Mar 25 2009, 10:07 PM, updated 17y ago
QUOTE
Saving football from itself
Fans of American sports have long argued that what the rest of the world calls football could do a lot worse than take a long hard look itself before adopting some of the rules and that govern North American sports.
Well, it finally it looks like someone has been listening to that sage counsel.
The Financial Times reports that a delegation of no doubt very serious looking, suit-wearing types from UEFA were recently in the US on a fact finding mission where they held talks with Major League Baseball on the advantages of their so-called ''luxury tax'' and how a similar scheme could be introduced in European football.
In short the premise would see European football's richest clubs effectively subsidising smaller, less affluent sides by having a tax levied against them for paying exorbitant wages to star players.
UEFA would hope that as well as seeing the riches of elite level football trickle down to smaller clubs, the idea would also encourage clubs to curb their spending, thus resisting the temptation to borrow beyond their means and become saddled with dangerous levels of debt.
As part of MLB's collective bargaining agreement between the players' union and the team owners, a pay threshold is set for total annual player salaries ($155m for 2008).
Under the terms of the CBA, if a franchise exceeds the agreed level they must pay a tax of 40% on what they spend over the threshold. The monies are then pooled and redistributed through the MLB's Industry Growth Fund, which helps support and promote the sport.
In a UEFA variant, any limit on wages would presumably be agreed between UEFA itself and the European Club Association (the body which represents 137 clubs, including giants like Manchester United and Real Madrid) and all pooled monies would be redistributed to smaller teams.
How a team would qualify for the subsidy and exactly how much each team would receive from the pool are just some of the problems the luxury tax could expect to face in any future consultation, and that's before considering such thorny matters as the total salary limit itself, or what the taxable percentage would be.
It cannot be argued that UEFA president Michel Platini has not tried to address the financial concerns threatening the game since taking office in 2006, and one can sympathise with the resistance he and Europe's governing body have come up against.
However, while the often suggested salary cap has never come close to introduction because of issues with the European Union (which would effectively render any cap illegal because it could be argued that it restricts free movement of trade), a luxury tax could circumvent legal pitfalls because, although it would see the introduction of a salary cap, the crucial caveat would be that clubs would be allowed to exceed it.
Another idea under discussion at UEFA headquarters, and similarly aimed at protecting the clubs from themselves, could see squads limited to a maximum of 25 players. The rationale being that by restricting the size of their squads, teams would be able to cut wage costs accordingly.
While no-one could take against UEFA's basic objective, which is to ensure the health and wealth of all football at all levels, the problems lie in both the governing body's methods, which thus far have all been open to criticism, and, just as importantly, reluctance amongst clubs to accept criticism or adopt change, all of which they regard as autocratic and overbearing interference on UEFA's behalf.
Fans of American sports have long argued that what the rest of the world calls football could do a lot worse than take a long hard look itself before adopting some of the rules and that govern North American sports.
Well, it finally it looks like someone has been listening to that sage counsel.
The Financial Times reports that a delegation of no doubt very serious looking, suit-wearing types from UEFA were recently in the US on a fact finding mission where they held talks with Major League Baseball on the advantages of their so-called ''luxury tax'' and how a similar scheme could be introduced in European football.
In short the premise would see European football's richest clubs effectively subsidising smaller, less affluent sides by having a tax levied against them for paying exorbitant wages to star players.
UEFA would hope that as well as seeing the riches of elite level football trickle down to smaller clubs, the idea would also encourage clubs to curb their spending, thus resisting the temptation to borrow beyond their means and become saddled with dangerous levels of debt.
As part of MLB's collective bargaining agreement between the players' union and the team owners, a pay threshold is set for total annual player salaries ($155m for 2008).
Under the terms of the CBA, if a franchise exceeds the agreed level they must pay a tax of 40% on what they spend over the threshold. The monies are then pooled and redistributed through the MLB's Industry Growth Fund, which helps support and promote the sport.
In a UEFA variant, any limit on wages would presumably be agreed between UEFA itself and the European Club Association (the body which represents 137 clubs, including giants like Manchester United and Real Madrid) and all pooled monies would be redistributed to smaller teams.
How a team would qualify for the subsidy and exactly how much each team would receive from the pool are just some of the problems the luxury tax could expect to face in any future consultation, and that's before considering such thorny matters as the total salary limit itself, or what the taxable percentage would be.
It cannot be argued that UEFA president Michel Platini has not tried to address the financial concerns threatening the game since taking office in 2006, and one can sympathise with the resistance he and Europe's governing body have come up against.
However, while the often suggested salary cap has never come close to introduction because of issues with the European Union (which would effectively render any cap illegal because it could be argued that it restricts free movement of trade), a luxury tax could circumvent legal pitfalls because, although it would see the introduction of a salary cap, the crucial caveat would be that clubs would be allowed to exceed it.
Another idea under discussion at UEFA headquarters, and similarly aimed at protecting the clubs from themselves, could see squads limited to a maximum of 25 players. The rationale being that by restricting the size of their squads, teams would be able to cut wage costs accordingly.
While no-one could take against UEFA's basic objective, which is to ensure the health and wealth of all football at all levels, the problems lie in both the governing body's methods, which thus far have all been open to criticism, and, just as importantly, reluctance amongst clubs to accept criticism or adopt change, all of which they regard as autocratic and overbearing interference on UEFA's behalf.
Soccernet
Sounds like a pretty decent idea?
This post has been edited by madmoz: Mar 25 2009, 10:22 PM
Quote
...but like the article says, how does one justify which team should receive more money from the pool?...And what if the club is able to afford exceeding the salary cap as well as pay the taxes charged? True, the smaller,less richer teams receives support from the pool, but it might make the truly rich teams,..better? 
0.0181sec
0.51
5 queries
GZIP Disabled