Home > Football > Why Man Utd, Chelsea, Arsenal, Liverpool and Spurs won't wear a salary cap
by Dave Doran on 10 July 2007
Email this Article (28) Comments
Free £10 bet when you register at
Comments (28)
by Graham Smith on July 10, 2007
I totally agree with it in Principle but in reality it wouldn't work. As for the above mentioned teams being against it - I think you'd find 99% of PL teams against it.
by Essexian76 9not the gay one) on July 10, 2007
I'm sure Spurs have a cap on salary, and have done so for a few years. Keane, King and I assume Berbatov (if not why not), are on the top level as is Bent, whom we are led to believe was offered less by Spurs than West Ham (dont think it was anywhere near to 35k per week though).
by dave on July 10, 2007
spurs have got a salary cap, no player is payed over 50k a week i reckon
by Jay on July 10, 2007
Add West Ham to the list...they are paying Neill £80k a week
by mjc on July 10, 2007
I think you'll find that Spurs don't operate a formal salary cap. The method they use instead is to sell (or give away) any player who is good enough to pay top wages to. Hope this clarifies the situation....
by Andrew Park on July 10, 2007
Interesting, but the G14 proposed a salary cap, alebit at 70%, as long ago as November 2001. Of course, Spurs and Chelsea are not in that group...
by dojob on July 10, 2007
Yes and no. Works if you want to see fair competition. Would you want to see West Ham or wigan or reading winning the league. The top 5 wants to protect their investment. Is the FA prepared to pay for injuries. It may work if the whole europe follows suit hence the G14, forget about domestic football. Under these system, you will not have the best playing together in a team. no fancy football.
by reply mjc on July 10, 2007
Henry, Campbell,Cole,Pires,Lauren all top earners all gone!!!!!!!!!
by Jim on July 10, 2007
I think Dave and Essexian are missing the point. Any club can put a nominal top salary level for their highest earners, be it 10k, 50k or 200k per week. The issue of salary capping is that each club will be either given an allocation of salary budget to apportion as they see fit amoungst their playing staff. Or, the club has to prove they are a profit making organisation / company and not operate under the financial backing of a sugar daddy such as Chelsea, and overall make a loss. Thus their salaries must fit into an overall cost vs profit business model. Putting an individual higher earner cap of 50k per week per player is meaningless if a club cannot sustain itself by its own means.
by Munich Red Devil on July 10, 2007
It will never work... unfortunately. The only way would be for all European leagues to agree to this (yeah right!) otherwise the talent (English or otherwise) will just walk out of the premiership. So all Euro leagues would have to enforce it. Even then, it could not be enforced either as it is surely against some EU laws - no commercial business can have a salary cap enforced on them. Businesses like FC's will go out and head hunt the best employees
by Essexian76 (not the gay one on July 10, 2007
It's up to clubs to budget their finances accordingly, and one assumes that a budget is in place and then sub divided by player/salary to the said player against revenue accrued. The system operated by Spurs obviously work as they have been profitable for some time, in fact are one of the few clubs that are..it's called good management I think!
by Essex_Yid on July 10, 2007
Second article claiming spurs dont have a salary cap! i believe king and keane are top earner at £55,000 no one else offered more no matter who they are, if they dont want to play for the club we dont want them!
by Essexain76 (not the gay one) on July 10, 2007
I personally think, that all clubs should only be allowed to enter the transfer market based on their profitabilty from the previous season's revenue, but its not phesiable any more than a salary cap is workable, it hasnt in the states (Beckham Rule), nor in Rugby Union or League. But you hope that a clubs financial director knows his business and keeps the football men away from the pot until everything else has been paid for ( Leeds v Inland Revenue).Too many clubs pander to pressure from fans who crave success and in doing so put the very clubs they profess to love in grave danger
by LG on July 10, 2007
... wouldn't really have that much of an impact. How many clubs would actually break the 100mil wage barrier?? Not many I think. Also, would increase the total wage bill to not exceed 70% of income... purely to protect the club from following the Leeds example You wouldn't have a mass exodus of top players as the clubs would still have their 'star players', ala Beckham at LA(??)
The Beckham rule you mention is not a salary cap for a player.. its a salary cap for the club!! The club could pay a single player the total wage cap with all other players playing for free... not a great idea but would be within the rules
by Essexian(not the gay one) on July 10, 2007
However like most rules clubs will try to attract the best players and try to find loopholes, in Beckhams case I feel the that MSL bent them until they were white, as a player of Becks status would be good for the league overall, if he's been an ordinary player I dont think anything would have altered do you?
by kakatk on July 10, 2007
How would salary capping based on groos turnover help lower league sides they still wouldn't be able to compete with the bigger clubs. Also who has the right to dictate to Roman Ambramovic et al how to spend there money
by jay on July 10, 2007
no
by Franco Mizzi on July 10, 2007
Good article and I agree 100% on the capping issue. It would cause more problems the fact that you would have an exodus of the best talent as I am sure that Real Madrid, Barcellona, AC Milan etc will be the main benifactors. More can be done by the big boys to help the smaller clubs and grass route football. I am a Manchester United supporter and I believe it is in the interest of every Football Club to have a healthy Premier League andalso from The Championship downwards. Now to the Tevez affair. This will haunt the premier league for many a year. West Ham should have been penalised by points deduction, end of story. It was, still is and will always be crystal clear to everybody that West Ham never owned the player. Why Manchester United have to pay the price for their incompetance I do not know. They say that Mascharono's case was different, bullocks it was. All West Ham did from January to May is tear up the log book and stated that the car they had on loan was now theirs. And the fat cats of SOHO squa
by Ol' Devil on July 10, 2007
US sports teams DO NOT have competitions with other leagues. This would ONLY work if every league in Europe had a cap system that was simular in amount. IF the Prem had a cap system, kiss UEFA and CL victories good bye. Not gonna happen!!!!
Some good arguements here - if clubs (or owners) are willing to pay silly money out then they risk their future on it eg - Leeds. If we capped salaries - would we have a cap on transfers also seeing as though we're telling clubs how much to spend on there players wages???
by mon on July 11, 2007
you are still a twat dave doran
by Nick on July 11, 2007
Chelsea's wage bill last season... £114 million, Tottenham's? closer to £25 million. effectively Tottenham could spend £75 million in this transfer window and Chelsea spend 0 and Tottenham would still have spent at least £10 million less than Chelsea in the last 12 months. Chelsea haven't bought success by simply paying high transfer fees. Wage capping would be a great initiative but as someone else pointed out it needs to be a global or at the very least european wide rule or else English teams will start to lose out on the top players who can get more money elsewhere
by Rob on July 11, 2007
are all people from essex so thick?
by Essexian76 (not the gay one) on July 11, 2007
Obviously!, as your indepth analysis has left me and all of us in the East of the capital stunned. What exactly was point again only cant seem to see it?