Goodbye to the salary cap

An arbitration panel has upheld a complaint by the Professional Footballers' Association that the League One and Two salary cap was illegal and unenforceable: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/55997868

It will be replaced by the old Salary Cap Management Protocol (SCMP) which took account of turnover rather than imposing an absolute limit on spending.

The background

Here are some extracts from an article I wrote for Charlton fanzine Voice of the Valley last year:

SCMP limited spending on player wages to a percentage of a club’s turnover. In League 1 clubs could spend a maximum of 60 per cent of their turnover on wages, in League 2, the limit was 55 per cent. The wages of coaching staff were not included. There were no restrictions (in themselves) on the amount a club could lose or spend on transfer fees. Initially introduced into League 2 in 2004/5 for guidance purposes, sanctions for breaching the SCMP thresholds were introduced during the 2011/12 season, with Swindon the first club to be sanctioned under the rules.

League Two clubs voted in favour of squad salary caps to replace the Salary Cap Management Protocol in August 2020, doubtless because smaller clubs saw it as a way of constraining their bigger competitors. There was overwhelming support in League Two, but in League One the vote was 16 for, seven against and one abstention.

The cap takes the form of a total limit of £2.5m in League One and £1m in League Two. This averages out at around £1,700 per player per week in League One (just over £88k a year) and £1,000 per player per week in League Two. To solve the issue of clubs currently paying in excess of the caps, the EFL will not account for any wages players earn over each league’s average salary. So, if a player currently earns £3,000, then only £1,700 of his wage would be recorded for the cap.

When calculating total salary spending, the ‘cap’ includes: basic wages; taxes; bonuses; image rights; agents’ fees; and other fees and expenses paid directly and indirectly to registered players. There are financial penalties for overspending of up to five per cent which would amount to £125,000 in League One and £75,000 in League Two. Above five per cent and clubs will be referred to a disciplinary commission that will be able to dock points.

The Professional Footballers’ Association set out a substantial critique of the salary cap proposals which they described as illegal and unenforceable. They considered that the proposed rules lacked clear objectives. They claimed, ‘there is no evidence e.g. supported by financial modelling, of how the regulations will aid future financial sustainability or why they are the appropriate mechanism to achieve the overall objectives (which do not appear to have been defined).’ It was unclear how the salary cap had been determined.

The issue of an allowance for marquee players appeared not to have been considered. ‘ The proposed salary caps, if implemented, could potentially reduce the ability of clubs to generate commercial revenue with sponsors and commercial partners now fully aware that clubs wage obligations will in some cases be significantly reduced. This effectively represents a potential loss of revenue to EFL clubs.’

The rules appear to be based on the Premiership Rugby Salary Regulations, but there were a number of differences between the two competitions, not least in the range and disparity of clubs. The PFA noted, ‘The financial performance of clubs in League One and League Two has remained relatively consistent in the last ten years with revenue growth being matched by increases in staff costs. Financial disparity is prevalent with the average ratio of top to bottom revenue generators being 7:1 in League One and 3:1 in League Two between 2014/15 and 2018/19.’ They pointed out that there were more important disparities between League One and League Two with a much higher ratio of highest to lowest revenue generating clubs (7: 1) in League One compared with League Two (3: 1).

They were concerned that the process of developing the new regulations had been rushed through without proper consultation, arguing that it typically took between 11 and 25 months to devise new sporting regulations.

Threat of financial calamity removed from Baggies

West Bromwich Albion had effectively been in decline ever since the club was sold to a Chinese consortium in August 2016, paying a figure north of £200m to buy former owner Jeremy Peace’s stake. Controlling shareholder Guochuan Lai’s ownership was fairly disastrous for the club, but his unloved tenure finally came to an end after Bilkul Football WBA, a company ultimately owned by Florida-based entrepreneur Shilen Patel and his father Dr Kiran Patel, acquired an 87.8% shareholding in West Bromwich Albion Group Limited, the parent company of West Bromwich Albion Football Club. This change in ownership was urgently required, due to the numerous financial problems facing West Brom, including growing high-interest debt and serious cash flow concerns, following years of no investment from the former owner. Indeed, West Brom’s auditors had already rung the alarm bell in the 2021/22 accounts when they cast doubt on the club’s ability to continue as a going concern without making player s

Gold standard ground boosts Tottenham's income

The gold standard in European football grounds is the Tottenham Hotspur stadium in north London, a £1bn construction project completed in 2019. Its impact on the club’s finances has become increasingly clear as the effects of the pandemic have faded. Previously, the average fan would spend less than £2 inside the ground on a typical match day, but now that figure is about £16, thanks to new facilities including the longest bar in Europe and an on-site microbrewery. Capacity has gone up from 36,000 at the club’s previous home of White Hart Lane to 62,000. The new stadium — built on land adjacent to White Hart Lane — has opened the door to a broad range of other events that have helped to push commercial income up from €117mn in 2018 to €215mn in 2022. Last year, Tottenham hosted US singer Beyoncé for five nights on her global Renaissance tour, two NFL matches, as well as rugby games and heavyweight boxing bouts. Money brought in from football has gone up too. Match day income is

Spurs to sell minority stake

Tottenham Hotspur is in talks to sell a minority stake in a deal that could value it at up to £3.75 billion and pave the way for Joe Lewis and his family to sever ties with the Premier League football club. Tottenham chairman Daniel Levy is seeking an investment that values the club at between £3.5 billion and £3.75 billion, including debt. While the terms of any deal have not been finalised, City sources expect Spurs to sell about 10 per cent. The club is being advised by bankers from Rothschild on the sale. Tottenham wants to raise fresh capital for new player signings and to help fund the development of an academy for its women’s team, as well as a 30-storey hotel next to its north London stadium. The financier Amanda Staveley, who brokered the deal for Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund to take over Newcastle United, is understood to be among the parties to have expressed an interest in Tottenham. Staveley’s fund, PCP Capital Partners, has raised about £500 million to depl

The Political Economy of Football V2

Search This Blog