‘Salary cap is the right move - but there has to be some flexibility’
COLUMNIST MAX BELL TAKES A CLOSER LOOK AT PROPOSED SALARY CAPS FOR NEXT SEASON
EVEN before the Coronavirus, this whole season has forced many fans and clubs to rethink what is truly important in football nowadays.
League Two struggles don’t feel so bad when you see Bury expelled from the EFL. Travelling down to Exeter for a freezing 0-0 sounds majestic after a global pandemic forces lockdown for months. With more clubs than ever before close to financial ruin, and even potential extinction, building a system which keeps clubs financially stable, has never been important.
When so many clubs and owners repeatedly show themselves unable to responsibly manage their own affairs; you face a simple choice. Either shrug your shoulders while clubs go to the wall, or proactively step in to save fans and communities from the mismanagement and excess of a powerful, reckless few.
And if you favour en-masse bankruptcy, are you really a football fan?
A vital component of this financial management, must be a salary cap. And after moves in the last year to cut the playing budget, it was a surprise to learn that Scunthorpe United chairman is not in favour of the EFL’s proposal in this area.
These wage caps must, however, be properly and independently managed, if they are to succeed.
Relying on clubs to mark their own financial homework has been a disaster in recent years, and not just in football. Salary caps are extremely common in American sports, and even the likes of British rugby union; but we must not allow the likes of Saracens’ systemic cheating to infect football too.
In every crisis and controversy, whether it’s Bury going to the wall, Wimbledon being moved to Milton Keynes, or even Boston’s financial mismanagement to get promoted; the EFL have been missing in action. It’s time to effectively take this issue out of their hands. The EFL’s current proposal suggests a maximum allowed spend of £1.5-million for League Two sides, £2.5-million for League One, and ever-increasing fines, and even points deductions, for sides which exceed the cap.
However, there must be some flexibility in the system. Even on a basic cost of living basis, clubs like Leyton Orient have to pay the very same player a fair whack more than Grimsby Town or Scunthorpe United - why should they be penalised for that? In any other job you would get ‘London weighting’, so why not football?
Outside investment in the likes of Salford and Fleetwood has clearly been good for those communities, but if these caps force clubs to focus on building long-term income streams for when their benefactors inevitably leave; that will be a huge positive. Especially when the likes of Macclesfield and Bolton have been allowed to gain competitive advantage through players they, fundamentally, couldn’t afford.
Objections from the likes of Bradford City and Sunderland are also understandable, if slightly selfish. When their average attendances are over 7 and 10 times as large as some of their league competitors, they can clearly afford to spend more without risking bankruptcy.
But ultimately, both clubs are in their
respective leagues for a reason - and have had major struggles with debt and financial problems in recent seasons. If slightly restricting already-failing big clubs is a trade-off for wider financial security, then so be it. Clubs might even be able to reduce ticket prices! We have already seen the existing rules around spending fixed percentages of income open to abuse, and it is time for more radical action across the board.
Otherwise, we might remember 2020 as the year football could have pulled itself back from the cliff-edge - but didn’t.