Should FIFA introduce mandatory salary caps?

[Chris Davies]

I read a few posts on Evo-Web the other day that I totally agreed with, and have done for some time, regarding the value of footballers.

no one is worth 18 million. No footy player is worth 1 million. Its ridiculous.

Im talking in reality here, football is full of silly money. If you want to go into econimics we could, but money in football is scandalous compared to real world jobs and problems - thats what im getting at.

Football is in danger in my opinion, poor officiating, poor organisation, cheating, corruption and big business, THATS the problem i have with the game, and as i said to you earlier, you guys are a new generation of fan brought up in a totally different football climate, i was brought up in an era where football was seen to be a working class game and not a big multi billion industry.

Well anyway, there's a story on BBC NEWS today - CLICK HERE TO READ. To sum it up, the total Premiership wage bill for next season is going to be £1 billion.

£1 billion.

Now I find myself sympathising with footballers sometimes, I think to myself that it's not their fault that wages are on the increase. If chairmen will offer them so much money they're not going to reject it. I wouldn't reject it if they offered it me.

But £1 billion... That could do so much. Football is a game. £1 billion could rehome homeless, it could feed the starving, it could ultimately save millions of lives.

Hasn't it gone too far now?

 

[luke909]

No it hasn't, communist.

 

[gerd]

No it hasn't, communist.

I'm very envious of you now Jack...Jack Bauer is a commie...the scenario writers of 24 would love that one for their last series...

Seriously, i voted "yes" but not because i think players earn too much...it's a free market and if clubs want to jeopardize their financial stability, this is not due to the players...

I voted yes because when there is no salary cap, competition is not fair...the gungho clubs have an unfair advantage and clubs who are well led will always loose.
If there is no salary cap the big clubs will become bigger, there is a huge gap between the "happy few" and the others...take England as an example: there is a huge gap between the Premiership and the rest of the league. In the Premiership there is a an even bigger gap between the top four clubs and the rest...in the long term this jeopardizes football...
It's becoming my familiar rant: look at the way sports are organized in the USA and learn from it...

A second aspect of this poll are the players themselves. I have nothing against the fact that they earn an awful lot of money. We leave in a free market economy (i'm against it, but i'm a dinosaur) and then it's logical that "valuable assets" like star players earn enormously...and now comes the moralistic part. I think there should be systems were a large part of the huge salary of very young players would be "frozen" and invested in some sort of special funds...when the players are (for example) 25 years old, they have access to the money...I'm a regular reader of Four Four Two and in every issue there is an item about promising players where one of the standard questions is about the cars they own...these people who are very young (18-19-20 years old) have cars that most people of 45 can't afford. I'm far from jealous, but having that much money being so young is not a very good thing IMHO. But maybe i'm old fashioned.

 

[lo zio]

Seriously, i voted "yes" but not because i think players earn too much...it's a free market and if clubs want to jeopardize their financial stability, this is not due to the players...

I voted yes because when there is no salary cap, competition is not fair...the gungho clubs have an unfair advantage and clubs who are well led will always loose.
If there is no salary cap the big clubs will become bigger, there is a huge gap between the "happy few" and the others...take England as an example: there is a huge gap between the Premiership and the rest of the league. In the Premiership there is a an even bigger gap between the top four clubs and the rest...in the long term this jeopardizes football...
It's becoming my familiar rant: look at the way sports are organized in the USA and learn from it...

A second aspect of this poll are the players themselves. I have nothing against the fact that they earn an awful lot of money. We leave in a free market economy (i'm against it, but i'm a dinosaur) and then it's logical that "valuable assets" like star players earn enormously...and now comes the moralistic part. I think there should be systems were a large part of the huge salary of very young players would be "frozen" and invested in some sort of special funds...when the players are (for example) 25 years old, they have access to the money...I'm a regular reader of Four Four Two and in every issue there is an item about promising players where one of the standard questions is about the cars they own...these people who are very young (18-19-20 years old) have cars that most people of 45 can't afford. I'm far from jealous, but having that much money being so young is not a very good thing IMHO. But maybe i'm old fashioned.

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:
absolutely agree
i just couldn't say it any better.

No it hasn't, communist.

then "hasta la victoria siempre", Jack! :lol: :lol: :lmao: :lmao:

 

[Rentalkid]

I voted yes, BUT:

A salary cap would change NOTHING.
Ronaldinho would still play at Barca, Chelsea would still get whoever they want etc.
Nobody could control how much money the clubs "unofficially" put in the pockets of the players. They just might start calling it an insurance then, or whatever ... The rich clubs would always find ways to charm players.

 

[BobbyBox]

I think people who earn the ridiculous money footballers do should have special taxes onto their wages. Ie a percentage of their money should go into the lower leagues and a percentage of their money should go into other areas such as Regeneration of poor communities - dealing with the homeless etc etc.

These taxes should be compulsury - it doesn't have to be a great percentage - but if they all had to pay a bit - then it would make a big difference.

I also think that if a Club buys a player over a certain amount say £10 million, then a percentage of money should go to the lower leagues in our country.

People say that footballers need the money they get because they finish their careers mid 30s. But they really don't need 50,000+ a week!!!! thats double what I earn in a year!!! Its ridiculous.

I don't think a wage cap would work though - as it would just be the clubs getting richer and richer. The clubs wouldn't give their money away to worthy causes unless they had to. So the only people I reckon that would benefit from a wage cap are the people running the club. Maybe the supporters as hopefully ticket prices will go down aswell.

 

[lo zio]

I voted yes, BUT:

A salary cap would change NOTHING.
Ronaldinho would still play at Barca, Chelsea would still get whoever they want etc.
Nobody could control how much money the clubs "unofficially" put in the pockets of the players. They just might start calling it an insurance then, or whatever ... The rich clubs would always find ways to charm players.

i don't think that's true. the law can also establish what can be called "insurance or whatever".
afterall, that's exactly what happens talking about the commercial law, in every european country.
moreover that's exactly what happens talking about antitrust law. if what u say would be true, then the antitrust law would be absolutely useless

btw the point of a salary cap wouldn't be avoiding chelseas or milans or barcelonas to sign big players. the purpose of a salary cap would just be to reduce the economical gap between big clubs and the poor ones. there would always be a gap, but more little

I think people who earn the ridiculous money footballers do should have special taxes onto their wages. Ie a percentage of their money should go into the lower leagues and a percentage of their money should go into other areas such as Regeneration of poor communities - dealing with the homeless etc etc.

mate, this already happens. of course taxes incomes can't go to football associations, they go to the country. but each fiscal system in europe is based on progressive criteria. this means that if u earn 100 u pay the 5%, if u earn 200, then u pay the 8%. and the same goes for the people who pays football players (the clubs).
but this just isn't enough to get a fair situation, talking about "welfare".

moreover, talking about the international competition, i think it would be fair if all our countries would have a similar fiscal treatment. unfortunately this doesn't happen (and i can't see it happening, coz the fiscal treatment is an important factor, talking about statal sovereignty, and we all know how much our governs care about their own internal sovereignty :roll: ..... UE and CEE history are such a good example of this).
just to make an example spanish fiscal treatment is very, very softer than italian and british one. this means that if milan, chelsea and barca offer a "100" contract to ronaldinho, then, ronie would pay the 30% of taxes if he would sign for barca, the 38% if he would sign for chelsea and the 45% if he would sign for milan.... so where do u think ronaldinho would prefere to go??? :mrgreen:

that's another important issue imo

 

[Cloud1863]

I agree on principal Lo Zio but how easy can the finances be controlled. You can't compare the way a sallary cap works in American sports to football. In American football their are only so many teams and so many top class players in that sport. In football we have a high number of players that are on wages of astronomical amounts. With corruption already apart of the game at some levels though as far as we know not everywhere could it be introduced more if a cap was?

I am all for it but hindsight is a wonderful thing, who controlls it, UEFA or FIFA. Would this maybe also push the bigger teams closer into a G14 type brake away league?

Regarding tax rates I guess this is partly why English clubs have to outbid Spanish clubs. They pay more on tax therefore they get less in wage so the rate of pay has to be pushed up. Now logically you cant ask Spain top have the same tax rate as the UK or Italy so this only cements further the reasons that a salary cap has to be introduced.

Will it happen though, how far does someone need to go to enforce it, when would it start and how long till the saga would end. Thats the problem we are in with football being so rich the men at the centre are happy to run it that way and to many people have bee sitting back for years while its still escalating.

 

[lo zio]

I agree on principal Lo Zio but how easy can the finances be controlled. You can't compare the way a sallary cap works in American sports to football. In American football their are only so many teams and so many top class players in that sport. In football we have a high number of players that are on wages of astronomical amounts. With corruption already apart of the game at some levels though as far as we know not everywhere could it be introduced more if a cap was?

I am all for it but hindsight is a wonderful thing, who controlls it, UEFA or FIFA. Would this maybe also push the bigger teams closer into a G14 type

very good point, mate
actually i don't think we should "import usa model exactly how it is". we have to find our own way, as our situation is pretty different (and btw, i'm not so expert about the american situation :roll: ).
nontheless something has to be done, imo, coz this situation is gettinw worst each year, it's a continuous escalation, as u say, and if we 'll keep giong this way, also big clubs will loose something (i think it's an important factor for a big club, to be part of a competitive league, so it's also their own interest to keep their leagues "competitives").

talking about the G14 league, that's a risk. but i think it would be a risk also for the G14 clubs. I'm not so sure it would be a "profitable" decision to start an european league, talking about marketing. our national leagues are still big factors, talking about merchandise incomes, and i think that if a g14 league would have been a "profitable" decision, our european big clubs would have already taken this decision.
afterall, they just pursue their own interests, so, if they're still playing in their own national leagues, it means that that's the wisest choice.

 

[BobbyBox]

mate, this already happens. of course taxes incomes can't go to football associations, they go to the country. but each fiscal system in europe is based on progressive criteria. this means that if u earn 100 u pay the 5%, if u earn 200, then u pay the 8%. and the same goes for the people who pays football players (the clubs).
but this just isn't enough to get a fair situation, talking about "welfare".

I know about this - but There can be a system where the money can go into the lower leagues. Say for example the teams that go upop to the Premiership from the championship are said to earn around 50 - 60mil. Surely there could be a rule to take a bit of this money and from the other premiership teams. They can take a percentage of their tv money and filter it down to the other leagues.

I know I make it sound simple and it would be very complicated - but there are ways to do it and I believe it should be done.

I also know about the more you earn the more taxes you pay - but there should be something where a part of the footballers money could go into a programme, where it helps the local community surrounding your football club. Instead of general taxes that go to the government for them to fuck it all away!

Arsenal aren't doing this - but I live right near the ground (Have done for most of my life) and the Holloway area is benefiting emmensly from the new developments associated with the emirates stadium. Holloway with the help of the stadium is really up and coming.

So it proves that football can help the community - but only if they want to - it shouldn't be an option.

 

[lo zio]

I know about this - but There can be a system where the money can go into the lower leagues. Say for example the teams that go upop to the Premiership from the championship are said to earn around 50 - 60mil. Surely there could be a rule to take a bit of this money and from the other premiership teams. They can take a percentage of their tv money and filter it down to the other leagues.

well mate. we have this rule in italy. it's called "mutualità". all serie a clubs have to give a percentage of their tv money to serie b and c.

but this percentage isn't established by a statal law, it's established by a federcalcio rule (federcalcio is the italian FA). So every year there are endless and "bloody" negotiates about the exact amount of money to give to lower leagues.
but, even if we already have this rule, our situation, talking about the gap between big clubs and poor clubs, is even worst than the english one, so this still isn't enough. we badly need a collective deal (talking about tv rights incomes) and some sort of a salary cap to have a very competitive league.

and, talking about the collective deal, finally we understood that's the wisest choice (serie a scandal, last summer, gave us a shock, and it helped us to start some sort of a revolution; new managers, NEW RULES). we should see some results in 2010 (at least that's what our federcalcio managers keep saying)

I also know about the more you earn the more taxes you pay - but there should be something where a part of the footballers money could go into a programme, where it helps the local community surrounding your football club. Instead of general taxes that go to the government for them to fuck it all away!

Arsenal aren't doing this - but I live right near the ground (Have done for most of my life) and the Holloway area is benefiting emmensly from the new developments associated with the emirates stadium. Holloway with the help of the stadium is really up and coming.

So it proves that football can help the community - but only if they want to - it shouldn't be an option.

i perfectly see your point mate, and i agree with u. But unfortunately, many years ago, we (europeans) took a very bad decision; we transformed our football clubs into commercials societies. So our clubs have to receive the same treatment of every other kind of european commercial society (from wine producing to information technology). This means that we can't obligate our clubs to do something like that..... unless we establish the same rule for every commercial society in europe.
i'm trying to put this thing as simple as i can, as it's quite a technical subject, and my english doesn't allow me to be more "specific"

 

[BobbyBox]

well mate. we have this rule in italy. it's called "mutualità". all serie a clubs have to give a percentage of their tv money to serie b and c.

but this percentage isn't established by a statal law, it's established by a federcalcio rule (federcalcio is the italian FA). So every year there are endless and "bloody" negotiates about the exact amount of money to give to lower leagues.
but, even if we already have this rule, our situation, talking about the gap between big clubs and poor clubs, is even worst than the english one, so this still isn't enough. we badly need a collective deal (talking about tv rights incomes) and some sort of a salary cap to have a very competitive league.

and, talking about the collective deal, finally we understood that's the wisest choice (serie a scandal, last summer, gave us a shock, and it helped us to start some sort of a revolution; new managers, NEW RULES). we should see some results in 2010 (at least that's what our federcalcio managers keep saying)




i perfectly see your point mate, and i agree with u. But unfortunately, many years ago, we (europeans) took a very bad decision; we transformed our football clubs into commercials societies. So our clubs have to receive the same treatment of every other kind of european commercial society (from wine producing to information technology). so we can't obligate our clubs to do something like that..... unless we establish the same rule for every commercial society in europe.
i'm trying to put this thing as simple as i can, as it's quite a technical subject, and my english don't afford me to be more "specific"

Thats cool man, Your english is spot on. I hear what you say. Just Frustrating that these type of things can't be implemented. The super rich should have more of a responsibility for the countries they are making their money from - thats what I want to see. I would like to end all the wars in the world aswell - but Its just not gonna happen unfortunately.

I'm all depressed now - although I have been told I might be getting promoted soon which will be nice :-) YEE HA!!

 

[fd1972uk]

What Gerd said, I totally concur with.

I'm hoping Platini will put a foreigner rule in place in the not too distant future also, maybe something along the lines of 5 foreigner rule or something per team. The EPL is getting ridiculous amounts of money and it will be time where teams outwith this league will try to put a stop to it.

Before when money was not an issue, there where teams from all countries that could win European trophies, however now it's going down to around a number of teams you could count on one hand and it's down to nothing else but money.


FD

 

[Coopz]

Yes there should be a cap but not for the reason you put up there, football aint got shit to do with poverty and the like

there should be a cap to make the leagues fairer, its just like Motoracing these days, whoever has the fastest car will win. Why not drive all the same cars and see really who is the best

 

[gerd]

Almost everybody agrees...
Now ask that same question in the Man Utd or Chelsea thread and nobody agrees...although it's possible that Chelsea could become one of the biggest victims of all these evolutions the day that Abramovich decides that he has enough of his latest toy and decides to put his money in Formula I or something else...

 

[lo zio]

Yes there should be a cap but not for the reason you put up there, football aint got shit to do with poverty and the like

infact the salary cap hasn't anything to do with this. this is about taxes (and their "destination").
but salary cap and taxes are tied. we can't put a common salary cap in our leagues unless we establish a common european fiscal code (or at least some common fiscal criteria for the specific situation of football clubs).
otherwise there will be a strong discrimination, talking about the economic power, between clubs of different countries. Another solution (maybe simpler) could be to establish different salary caps for every country, to balance the different fiscal treatments.


little off topic...
anyway, when bbbybx talked about programs to help the local communities, he was talking about taxes, not salary caps. And i agree with him. A lot of clubs already do this kind of programs, but it's just their choice.

in the end, football hasn't anything to do with poverty..... but being objective, NOTHING has anything to do with poverty. not even berlusconi or abramovich industries have anything to do with poverty. Nontheless our governs establish taxes to support "welfare state".... and abramovich, berlusconi, you, me, we all pay those taxes.
so, thanks to welfare state and fiscal law, EVERYTHING has to do with poverty :mrgreen:

welfare state established that the richests have to support the needs of the poorests, and let me say, football is today an icon of richness, of economic power, of wellness.

sorry for my longest post..... as usual :roll:

 

[gomito#10]

I read a few posts on Evo-Web the other day that I totally agreed with, and have done for some time, regarding the value of footballers.







Well anyway, there's a story on BBC NEWS today - CLICK HERE TO READ. To sum it up, the total Premiership wage bill for next season is going to be £1 billion.

£1 billion.

Now I find myself sympathising with footballers sometimes, I think to myself that it's not their fault that wages are on the increase. If chairmen will offer them so much money they're not going to reject it. I wouldn't reject it if they offered it me.

But £1 billion... That could do so much. Football is a game. £1 billion could rehome homeless, it could feed the starving, it could ultimately save millions of lives.

Hasn't it gone too far now?

this has nothing to do with a salary cap. im not talking about a salary cap on each player, im talking about on each team.... you could potentially pay one player 10 million a season and everyone else nothing, just like the LA Lakers

and the guy who said its communist is an idiot

 

[gomito#10]

Almost everybody agrees...
Now ask that same question in the Man Utd or Chelsea thread and nobody agrees...although it's possible that Chelsea could become one of the biggest victims of all these evolutions the day that Abramovich decides that he has enough of his latest toy and decides to put his money in Formula I or something else...

i agree. and im sort of a manu supporter

 

[gomito#10]

infact the salary cap hasn't anything to do with this. this is about taxes (and their "destination").
but salary cap and taxes are tied. we can't put a common salary cap in our leagues unless we establish a common european fiscal code (or at least some common fiscal criteria for the specific situation of football clubs).
otherwise there will be a strong discrimination, talking about the economic power, between clubs of different countries. Another solution (maybe simpler) could be to establish different salary caps for every country, to balance the different fiscal treatments.


little off topic...
anyway, when bbbybx talked about programs to help the local communities, he was talking about taxes, not salary caps. And i agree with him. A lot of clubs already do this kind of programs, but it's just their choice.

in the end, football hasn't anything to do with poverty..... but being objective, NOTHING has anything to do with poverty. not even berlusconi or abramovich industries have anything to do with poverty. Nontheless our governs establish taxes to support "welfare state".... and abramovich, berlusconi, you, me, we all pay those taxes.
so, thanks to welfare state and fiscal law, EVERYTHING has to do with poverty :mrgreen:

welfare state established that the richests have to support the needs of the poorests, and let me say, football is today an icon of richness, of economic power, of wellness.

sorry for my longest post..... as usual :roll:

lo zio but our goverments also create laws that help the abramovich's and the berlusconis ESCAPE paying these taxes... at least in the US they do. The thought being that if you tax the rich less then they will reinvest that money into companies which then will create more jobs...(i dont agree with it) Im not following your concept of "welfare state" is this some political party or socio encomic club people can join? And CHOOSE to be poor.... maybe you will get my sarcasim

 

[lo zio]

...is this some political party or socio encomic club people can join? And CHOOSE to be poor....

:lol:
nice one mate :mrgreen:
talking about your (agreables) points, i prefere to reply with a pm (maybe later i'll find 5 minutes ) coz otherwise we would go too much off topic.... i already wasted so many threads with my off topics... don't wanna waste Jack's one too

 

[Ad16]

To be honest I don't care for this argument about whether salary caps should be introduced. Because I don't care to think about how much players earn in the first place. Like gerd said earlier, I'm far from jealous.

When you consider highlighting the money aspect of football I think you have to ask these questions - What about the fans who aimlessly plow money into their clubs and help to pay these guys? Are they saps for doing so? Do they care? Are they happy with it? These are the only real people who matter in this argument in my opinion. They have the power if they want it. But they don't, they just want to see a football match, no matter if they get ripped off. I realize money from fans is only part of club revenue but as the comparison between the people on the pitch and those in the stands always rises, you have to take them into account.

Sure the players earn far too much, everyone knows that, but it's no more than a chief executive in some distant boardroom that no one hears of. And yeah, wage money could be better spent on poverty etc, but you could make that argument for pretty much anything really. Would people be happy with the amount players would earn under a salary cap anyway? Probably not. It would still be far more than any policeman or nurse whatever happened. It's not fair but there is no going back now. Then there is the issue of the players themselves. It may not be their fault they are paid drastic sums of money but they would never entertain the idea of any kind of wage lowering.

I agree with the principles of ideas like this though, however I just doubt whether it would ever happen. Personally, I would like to see a system where the difference between those at the top and bottom of the table is not so immense. Along the lines of the NBA, where from year to year different teams can have a realistic chance of going far. This doesn't mean I'd want to see any kind of draft however. Slightly off topic but there you go.

Apologies for this post if it's incoherent. I suppose I'm trying to play devil's advocate as I often do. Either way I don't care enough to care (if you know what I mean). Should others bank balances really concern us?

 

[Stan]

It's a very good post my friend...

 

[Rocky]

I personally feel the salary cap sucks, and would actually compromise a team more. It wouldn't let them get better or the players they need because they'll have to be afraid of going over the cap. For so many of you that love the American way of buying players, think about this. In the NBA, teams like New Jersey, the Lakers, Minnesota, etc will be stuck in mediocrity because of one reason, they're over the cap, and can't get who they want. I don't think teams should be restricted financially. Hey, if they've got money, spend it. You earned it. And I think that is a great thing that the EPL crapped out 1 billion pounds on it's players, but I don't see how that has anything to do with poor people and how it could save them.

 

[Vlad19]

I voted yes, BUT:

A salary cap would change NOTHING.
Ronaldinho would still play at Barca, Chelsea would still get whoever they want etc.
Nobody could control how much money the clubs "unofficially" put in the pockets of the players. They just might start calling it an insurance then, or whatever ... The rich clubs would always find ways to charm players.

No. There is a hard sallary cap in operation in the NFL and a complicated sallary cap in operation in the NBA. Both insist on full disclosure on all benefits rendered to players by clubs. You just can't sneak a million that easily. Things would definitely change in terms of making for a lot more competition.

 

[gomito#10]

I personally feel the salary cap sucks, and would actually compromise a team more. It wouldn't let them get better or the players they need because they'll have to be afraid of going over the cap. For so many of you that love the American way of buying players, think about this. In the NBA, teams like New Jersey, the Lakers, Minnesota, etc will be stuck in mediocrity because of one reason, they're over the cap, and can't get who they want. I don't think teams should be restricted financially. Hey, if they've got money, spend it. You earned it. And I think that is a great thing that the EPL crapped out 1 billion pounds on it's players, but I don't see how that has anything to do with poor people and how it could save them.

there over the cap because of poor general management skills. Other teams are thrifty with the cap, look at the pistons... The Lakers are awful cause they have a horrible front office, why do you think kobe wants to be traded. sorry mate that reason doesnt seem that valid to me...

 

[Rocky]

there over the cap because of poor general management skills. Other teams are thrifty with the cap, look at the pistons... The Lakers are awful cause they have a horrible front office, why do you think kobe wants to be traded. sorry mate that reason doesnt seem that valid to me...

Dude, most every team in the nba is over the cap except for like Atlanta, Charlotte, even the Pistons are slightly over the cap(what really matters is the luxury tax threshold). They're not over the cap because of poor management, considering the New Jersey Nets have one of the best front offices in the league, so poor management ain't the reason teams are over the cap. Try again.

 

[gomito#10]

Dude, most every team in the nba is over the cap except for like Atlanta, Charlotte, even the Pistons are slightly over the cap(what really matters is the luxury tax threshold). They're not over the cap because of poor management, considering the New Jersey Nets have one of the best front offices in the league, so poor management ain't the reason teams are over the cap. Try again.

then you tell me why kobe wants to be traded? They dont give him any support, its not like they cant afford it. Its because there front office sucks. Not because as you stated there tied to the cap. Thats bullshit. Why do you think kobe wants jerry west back and mitch kupchak fired? How do you think teams get over the cap? Do you think its some magical force that makes this happen? Or the more logical choice is general managers and the players they choose to sign, some general managers are geniuses as working the cap and signing valuable players, and some are not(see mitch kupchak) Why dont you explain to me why the lakers are mediocre? Who made the signings?

 

[Rocky]

then you tell me why kobe wants to be traded? They dont give him any support, its not like they cant afford it. Its because there front office sucks. Not because as you stated there tied to the cap. Thats bullshit. Why do you think kobe wants jerry west back and mitch kupchak fired? How do you think teams get over the cap? Do you think its some magical force that makes this happen? Or the more logical choice is general managers and the players they choose to sign, some general managers are geniuses as working the cap and signing valuable players, and some are not(see mitch kupchak) Why dont you explain to me why the lakers are mediocre? Who made the signings?

Again, having a poor front office and a high salary cap have no correlation. Kobe wants to get traded for the exact reason you stated, Kupchak is an idiot. I'll restate it again, almost every team in the NBA is over the cap, you can't win without going over it, some of the best teams are WAAAAAAAY over the cap, some are even paying the luxury tax(do you know what that is?). Think about, the Lakers are over the cap, not surprisingly. Do you know what could happen if there was no salary cap? The Lakers could pursue Chauncey Billups, who is one of the more sought after free agents this summer. He would fill the Lakers tremendous black hole at the point guard spot, there biggest weakness IMO. But they are over the cap, and can't afford Billups unless they offer him the vets minimum, or the MLE(the average salary of the NBA, an exception that can be used by teams to go over the cap, regardless if you are over the cap, under it, or if the signing puts you over it, the reason why most teams are over the cap, and are winning franchises) if the Lakers are even given the right to use the MLE this summer. Billups won't accept anything less than a max deal, so offering the vets minimum or the MLE or even LLe is useless. My point is if there was no salary cap you could pursue who you want without being tie on a leash by the cap.

 

[Chris Davies]

Interesting debate, I'd never even thought about other sports having salary caps. Is the NBA the only sport with it so far?

To add to the debate (although knowing nothing about the NBA will put me at a disadvantage), I would prefer clubs to have just enough for just one/two/three players, so that the managers have to make the right decisions rather than buy a ton of players that anybody displays any interest in (which takes no skill at all) and then put them in the reserves A) when they turn out to be awful or B) just so that nobody else can have them. Anything that brings out more skill from the managers/players is a step forward in my opinion (within reason obviously).

 

[Rocky]

Interesting debate, I'd never even thought about other sports having salary caps. Is the NBA the only sport with it so far?

The NBA isn't the only one that has a salary cap. The NHL and NFL have one too, the MLB(baseball) doesn't have one though, which is why the Red Sox and Yankees are always trying to outbid each other for the next Japanese star. The NBA however, has by far the most complex salary cap system, filled with exceptions and loopholes that couldn't possibly be comprehended by the casual NBA fan. It's pretty easy to get over the cap in the NBA without crippling your team, you just have to watch if you don't get to close to paying the luxury tax, which would pretty much take a chunk out of the team's profits.

To add to the debate (although knowing nothing about the NBA will put me at a disadvantage), I would prefer clubs to have just enough for just one/two/three players,

Believe it or not, teams in the NBA really only pay their star player max money. There's a huge drop off after that. Which sucks, because you need more than one or two stars to win a championship, but it restricts teams from getting extra help, because they have no cap room.

so that the managers have to make the right decisions rather than buy a ton of players that anybody displays any interest in (which takes no skill at all)

You should watch the NBA, Jack. You'd love the countless hours of laughing your ass off at all the incompetent General Managers in this league, and there are plenty. I loved it when Rod Thorn, GM of the New Jersey Nets( my team, duh!), fucked over Phoenix Suns GM Jerry Colangelo by Trading Stephon Marbury for Jason Kidd, which turned the Nets from laughing stock of the league to title contender overnight. Or when Thorn snookered the Raptors by sending Alonzo Mourning and a bunch of scrubs and future draft picks who will turn out to be crap for Vince Carter, which saved our season. The Raptors eventually bought out Alonzo Mourning, because he was being the disgruntled bitch that he always is. His contract doesn't come off their books until after this season. That was a lot of useless info there, but who cares.

and then put them in the reserves A) when they turn out to be awful or B) just so that nobody else can have them.

There's only one problem in the NBA if you put a player on the bench, you still have to pay them, and with the salary cap it makes it worse, especially if that bad player has an equally bad contract, like Theo Ratliff, even though you don't know who he is. The only reason some crap players are useful in trades is if they become an expiring contract, as it offers some sort of cap relief for a team that needs room in the salary cap or is looking to rebuild, etc. Now you could just buy out a player, but in the NBA because of the Collecting Bargaining Agreement, that player's contract still has to be paid and works against that teams salary cap, so most teams don't buy out even the worst players(unless they have a really small contract), unless you're the Knicks of course.

Anything that brings out more skill from the managers/players is a step forward in my opinion (within reason obviously).

I think managers are skilled enough, no matter how great they're playing staff is. I mean they have to deal with players' egos on the side, too, so we should cut them some slack. And we can obviously tell the crap managers from the good managers no matter how good or bad the team they coach is. So hindering their finances to see how good they really are is redundant and pointless in my eyes.


Well....I know you don't understand most of the stuff I wrote because you don't follow the NBA, but I hope it sounded useful to you.