@@arcmaps9819 Well, you asked a question and I answered it. 🤷♂ I've never used chatGPT, but I've played FIFA and they were usually somewhere in the 4th league in the UK. I'm more of a Crewe Alexandra kind of guy. Who hasn't played FIFA by taking a team from the lowest tier to win the Premier League?
Man United have spent €1.075bn on players over 10 years compared to Man City $984 million. City wants to be allowed to spend at least the same as Man United, and who can blame them? All they want is a level playing field.
It's not a level playing field. They want to spend beyond their means, breaking the rules that league clubs signed up to. They don't get to redraw the rules after the fact to suit them. Don't even get me started about the absolutely scandalous midweek trips the referees take to Dubai to earn 5 - 10x their salary reffing in the one country that happens to be run by the owners of Man City.
Maybe if the Premier league and Richard Masters didn't let the American owners of the two red mardarse clubs in the north West run the show and dictate to the Premier league then maybe just maybe we wouldn't find ourselves in this mess. You reap what you sow, nobody gives two fucks about my club so I wouldn't bat an eyelid if we bring everything down with us. Tough shit.
My question is what if a club other than the top 6 have a rich owner and invest in the club and buys good player's that wants to compete with top 6. For example another 4 club becomes better and top 6 becomes top 10. Isn't that more competitive and good for football.
I would think so. Not too long ago, it was the tightest title race in eons. 3 way race. City win what was a good competive year and now it's "worrying". 😕 Meanwhile Villa being forced to sell and RM running away with CL
Man City was on the outside of the "Big Four" not so long ago. They spent tons of money to get where they are today, thanks to Middle Eastern super rich new owners. The question is, can the league prevent this in the future? Probably not, but they are trying.
I don't even care about the money or how you assembled your squad, but rules agreed to must be followed. Happy to change the rules for yours and others' benefit. What really annoys me is the absolutely scandalous midweek side hustle gigs the referees get in the UAE, the one country run by your owners. It's the most brazen conflict of interest imaginable and comes at a time when your rivals get stonewall obviously corrupt decisions going against them, given by refs who just got off a flight from Abu Dhabi, with several seasons decided by a single point or two. Had that Doku kick been given as a penalty, Arsenal were champions. Rodri handball in 2022 (and there was another one in the same run in, one against Everton one against Wolves if I remember correctly). Michael Oliver's UAE history combined with his decisions making in matches affecting City and their rivals should lead to a jail sentence. It's not possible to be that incompetent. Corruption is the only explanation.
@@davyprendergast82 Liverpool shirt sponsor Standard Chartered allegedly sponsor terrorist groups 😕. But will we wait for the verdict before we start jumping up and down like chimpanzees?
@@davyprendergast82It's like no wrong decisions went in favour of Arsenal? We see poor officiating all the time in fb, Man City vs Tottenham at Etihad, the ref waved play on after Halland was fouled, Man City player was on the verge of scoring when the ref whistles the foul on Halland n the match was 3:3. So, no poor officiating vs City?
Yes, I enjoyed listening to this explanation, now we know that PL want overt control of all clubs, because they are the BOSS! You will do what WE tell you and you are not allowed to use enterprise to make money and buy the best players, like Manchester United, Liverpool and Arsenal always did! FFP simply means you are not allowed to spend more than we at the PL allow! They must hate Manchester City for pinching their income and having the intelligence to avoid debt altogether, unlike Man U! This crazy situation is to attempt the removal of City at the top! Whoaaaah, not so fast! City's top lawyer must be called SUE! 1966 to now, I have supported City!
@@davyprendergast82 How can that be true when different clubs come and go? So far as I am concerned, it's a cartel of big money behind the scenes, more than likely Liverpool, Man United and Arsenal, who seem to remain at the top no matter the weather!
▪︎Liverpool caught Hacking ▪︎Utd,Everton admit to FFP Cheating ▪︎City found Not Guilty in Court,Unbanned ▪︎If PL were Fair would expel ▪︎City or Utd,Liverpool?😂
That's not true. FFP is supposed to be about sustainable economics. Too many clubs were going bust when their 'owner' stopped providing money. It's also supposed to stop clubs owners being able to just buy their way to success. It doesn't stop clubs that generate their own legitimate turnover doing whatever they want.
@@JiTiAr35 throw city to the championship too for being an oil club and breaking every financial fair play rule possible and strip their last 4 years titles
The EPL is trying to maintain the status quo. That is ManU, Arsenal, Liverpool, etc are always at the top even though they have huge debts. My team NUFC have the richest owners in the world but are finding it difficult to compete because of this cartel in the EPL. If you think the EPL is doing this to make things competitive you are extremely naive. Talk to people in Newcastle who were taking the EPL to court over the sale in 2021. They have evidence that clubs were colluding with the EPL to stop the takeover.
Of course clubs were colluding and voting in self interest. That's why they voted in the APT rule. That's why City are saying that the voting is undemocratic and unfair. Newcastle should really have joined them in this present action.
Agreed, FFP undoubtedly cements the position of the teams with the biggest incomes. In the name of 'competition' Villa and Newcastle are now being forced to weaken their teams 🤷♂
Villa and Newcastle have no debt yet they are being penalised by a system that states its aim is to reduce the amount of debt that teams can accrue. Well, that makes sense! You start to pint this out and you sound like a conspiracy theorist nut. Rarely, though, conspiracy theories do turn out to be true. And if you actually look at the facts of the case (ie follow the money) then you can see it’s not really far fetched at all. It’s a cartel that’s protecting itself. Leicester triggered the defence and Newcastle and Villa have caused them to double down. I think that the money will ruin the game, if it already hasn’t. There’s this balancing act between competition sport and business that will eventually fail. As a well known economist theorised you’ll end up with one enterprise dominating through its economic power.
Agreed. The suggestion that the PL are trying to make a level playing field is nonsense. The smaller clubs are disadvantaged by PSR. It is discouraging investment in the PL as a whole but in the smaller clubs in particular.
Let's go back to a VERY basic principle of FFP goal. The main objective of FFP is preventing football clubs from falling into financial troubles which may endanger their long-term survival. So how come clubs who have zero debt for years will be punished? Look, I'm not a financial expert by any means. So are the comments below me. But it's just illogical thinking for me.
The NFL, American football, has a salary cap. Every team in the NFL gets to spend $255.4 million dollars for players salaries in 2024. This does not include coaches and staff. Teams can pay players whatever they want, as long as they don't go above the $255.4 million cap. This helps level the playing field..
The NBA has a salary cap too and MLB has a soft cap that’s enforced by an increasingly onerous luxury tax. Furthermore, the NFL and MLB limit the number of players who can be on the team roster at a time. It’s important to note that most of these rules would likely be illegal if Congress hadn’t passed laws giving these leagues anti-trust exemptions . You also don’t see team jerseys with sponsor logos; the league, whether it’s MLB or NFL etc controls which company will make uniforms for all the teams. TV revenue sharing is also far more equitable on the basis that the leagues couldn’t survive with teams only in large markets. Losses on the scale of some of the Premier League teams are unheard of in U.S. sports leagues.
But then the entire football world must introduce a salary cap, not just the Premier League. The league would dive when all the good players left for better salaries in other leagues.
@@Magnus1891 I wouldn’t introduce a salary cap for that very reason. What I would do is introduce an increasingly punitive luxury tax that would get redistributed to the less wealthy clubs and I would place a limit on how many players a team can pay at any one time.
Professional sports are a scam. The teams with the richest owners win while the other teams lose. Professional sports are like honest weight scales except that wealthy owners are allowed to press their thumbs down on one side of the scale. Would you buy a product by weight from such shady and shoddy people? I won't.
Imagine if there was the same player spend and salary caps, Premier League wide, Man United would be making so much more profit, it could pay off its debts, build a new stadium, and drop ticket and shirt prices. Wouldnt that be good for football?
The Australian Football League have salary caps. I think it's good. These guys kick a ball around. Why should they be paid so much more than essential workers.
The APT, FFP and PSR rules are killing the PL as witnessed by the quiet transfer deadline day in January 2024. More and more clubs are failing FFP and are being docked points yet the reason for introducing FFP was to prevent clubs from going out of business. The reality is that no PL club has gone out of business before FFP and these rules have killed any chance of owners growing their clubs.
Think we already have a two tier Premier league where the bigger clubs finish top 5-6 every season. This needs to change to allow other clubs to challenge them
Why don't they just say that all EPL teams can only bring in 500 million over 3 years, job done. And if you're club is in debt then it has to clear that debt with 50 percent of profits, and if there is a debt the owners can't take money out of the club.
Great video JoeBlogs! Very informative!!! Please keep making videos like this. More videos about English and European sport would be a great addition to your more usual political and economic videos. Thank you very much!
Sounds like Premier league needs to add Salary caps to teams like American Football does. With a salary cap your franchise can make as much money as they want but you still can only use so much to put a team together for a single season thus giving poorer franchises a way to compete. Yeah they would still have better stadiums and stuff but it wouldn't affect the integrity of the game.
Most the deals in question are actually smaller deals, where you can't find details of the company doing anything, services, staff, but can still apparently sponsor 10 mil a year
????? still the biggest league in the world silly rules are hindering thats all and salary cap will kill the prem as all top players will just play in europe where no salary cap and prem dies
In the U.K. Man City sues the PL. In Germany the fans throws fake gold coins, if the leauge gets to commercialized. Is football for the fans or the owners? I am tired off watching the U.K. buy so many good players, just to have them sit on the bench, or loan them out - it robs the football game of so many talented players.
The small clubs can also have rich owners. Same for everyone, so I don't buy that big get bigger and small get smaller. All this is to protect the old big teams (who themselves could pour money on players in the 80s and 90s however they wanted) from competition
Facts there are actually 17 owners of football clubs in the premier league that are actually billionaires...but most rob there own fans of silverware by running the clubs for profits they dont put fully back into the infrastructure of the clubs..so the billionaire owners who do this such as city are frowned upon
Surely the simple solution is to limit spending not income? A salary cap & a transfer cap. If you do that then there is no incentive for dodgy dealing. It doesn't matter what the income is, it won't give an unfair advantage. If the caps are related to an average income of the whole league then the incentive is to pool efforts to improve it overall. Not concentrating on this only makes sense if you understand that doing so eliminates the competitive advantage of those clubs who already have a large established income stream?
And it wasn’t boring then and they weren’t bullies and they never paid fantastic amounts more than any other club could afford. The hypocrisy of the Red Cartel who are crapping themselves is astounding.
They could always put salary caps for the players like American Football does, or a luxury tax where richer teams are taxed based on total salaries then that tax is given to poorer teams to help them pay more for salary.
A salary cap won't work in European football. The clubs from the Big 4 leagues (England, Spain, Germany and Italy) all compete in the UEFA Champions League and the UEFA Europa League. For example, if the Premier League had a salary cap, all the best players would leave play in the other countries. The English clubs would not be competitive in the Championships League, and loss of revenue and value would follow. Also, I belive a cap would be illegal under EU Labour Law. You can't cap someones salary. Keep in mind that football clubs are not franchises, they are independent entities, unlike the American system.
Thanks I appreciate this video. I hope the Premier League can reign in the commercial income difference. I think there needs to be a division between the sport side and business side to keep the sport competitive. Limiting the spending of commercial income on players seems to be fair both sporting and business wise to me. They still earn themselves the money but stops them from killing the sporting competitiveness. I think another good step for the Premier League would be to equally distribute broadcast venue no matter who was being televised. The same goes for the domestic cups during each round. Newcastle would be about where the average is.
Great video Joe. Thanks! Full of analysis - not enough of that in the mainstream media on this topic, though I have seen some. Interesting to see that Man City's gate revenue for 2023 was about half that of Man U, for example. There is a global market - some international fans are dedicated to their particular club but some not so dedicated. At a past employer, years ago, my manager and I hosted lunch for Chinese visitors from a partner company. Talk strayed into football, as a universal language, and which clubs we supported. One guest listed the top 6 Premier League sides at the time.
I get the issue for the League. In the long term, leagues and codes suffer in terms of viewership and hence funding if the same teams or athletes win for years in a row. Sport needs legends but it also needs to be exciting and everyone needs to have their heros have a moment in the sun
The competition every year allows the big 6 to dominate last year nufc and this year Aston villa broke into the top 4 and are stopped progressing that's wrong that's anti competitive in the meantime teams with massive debt are allowed to dominate
Imagine if the Gen Z players decide that the extreme salaries are obscene, given what teachers and nurses and childcare workers are paid, and refuse trade / contract offers more than 20 times those salaries ... and ask all management types to do the same.
As someone who knows 0 things about soccer leagues/sports leagues in general, this video was pretty good. But it did miss a bit of context. I could have used some explanation as to the conenction between sponsorships and the debt rules as you transitoned. I also didn't understand the point reduction thing so as to understand the difference in punishments between the clubs. I appreciate the different topic though! Will watch more videos like this.
Kind of tipping the balance here, Joe. I'm not a fan of big money bossing competitive sport, but you set this up bass ackwards. City were the fifth-most spenders. City don't have Antony and are not throwing $80M Sancho out of squad. The FFP rules were on tap before City won anything. These rules assured dominance of four or five clubs with Chelsea and ManU in top dog position. This means that PL football has been a Super League within a broader frame to provide for weekly competitive matches. FFP essentially determines that there will be no Man City uprising from below the threshold of the Super League. The 115 charges are sour grapes from the Super League against an upstart club.
We want to be fair and making the league equal. Except when Manchester United were winning and buying the best players in the world. Nothing about the league demanding fair play?
Hardest oart here must be attemlting to form any Financial Controls, when teams play in external leAgues as well, snd the likelyhood of is it FIFA that run those other leagues? Agreeing these rules, becouse that means other large Championshios can entice top stars hence more eyes to their product. It's a shame, we'll jyst have to wait fir Electric Cars to reduce a lot of the Saudi money fir leagues to become comletitive again.
There may not be an absolute limit on the number of players a club can sign, but they can only register a total of 25 senior players of which a maximum of 17 can be non "HOME GROWN" but what constitutes home grown I'd also complicated. In addition to this, they may also have an unlimited number of players who were under the age of 21 at the start of the season. This list/register of players must be given to the Premier League at the end of each transfer period. The transfer periods are approximately mid-June until the end of August and January. The season is approximately August until May. It does contain international breaks where clubs MUST release plays "called up" by they country. Even that can be confusing as a player born in England with Spanish parents and Scottish grandparents has a choice of countries they can play for. To make that even more complicated if they play for a "big" country in their development years, they can then decide to play for a smaller country in their recent ancestry if they want to do so, but once they have played as an adult for a country they cannot change again. If you want to know who makes and changes the rules of the game you may be surprised to learn that it is NOT FIFA, the international authority, but a committee called IFAB! Look them up.
Buy and sell players? Goodness, I thought GB abolished slavery in 1834 (yes, I know the US did so in 1865...I have the same question about pro sports in the US).
Further to RedSphinx’s answer above, players can put in transfer requests themselves. Although these may not be granted, they sometimes are, as there is not a great deal of point in keeping a player in the squad who doesn’t want to be there and it can have a bad effect overall on the team.
Not like you to be a drama queen Joe. City are challenging the introduction of the Associated Party Transactions (APT) rules as they believe they are illegal in so far as Competition Law is concerned. These rules are not in the interest of fairness at all. They are in the commercial interests of the other big red clubs. They have clearly lobbied (likely leveraged favours and sweetheart deals as well) the rest of the clubs necessary to get these rules voted in. This is not conjecture, the red clubs have clearly conspired since the introduction of FFP (which was conveniently not in place whilst they all spent extravagantly to build their brands and fanbases) to introduce new rules to stifle competition to their place at the top of the pyramid. As one set of rules fail, they introduce further sets of targeted rules to try to entrench their position. Pure protectionism. City are not against regulation of spending per se. What was wrong with the Related Party Transaction (RPT) rules that existed previously? These are definable by International Accounting Standards (IAS24) and lay out clearly and recognisably who is and isn't a related party and the application of FMV and UEFA still use this. City would still have to comply with these standards should APT be removed. There is no suggestion City want removal of all spending regulation and previous spending and sponsorship is not out of reason. City aren't the club who has broken the British transfer record 6 times! These new rules now require a club to "prove" the value is FMV not have the PL prove it isn't. They require disclosure of the contract details and disclosure from the sponsor of the purported value to them of the sponsorship. They laughingly require disclosure of a secondary sponsorship bidder who were outbid. In addition it appears reviews of existing deals and downgrading to FMV may result in amounts removed that were subject to up to 3 years previous PSR calculations. These processes are not governed by any recognisable body and have no standing in law. They are seemingly directed at ownership from certain parts of the world as they were brought in originally on the purchase of Newcastle by the Saudi PIF. Lets not laughingly pretend this wasn't purely out of self interest. City abstained because they were advised of their potential illegality and to vote Yes/No (ie accepting their existence) might prejudice potential action against them further down the line. City haven't got any sponsorship deals that have been challenged by UEFA as above fair market value FMV, surely you would expect the most successful side over the previous 10 years to have some of the biggest and best sponsorship deals? City's deals aren't that much different to the other "big 5" in value. Also City's wage bill will of course will be high, their staff wages are highly success incentivised, more success, bigger wages. I wouldn't be surprised to see City wage bill come down quite a lot this financial year as they havent won it all this year. Excluding player trading from the profit and loss is nonsense as this is clearly a huge part of the football business and clearly part of the profitability strategies of lots of clubs, including City. City are NOT currently suing the PL they are challenging the APT rules at arbitration as per the PL rules allow. Without seeing the leaked document to the "Times" its difficult to asses the allegation of loss made by CIty for which a lawsuit may arise. Its been surmised "Sponsorship" to City has been affected (by means of a rejected, varied or denied deal) under these new rules for which such a loss has occurred, although this is currently supposition. Clearly other PL clubs have "woken up" to this protectionist racket and Villa, Chelsea, Newcastle, Wolves and allegedly others now want these rules gone. I hope Villa go ahead with their proposed challenge to the PSR rules for 3 yearly spending compliance as well. All these rules have been put in place for one reason. To facilitate the protection of United, Liverpool and Arsenal of what they see as their commercial interests above everybody else, including the health of the PL. Masters has been a complicit puppet in administering this and it will cost him his job. The 115 (Bu115hit) can wait for another time.
I should have read your post - which is first class - before putting mine on which I thought was pretty big itself until I saw yours. I see that you seem to be a lawyer like me. But no one who has a fixed view on these matters will take a blind bit of notice of anything you or I say because they have already made up their minds without knowing anything at all about the evidence.
@@nigelduckworth4419 I'm not a lawyer although I work within the legal/justice system. A colleague who wears a wig and works in chambers during a case in crown court once called me jokingly, a "frustrated barrister". I took this as a compliment to my case law knowledge and interpretation of law, although I may be wrong! These matters are extremely partisan and understandably some of the issues are complex and therefore difficult to understand. I dont think its unreasonable for red club fans to take the viewpoint they have. What irks me most is the position of the media in this country, Nowhere do you see discussion of the potential innocence of MCFC of what they are accused of by the PL, in whole or in part. Likewise the furore caused by this arbitrary process has been blown out of all proportion by sensationalising potential outcomes for clicks and likes by the gutter press. The most genuine piece I have read discussing the whole matter of APT's is a piece by Martin Samuel in the Times earlier this week, unsurprising hes a retained journalist not a clickbait merchant. If you haven't read it I suggest you seek it out.
@@elonslawsuit5004 Thanks for your reply. I am not seeking to blame either the so-called Red clubs for trying to protect their positions but the logical conclusion from that must be that the so-called democratic process in the EPL is not democratic at all. Most of the media have focussed on this point when they criticise city's present stance and I think that City are quite right to challenge this, since if they go down what the media call the democratic process rather than gong to law, they will simply again be outvoted by clubs who have already voted against them. A truly democratic process allows for legal redress for those disadvantaged -see Rwanda etc. but in the PL there is no redress within the rules for those losing out and so City have had to go outside those rules by instituting the present proceedings at arbitration. Finally, I think that we may each have a different take on Joe's video. I was waiting for the sucker punch from him in taking sides and that would usually have meant criticism of City, but in my view, it never came.
Who would be the winner if city win this court case? Will it be city and Newcastle because of their mega rich owners? What happens if the rest say not for us anymore and the owners decide to try and sell? Will there be anymore premier league at the end??
Pretty interesting. I think football as you have described it transcends the usual notion of a business. It's more like a command economy, such as a nation e.g. North Korea might have, operating worldwide within many market economies. It has all the usual command economy problems of unintended consequences and instability. Lots of knobs and levers with unpredictable effects, plus humans with incentives to misuse them.
Rule is designed by big clubs, for benefit of big clubs. Small clubs are like small grocery, they are not allowed to build the bigger shopping mall to compete even though they have money to do so. Small club will be smaller following this rule. EPL should cap all clubs to spend at same amount. Why allow big club to spend but small club owner cannot invest their own money for their business. Football play at the pit. Big clubs should concentrate on developing their own team to play better football rather than finding the rule to stop other clubs and let their team playing crap despite huge money spend and let their own supporters cry for 115 like it is the last hope to compete in the league.
@@barryowens5535 When sugar daddy leave, He lost his own money, their sponsorship given to his club not cause any debt to the club. In case of City if he did leave. City can sell asset (players, facilities, top class academy complex. The asset was around 50 million when he bought City and now it worth over 1000 million.
@@steve-kl9iv Any club can win the league, If PL did cap all clubs. The club that used to spend a lot but not get result will get worse this way, relegation perhaps.
I'm more a motorsports guy, so hopefully the antitrust investigstion into F1 over their refusal to allow Andretti in will go somewhere and see Joe make a video.
FYI Brits Called it "Soccer" 1st As authors Silke-Maria Weineck and Stefan Szymanski explain in their book, It's Football, Not Soccer (And Vice Versa), the formal name of the sport is “association football”. British university students in the late 19th century nicknamed it “soccer”, a twist on the second syllable of “association”
I did not expect to be as entertained by this as I was, thanks for breaking it all down for a silly Yank. Keep up the great work, love your content Joe! 👏
Salary caps need to be mixed with a general payout to the entire league. Every player from the smallest losing team to the largest winning team deserves an equal share of profits of the entire league. This should go into pensions and medical benefits. And if a team starts to win too much, then the rest of the league should just retire that team from the roster. Ultimately the winning team needs the rest of the league to compete against just as much as it needs to win.
THANK YOU. Brits love to cry that evil Americans call it soccer. If you read anything from the early 20th century, the English referred to Rugby as "football," and football as "soccer."
It was called "Association Football" to distinguish it with "Rugby Football" back when it was created, and then soon after, Oxford students started calling it "soccer" but it did not stay permanent, and it eventually turned into "football" and "rugby". I'm not seeing anything about a "first news article" that you are talking about. I've no clue about any of this, this all just comes from google searching.
So Manchester City is a one team all-star league? Some anti-competitive behaviors are normally permitted for large pro sports leagues. Manchester City exists within the league, not outside.
![[UNCUT] The Loyal Pin ปิ่นภักดิ์ EP.6 (1/4)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/m05kZ2GDKXg/mqdefault.jpg)
So if the Premier League goes out of action, it leaves the mighty Accrington Stanley just two divisions below the top tier again 😀
Who are they?
"Exactly"😂
@@arcmaps9819 They're a football team from England.
@@octavianpopescu4776 Wooosh!
Thanks chatGPT!
@@arcmaps9819 Well, you asked a question and I answered it. 🤷♂ I've never used chatGPT, but I've played FIFA and they were usually somewhere in the 4th league in the UK. I'm more of a Crewe Alexandra kind of guy. Who hasn't played FIFA by taking a team from the lowest tier to win the Premier League?
Man United have spent €1.075bn on players over 10 years compared to Man City $984 million. City wants to be allowed to spend at least the same as Man United, and who can blame them? All they want is a level playing field.
It's not a level playing field. They want to spend beyond their means, breaking the rules that league clubs signed up to. They don't get to redraw the rules after the fact to suit them. Don't even get me started about the absolutely scandalous midweek trips the referees take to Dubai to earn 5 - 10x their salary reffing in the one country that happens to be run by the owners of Man City.
Maybe if the Premier league and Richard Masters didn't let the American owners of the two red mardarse clubs in the north West run the show and dictate to the Premier league then maybe just maybe we wouldn't find ourselves in this mess.
You reap what you sow, nobody gives two fucks about my club so I wouldn't bat an eyelid if we bring everything down with us.
Tough shit.
Top lad
We're not hearing enough about this hearing considering how massive the ramifications of any decision will be in either case.
Why? Dude this rules came in 2021
▪︎City defeated Super League
▪︎City defeated UEFA
▪︎City danger to - Football or Establishment?😂
Its in private
My question is what if a club other than the top 6 have a rich owner and invest in the club and buys good player's that wants to compete with top 6. For example another 4 club becomes better and top 6 becomes top 10. Isn't that more competitive and good for football.
I would think so. Not too long ago, it was the tightest title race in eons. 3 way race. City win what was a good competive year and now it's "worrying". 😕 Meanwhile Villa being forced to sell and RM running away with CL
Man City was on the outside of the "Big Four" not so long ago. They spent tons of money to get where they are today, thanks to Middle Eastern super rich new owners. The question is, can the league prevent this in the future? Probably not, but they are trying.
I don't even care about the money or how you assembled your squad, but rules agreed to must be followed. Happy to change the rules for yours and others' benefit. What really annoys me is the absolutely scandalous midweek side hustle gigs the referees get in the UAE, the one country run by your owners. It's the most brazen conflict of interest imaginable and comes at a time when your rivals get stonewall obviously corrupt decisions going against them, given by refs who just got off a flight from Abu Dhabi, with several seasons decided by a single point or two. Had that Doku kick been given as a penalty, Arsenal were champions. Rodri handball in 2022 (and there was another one in the same run in, one against Everton one against Wolves if I remember correctly). Michael Oliver's UAE history combined with his decisions making in matches affecting City and their rivals should lead to a jail sentence. It's not possible to be that incompetent. Corruption is the only explanation.
@@davyprendergast82 Liverpool shirt sponsor Standard Chartered allegedly sponsor terrorist groups 😕. But will we wait for the verdict before we start jumping up and down like chimpanzees?
@@davyprendergast82It's like no wrong decisions went in favour of Arsenal?
We see poor officiating all the time in fb, Man City vs Tottenham at Etihad, the ref waved play on after Halland was fouled, Man City player was on the verge of scoring when the ref whistles the foul on Halland n the match was 3:3. So, no poor officiating vs City?
I can't really get into millionaires crying about not being allowed to make more millions.
Yes, I enjoyed listening to this explanation, now we know that PL want overt control of all clubs, because they are the BOSS! You will do what WE tell you and you are not allowed to use enterprise to make money and buy the best players, like Manchester United, Liverpool and Arsenal always did! FFP simply means you are not allowed to spend more than we at the PL allow! They must hate Manchester City for pinching their income and having the intelligence to avoid debt altogether, unlike Man U! This crazy situation is to attempt the removal of City at the top! Whoaaaah, not so fast! City's top lawyer must be called SUE! 1966 to now, I have supported City!
The Premier League literally IS the clubs lol, and they agreed to these rules.
@@davyprendergast82 How can that be true when different clubs come and go? So far as I am concerned, it's a cartel of big money behind the scenes, more than likely Liverpool, Man United and Arsenal, who seem to remain at the top no matter the weather!
All of this is a form of corruption.
FFP is there to protect clubs like Man U, Arsenal and Liverpool so they can maintain their top position in the league from challengers.
▪︎Liverpool caught Hacking
▪︎Utd,Everton admit to FFP Cheating
▪︎City found Not Guilty in Court,Unbanned
▪︎If PL were Fair would expel
▪︎City or Utd,Liverpool?😂
So why did the efl bring in their own rules?
That's not true. FFP is supposed to be about sustainable economics. Too many clubs were going bust when their 'owner' stopped providing money. It's also supposed to stop clubs owners being able to just buy their way to success. It doesn't stop clubs that generate their own legitimate turnover doing whatever they want.
@@girowinters Utd should be punished severely then.
Their owners aren't willing to pay £700M of net debt.
Throw Utd to Championship.
@@JiTiAr35 throw city to the championship too for being an oil club and breaking every financial fair play rule possible and strip their last 4 years titles
Same problem as with F1 Motorsport. Dominated by a few rich teams.
So why would you want investment by others to be limited
The EPL is trying to maintain the status quo. That is ManU, Arsenal, Liverpool, etc are always at the top even though they have huge debts. My team NUFC have the richest owners in the world but are finding it difficult to compete because of this cartel in the EPL. If you think the EPL is doing this to make things competitive you are extremely naive. Talk to people in Newcastle who were taking the EPL to court over the sale in 2021. They have evidence that clubs were colluding with the EPL to stop the takeover.
Of course clubs were colluding and voting in self interest. That's why they voted in the APT rule. That's why City are saying that the voting is undemocratic and unfair. Newcastle should really have joined them in this present action.
Agreed, FFP undoubtedly cements the position of the teams with the biggest incomes. In the name of 'competition' Villa and Newcastle are now being forced to weaken their teams 🤷♂
Villa and Newcastle have no debt yet they are being penalised by a system that states its aim is to reduce the amount of debt that teams can accrue. Well, that makes sense! You start to pint this out and you sound like a conspiracy theorist nut. Rarely, though, conspiracy theories do turn out to be true. And if you actually look at the facts of the case (ie follow the money) then you can see it’s not really far fetched at all. It’s a cartel that’s protecting itself. Leicester triggered the defence and Newcastle and Villa have caused them to double down. I think that the money will ruin the game, if it already hasn’t. There’s this balancing act between competition sport and business that will eventually fail. As a well known economist theorised you’ll end up with one enterprise dominating through its economic power.
Absolutely
Agreed. The suggestion that the PL are trying to make a level playing field is nonsense. The smaller clubs are disadvantaged by PSR. It is discouraging investment in the PL as a whole but in the smaller clubs in particular.
There were no rules until man city’s take over . Why ? Because the premier league were happy with the red wall clubs winning everything
Let's go back to a VERY basic principle of FFP goal.
The main objective of FFP is preventing football clubs from falling into financial troubles which may endanger their long-term survival.
So how come clubs who have zero debt for years will be punished?
Look, I'm not a financial expert by any means. So are the comments below me.
But it's just illogical thinking for me.
The NFL, American football, has a salary cap. Every team in the NFL gets to spend $255.4 million dollars for players salaries in 2024. This does not include coaches and staff. Teams can pay players whatever they want, as long as they don't go above the $255.4 million cap. This helps level the playing field..
The NBA has a salary cap too and MLB has a soft cap that’s enforced by an increasingly onerous luxury tax. Furthermore, the NFL and MLB limit the number of players who can be on the team roster at a time.
It’s important to note that most of these rules would likely be illegal if Congress hadn’t passed laws giving these leagues anti-trust exemptions .
You also don’t see team jerseys with sponsor logos; the league, whether it’s MLB or NFL etc controls which company will make uniforms for all the teams. TV revenue sharing is also far more equitable on the basis that the leagues couldn’t survive with teams only in large markets. Losses on the scale of some of the Premier League teams are unheard of in U.S. sports leagues.
But then the entire football world must introduce a salary cap, not just the Premier League. The league would dive when all the good players left for better salaries in other leagues.
American sports have a draft system which makes it very different from the premier league
Simple genius fair and competitive
@@Magnus1891 I wouldn’t introduce a salary cap for that very reason. What I would do is introduce an increasingly punitive luxury tax that would get redistributed to the less wealthy clubs and I would place a limit on how many players a team can pay at any one time.
Professional sports are a scam. The teams with the richest owners win while the other teams lose. Professional sports are like honest weight scales except that wealthy owners are allowed to press their thumbs down on one side of the scale. Would you buy a product by weight from such shady and shoddy people? I won't.
Fascinating change of topic, nice work ❤ ⚽️
And all that because the top EU clubs didn't get their "Super League". I get the feeling football is bubbling up.
Imagine if there was the same player spend and salary caps, Premier League wide, Man United would be making so much more profit, it could pay off its debts, build a new stadium, and drop ticket and shirt prices. Wouldnt that be good for football?
lol that surplus money would go straight in the Glazer's pockets, not be used to offset ticket and shirt prices
The Australian Football League have salary caps. I think it's good. These guys kick a ball around. Why should they be paid so much more than essential workers.
The APT, FFP and PSR rules are killing the PL as witnessed by the quiet transfer deadline day in January 2024. More and more clubs are failing FFP and are being docked points yet the reason for introducing FFP was to prevent clubs from going out of business. The reality is that no PL club has gone out of business before FFP and these rules have killed any chance of owners growing their clubs.
Think we already have a two tier Premier league where the bigger clubs finish top 5-6 every season. This needs to change to allow other clubs to challenge them
Apart from Leicester.
This is the best breakdown of Fair Play I have seen. Sport at this level is now purely entertainment - and everyone wants to be the star act.
City’s owners have been in charge since 2008. Why did they not get a bogus sponsorship deal during this period when there was no APT restrictions?
Because they didn't need to because there was also no FFP then
They are being charged from 2009 don’t think FFP was introduced until 2011/12
Funny how they see 4 Cha,pionships in a row as dominant. The German club Bayern München has won 11 championships in a row.
Why don't they just say that all EPL teams can only bring in 500 million over 3 years, job done. And if you're club is in debt then it has to clear that debt with 50 percent of profits, and if there is a debt the owners can't take money out of the club.
I’ve always supposed that soccer is popular because it’s a very easy game to play and understand and that obviously suits the masses.
Really enjoyed that Joe. I'm not a football fan but it's fascinating to understand what's going on there.
Very good analysis congratulations JOE 🎉
They should put caps on everything, sponsorships salaries,even out payment for television rights.and lengths of contracts minimum 1 yr to 4yrs.
Now THIS is a video I did not expect but very happy i got!
A gem! Thanks, Joe 🙂
One rule change…..can’t kick backwards after you cross the half way and soccer would transform into an amazing game without a doubt
Great video JoeBlogs! Very informative!!! Please keep making videos like this. More videos about English and European sport would be a great addition to your more usual political and economic videos. Thank you very much!
Sounds like Premier league needs to add Salary caps to teams like American Football does. With a salary cap your franchise can make as much money as they want but you still can only use so much to put a team together for a single season thus giving poorer franchises a way to compete. Yeah they would still have better stadiums and stuff but it wouldn't affect the integrity of the game.
Most the deals in question are actually smaller deals, where you can't find details of the company doing anything, services, staff, but can still apparently sponsor 10 mil a year
Looks like its time to grow up and bring in a salary cap... it will hurt but the league isn't sustainable at this point.
????? still the biggest league in the world silly rules are hindering thats all and salary cap will kill the prem as all top players will just play in europe where no salary cap and prem dies
In the U.K. Man City sues the PL. In Germany the fans throws fake gold coins, if the leauge gets to commercialized.
Is football for the fans or the owners?
I am tired off watching the U.K. buy so many good players, just to have them sit on the bench, or loan them out - it robs the football game of so many talented players.
Like it or not football is a business now, they exist to feed the egos or pockets of their owners, fans are little more than cash machines for them.
The small clubs can also have rich owners. Same for everyone, so I don't buy that big get bigger and small get smaller. All this is to protect the old big teams (who themselves could pour money on players in the 80s and 90s however they wanted) from competition
Facts there are actually 17 owners of football clubs in the premier league that are actually billionaires...but most rob there own fans of silverware by running the clubs for profits they dont put fully back into the infrastructure of the clubs..so the billionaire owners who do this such as city are frowned upon
Surely the simple solution is to limit spending not income? A salary cap & a transfer cap. If you do that then there is no incentive for dodgy dealing. It doesn't matter what the income is, it won't give an unfair advantage.
If the caps are related to an average income of the whole league then the incentive is to pool efforts to improve it overall.
Not concentrating on this only makes sense if you understand that doing so eliminates the competitive advantage of those clubs who already have a large established income stream?
Wow, Joe. You made sports interesting to me, lol
It isn't COLLAPSING, so it's not that bad.
Where was the detailed analysis when United won 13 PL titles ?
And it wasn’t boring then and they weren’t bullies and they never paid fantastic amounts more than any other club could afford.
The hypocrisy of the Red Cartel who are crapping themselves is astounding.
Help me Joe, what the hell does it mean "they received a points reduction"?
The league is won by the team that earns the most points. 3 points for a win and 1 for a tie. So they were deducted points from their totals.
@14:00 3x35=105
I thought the same. 115 mentioned but the three columns total 105... ?
They could always put salary caps for the players like American Football does, or a luxury tax where richer teams are taxed based on total salaries then that tax is given to poorer teams to help them pay more for salary.
A salary cap won't work in European football. The clubs from the Big 4 leagues (England, Spain, Germany and Italy) all compete in the UEFA Champions League and the UEFA Europa League. For example, if the Premier League had a salary cap, all the best players would leave play in the other countries. The English clubs would not be competitive in the Championships League, and loss of revenue and value would follow. Also, I belive a cap would be illegal under EU Labour Law. You can't cap someones salary. Keep in mind that football clubs are not franchises, they are independent entities, unlike the American system.
Thanks I appreciate this video. I hope the Premier League can reign in the commercial income difference. I think there needs to be a division between the sport side and business side to keep the sport competitive. Limiting the spending of commercial income on players seems to be fair both sporting and business wise to me. They still earn themselves the money but stops them from killing the sporting competitiveness.
I think another good step for the Premier League would be to equally distribute broadcast venue no matter who was being televised. The same goes for the domestic cups during each round. Newcastle would be about where the average is.
Come on Joe, call it football! They can call their silly sport American Hand-Egg. Everyone outside of America knows what football means.
Great video Joe. Thanks! Full of analysis - not enough of that in the mainstream media on this topic, though I have seen some. Interesting to see that Man City's gate revenue for 2023 was about half that of Man U, for example. There is a global market - some international fans are dedicated to their particular club but some not so dedicated. At a past employer, years ago, my manager and I hosted lunch for Chinese visitors from a partner company. Talk strayed into football, as a universal language, and which clubs we supported. One guest listed the top 6 Premier League sides at the time.
Excellent topic!
I get the issue for the League. In the long term, leagues and codes suffer in terms of viewership and hence funding if the same teams or athletes win for years in a row. Sport needs legends but it also needs to be exciting and everyone needs to have their heros have a moment in the sun
The competition every year allows the big 6 to dominate last year nufc and this year Aston villa broke into the top 4 and are stopped progressing that's wrong that's anti competitive in the meantime teams with massive debt are allowed to dominate
What's the effect on the global economy?
Imagine if the Gen Z players decide that the extreme salaries are obscene, given what teachers and nurses and childcare workers are paid, and refuse trade / contract offers more than 20 times those salaries ... and ask all management types to do the same.
Same thing happens here in us... team success brings more money, more money buys better players and facilities. Interesting peoblem.
As someone who knows 0 things about soccer leagues/sports leagues in general, this video was pretty good. But it did miss a bit of context. I could have used some explanation as to the conenction between sponsorships and the debt rules as you transitoned. I also didn't understand the point reduction thing so as to understand the difference in punishments between the clubs. I appreciate the different topic though! Will watch more videos like this.
Thanks!
Kind of tipping the balance here, Joe. I'm not a fan of big money bossing competitive sport, but you set this up bass ackwards.
City were the fifth-most spenders. City don't have Antony and are not throwing $80M Sancho out of squad.
The FFP rules were on tap before City won anything. These rules assured dominance of four or five clubs with Chelsea and ManU in top dog position.
This means that PL football has been a Super League within a broader frame to provide for weekly competitive matches. FFP essentially determines that there will be no Man City uprising from below the threshold of the Super League.
The 115 charges are sour grapes from the Super League against an upstart club.
Premier League could go with a semi-hard salary cap and luxury tax akin to what MLB and NBA has done, and similar to what the NFL does.
Man City will find a way around it.
I’m sure the players union will accept that 🤑
We want to be fair and making the league equal. Except when Manchester United were winning and buying the best players in the world. Nothing about the league demanding fair play?
Hardest oart here must be attemlting to form any Financial Controls, when teams play in external leAgues as well, snd the likelyhood of is it FIFA that run those other leagues? Agreeing these rules, becouse that means other large Championshios can entice top stars hence more eyes to their product.
It's a shame, we'll jyst have to wait fir Electric Cars to reduce a lot of the Saudi money fir leagues to become comletitive again.
There may not be an absolute limit on the number of players a club can sign, but they can only register a total of 25 senior players of which a maximum of 17 can be non "HOME GROWN" but what constitutes home grown I'd also complicated.
In addition to this, they may also have an unlimited number of players who were under the age of 21 at the start of the season.
This list/register of players must be given to the Premier League at the end of each transfer period.
The transfer periods are approximately mid-June until the end of August and January.
The season is approximately August until May.
It does contain international breaks where clubs MUST release plays "called up" by they country.
Even that can be confusing as a player born in England with Spanish parents and Scottish grandparents has a choice of countries they can play for.
To make that even more complicated if they play for a "big" country in their development years, they can then decide to play for a smaller country in their recent ancestry if they want to do so, but once they have played as an adult for a country they cannot change again.
If you want to know who makes and changes the rules of the game you may be surprised to learn that it is NOT FIFA, the international authority, but a committee called IFAB!
Look them up.
Biggest club in the world in every single aspect of football, let's be real is Real Madrid, a 100% fans owned club.
Buy and sell players? Goodness, I thought GB abolished slavery in 1834 (yes, I know the US did so in 1865...I have the same question about pro sports in the US).
They are not bought and sold. When a player moves from one club to another, it's called a transfer. It requires the consent of the club and player.
I will be a slave for 200k per week
Further to RedSphinx’s answer above, players can put in transfer requests themselves. Although these may not be granted, they sometimes are, as there is not a great deal of point in keeping a player in the squad who doesn’t want to be there and it can have a bad effect overall on the team.
Not like you to be a drama queen Joe. City are challenging the introduction of the Associated Party Transactions (APT) rules as they believe they are illegal in so far as Competition Law is concerned. These rules are not in the interest of fairness at all. They are in the commercial interests of the other big red clubs. They have clearly lobbied (likely leveraged favours and sweetheart deals as well) the rest of the clubs necessary to get these rules voted in. This is not conjecture, the red clubs have clearly conspired since the introduction of FFP (which was conveniently not in place whilst they all spent extravagantly to build their brands and fanbases) to introduce new rules to stifle competition to their place at the top of the pyramid. As one set of rules fail, they introduce further sets of targeted rules to try to entrench their position. Pure protectionism.
City are not against regulation of spending per se. What was wrong with the Related Party Transaction (RPT) rules that existed previously? These are definable by International Accounting Standards (IAS24) and lay out clearly and recognisably who is and isn't a related party and the application of FMV and UEFA still use this. City would still have to comply with these standards should APT be removed. There is no suggestion City want removal of all spending regulation and previous spending and sponsorship is not out of reason. City aren't the club who has broken the British transfer record 6 times!
These new rules now require a club to "prove" the value is FMV not have the PL prove it isn't. They require disclosure of the contract details and disclosure from the sponsor of the purported value to them of the sponsorship. They laughingly require disclosure of a secondary sponsorship bidder who were outbid. In addition it appears reviews of existing deals and downgrading to FMV may result in amounts removed that were subject to up to 3 years previous PSR calculations. These processes are not governed by any recognisable body and have no standing in law. They are seemingly directed at ownership from certain parts of the world as they were brought in originally on the purchase of Newcastle by the Saudi PIF. Lets not laughingly pretend this wasn't purely out of self interest. City abstained because they were advised of their potential illegality and to vote Yes/No (ie accepting their existence) might prejudice potential action against them further down the line.
City haven't got any sponsorship deals that have been challenged by UEFA as above fair market value FMV, surely you would expect the most successful side over the previous 10 years to have some of the biggest and best sponsorship deals? City's deals aren't that much different to the other "big 5" in value. Also City's wage bill will of course will be high, their staff wages are highly success incentivised, more success, bigger wages. I wouldn't be surprised to see City wage bill come down quite a lot this financial year as they havent won it all this year. Excluding player trading from the profit and loss is nonsense as this is clearly a huge part of the football business and clearly part of the profitability strategies of lots of clubs, including City.
City are NOT currently suing the PL they are challenging the APT rules at arbitration as per the PL rules allow.
Without seeing the leaked document to the "Times" its difficult to asses the allegation of loss made by CIty for which a lawsuit may arise. Its been surmised "Sponsorship" to City has been affected (by means of a rejected, varied or denied deal) under these new rules for which such a loss has occurred, although this is currently supposition.
Clearly other PL clubs have "woken up" to this protectionist racket and Villa, Chelsea, Newcastle, Wolves and allegedly others now want these rules gone. I hope Villa go ahead with their proposed challenge to the PSR rules for 3 yearly spending compliance as well. All these rules have been put in place for one reason. To facilitate the protection of United, Liverpool and Arsenal of what they see as their commercial interests above everybody else, including the health of the PL. Masters has been a complicit puppet in administering this and it will cost him his job.
The 115 (Bu115hit) can wait for another time.
😂
I should have read your post - which is first class - before putting mine on which I thought was pretty big itself until I saw yours. I see that you seem to be a lawyer like me. But no one who has a fixed view on these matters will take a blind bit of notice of anything you or I say because they have already made up their minds without knowing anything at all about the evidence.
@@nigelduckworth4419 I'm not a lawyer although I work within the legal/justice system. A colleague who wears a wig and works in chambers during a case in crown court once called me jokingly, a "frustrated barrister". I took this as a compliment to my case law knowledge and interpretation of law, although I may be wrong!
These matters are extremely partisan and understandably some of the issues are complex and therefore difficult to understand. I dont think its unreasonable for red club fans to take the viewpoint they have. What irks me most is the position of the media in this country, Nowhere do you see discussion of the potential innocence of MCFC of what they are accused of by the PL, in whole or in part. Likewise the furore caused by this arbitrary process has been blown out of all proportion by sensationalising potential outcomes for clicks and likes by the gutter press. The most genuine piece I have read discussing the whole matter of APT's is a piece by Martin Samuel in the Times earlier this week, unsurprising hes a retained journalist not a clickbait merchant. If you haven't read it I suggest you seek it out.
@@elonslawsuit5004 Thanks for your reply. I am not seeking to blame either the so-called Red clubs for trying to protect their positions but the logical conclusion from that must be that the so-called democratic process in the EPL is not democratic at all. Most of the media have focussed on this point when they criticise city's present stance and I think that City are quite right to challenge this, since if they go down what the media call the democratic process rather than gong to law, they will simply again be outvoted by clubs who have already voted against them. A truly democratic process allows for legal redress for those disadvantaged -see Rwanda etc. but in the PL there is no redress within the rules for those losing out and so City have had to go outside those rules by instituting the present proceedings at arbitration. Finally, I think that we may each have a different take on Joe's video. I was waiting for the sucker punch from him in taking sides and that would usually have meant criticism of City, but in my view, it never came.
Very intersting, never knew just how much money was involved. Players salaries are obscene in some cases.
Never thought I would see this channel cover the premier league
Sorry... Real Madrid?
Great video
Who would be the winner if city win this court case? Will it be city and Newcastle because of their mega rich owners? What happens if the rest say not for us anymore and the owners decide to try and sell? Will there be anymore premier league at the end??
Pretty interesting. I think football as you have described it transcends the usual notion of a business. It's more like a command economy, such as a nation e.g. North Korea might have, operating worldwide within many market economies. It has all the usual command economy problems of unintended consequences and instability. Lots of knobs and levers with unpredictable effects, plus humans with incentives to misuse them.
Rule is designed by big clubs, for benefit of big clubs. Small clubs are like small grocery, they are not allowed to build the bigger shopping mall to compete even though they have money to do so. Small club will be smaller following this rule. EPL should cap all clubs to spend at same amount. Why allow big club to spend but small club owner cannot invest their own money for their business. Football play at the pit. Big clubs should concentrate on developing their own team to play better football rather than finding the rule to stop other clubs and let their team playing crap despite huge money spend and let their own supporters cry for 115 like it is the last hope to compete in the league.
So if they scrap FFP which clubs besides man city and maybe Newcastle will win the premier league?
Stops small clubs going bankrupt when sugar daddy leaves.
@@steve-kl9iv well Man United for one have a higher net spend than both.
@@barryowens5535 When sugar daddy leave, He lost his own money, their sponsorship given to his club not cause any debt to the club. In case of City if he did leave. City can sell asset (players, facilities, top class academy complex. The asset was around 50 million when he bought City and now it worth over 1000 million.
@@steve-kl9iv Any club can win the league, If PL did cap all clubs. The club that used to spend a lot but not get result will get worse this way, relegation perhaps.
I'm more a motorsports guy, so hopefully the antitrust investigstion into F1 over their refusal to allow Andretti in will go somewhere and see Joe make a video.
They're taking them to pl run panel
FYI Brits Called it "Soccer" 1st As authors Silke-Maria Weineck and Stefan Szymanski explain in their book, It's Football, Not Soccer (And Vice Versa), the formal name of the sport is “association football”. British university students in the late 19th century nicknamed it “soccer”, a twist on the second syllable of “association”
I would never invest in this type of thing. I invest to make coin, not for status.
Football. Football. Football.
I did not expect to be as entertained by this as I was, thanks for breaking it all down for a silly Yank. Keep up the great work, love your content Joe! 👏
Im a bit sidetracked while watching this video....All in all I heard that most teams losing money not earning
Hi joe you cannot be serious,you keep calling football soccer,don’t it’s called football and we’re called football teams
Thanks for this Video. I like the Idea to see here and there a Sports-Economic Video. ⚽
This was great
It’s the bigger fool philosophy.
The winning team needs the rest of the league to compete against.
So the rest of the league deserves a share of the prophets.
You're missing the Russian bank run, Joe
35 x 3 = 105, not 115.
Welcome to salary caps. North American leagues get along fine working under that framework. Get used to it.
Salary caps need to be mixed with a general payout to the entire league.
Every player from the smallest losing team to the largest winning team deserves an equal share of profits of the entire league.
This should go into pensions and medical benefits.
And if a team starts to win too much, then the rest of the league should just retire that team from the roster.
Ultimately the winning team needs the rest of the league to compete against just as much as it needs to win.
City are accused of fraud.
And will be cleared
U.S.A.: Who cares?
Tax sponsors, redistribute deals. Mancity is only one side of match
They are holding my team back with these rules.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 nice one!
Last time I was this early Tottenham Hotspur won the league! 😂
the first news article called it soccer. it wasn't officially called futball until the 1950s.
THANK YOU. Brits love to cry that evil Americans call it soccer. If you read anything from the early 20th century, the English referred to Rugby as "football," and football as "soccer."
It was called "Association Football" to distinguish it with "Rugby Football" back when it was created, and then soon after, Oxford students started calling it "soccer" but it did not stay permanent, and it eventually turned into "football" and "rugby". I'm not seeing anything about a "first news article" that you are talking about. I've no clue about any of this, this all just comes from google searching.
It’s FOOTBALL not soccer
23:01 you said "out of 'kilter' ". Then they better put on some pants 👖 or at least some underwear 🩲
Please make also a programm about the UEFA and the FIFA. Al the big corruption.
So Manchester City is a one team all-star league? Some anti-competitive behaviors are normally permitted for large pro sports leagues. Manchester City exists within the league, not outside.
I knew man city would get their highly paid lawyers on the case!
Brilliant Joe. I have forwarded on to people that would not normally follow your channel
Here's a well deserving question: who cares?!
In football, you are allowed to touch the ball with a foot only (as a field player). American "football" should be called American Rugby
Good, no point paying for BS jobs.