth of Premier League wages.)

Well, Serie B already has a salary cap; they tin only spend 60 percentage of their revenue on wages. UEFA and the Football Associations should be doing more than to encourage lower leagues to take similar measures.

There is less danger of players moving to other leagues in lower divisions, as the sums of money involved are smaller and, it should non exist forgotten, moving countries is non a decision to be taken lightly, especially if you have a family unit.

The Serie B strategy of limiting spending depending on revenue has its advantages over an accented limit. For ane thing, it ensures that a club generating basically no revenue tin't pay out wages it cannot afford.

Withal, information technology is more than likely to create a state of affairs where a team will bounce direct support to the superlative tier, as clubs coming down a division tend to accept higher revenues through bigger fanbases and, in some cases, parachute payments and the like.

Perhaps the two systems could be combined: Y'all can only spend X percentage of revenue or £X, whichever value is lower. That would maintain the competitiveness that makes leagues similar the Championship so exciting, whilst also helping to ease the financial strife of teams like Portsmouth FC and Port Vale.

Some of the lower leagues exercise not need new fiscal controls. In League Two, for example, the average wage is £747 per calendar week. That works out at a little under £40,000 a year—hardly a preposterous sum of money when compared to the national average.

And then, transfer and wage caps seem like a no-brainer. Spending less money must be a good thing, particularly considering the current economic climate. It would help end some clubs' reliance on a sugar daddy, which tin often exit a club in all sorts of problem when he gets bored with his latest toy, and it would help clubs fit in meliorate with a world that is increasingly angry at the profligacy of the extremely wealthy.

Unfortunately, information technology seems highly unlikely that something similar this will happy any time soon. In that location could well be a huge outcry from large clubs worried virtually increased competition, and information technology would exist very difficult to ensure that at that place were no loopholes to exist exploited.