Works here too, and with punishments.....
http://www.goal.com/en-au/news/4021...23502/perth-glory-banned-from-a-league-finals
http://www.goal.com/en-au/news/4021...23502/perth-glory-banned-from-a-league-finals
Should there be a cap?
- Thread starter Sliver
- Start date
Everyone who uses Sky or BT for household services is paying for this. That's what irks me.
Sky TV subscriptions have shot up, increasing like 100% in the last 5 years. BT are colossally expensive. Prices for TV, broadband, etc are being pushed up across the board.
All so we can pay footballers millions. If only Sky or BT invested that money in their shoddy networks, instead of paying Pogba £billions, we could haev a 1st class network infrastructure instead of being the worst in Europe.
But hey, at least we can see (highlights of) a bloke kicking a plastic ball around. Yeah, I don't subscribe to the sports services. Would be ultra hypocritical if I did
But we need TV and can't get FreeView. Can't live without broadband either.
Sky TV subscriptions have shot up, increasing like 100% in the last 5 years. BT are colossally expensive. Prices for TV, broadband, etc are being pushed up across the board.
All so we can pay footballers millions. If only Sky or BT invested that money in their shoddy networks, instead of paying Pogba £billions, we could haev a 1st class network infrastructure instead of being the worst in Europe.
But hey, at least we can see (highlights of) a bloke kicking a plastic ball around. Yeah, I don't subscribe to the sports services. Would be ultra hypocritical if I did
But we need TV and can't get FreeView. Can't live without broadband either.
It irks me too. That's one of the reasons I've switched from BT to Virgin. I wouldn't even consider Sky as Rupert Murdoch is a lying crook and he's never going to earn even a penny off me.
Virgin pay Sky to carry their channels, so you still end up paying, to some extent.
Only sky channels. I'm not interested in any sky channels, so like I said, Sky get nothing from me directly. What Virgin do with their revenue is their business.
Anyway, lets try and stay on topic please.
It's very much on topic.
Where do you think the money (in general, not just Neymar) comes from?
It's massive TV deals, that's where. BT paid almost a £billion for Champs League rights. Then, surprise surprise, more price hikes to BT and Sky customers.
How is that in any way off-topic? It's bang on topic!
the NBA has a salary cap yet has players earning 20 million a year! not exactly the 200k proposed by one poster in this thread!
it doesn't seem to make ticket prices particularly cheap either, they're seemingly more expensive than premier league football - what problem would you be trying to solve here?
well that would indicate that the tickets are perhaps slightly underpriced even
If a team spends $20mil on one player, they have less to spend on everyone else. Just look at LA Galaxy, who've often failed to win titles despite having the very best players in the league. The cap makes the league competitive.
£200k is obviously a silly cap but it should be a product of a sport's revenue. It should be harder for oligarchs to buy clubs and create success artificially.
Depends on the sport in regards to prices. Popularity, venue capacity and amount of games has a large impact. American football prices are about on par with Premier League football despite fans only getting to enjoy regular season home games. Baseball and 'soccer' are generally much cheaper.
Ticket prices are a complex subject, especially when comparing the US with Europe. If an English club wants to build a new stadium, they have to find the cash themselves. In the US, they bully the local city into paying for it or move cities.
You've not really clarified what you're trying to solve here? The main beneficiary of these caps in the US would seem to be the club owners themselves.
the tickets are still expensive, the players are still paid millions and are among the highest paid sports people on the planet, the TV stations still need to pay huge amounts for broadcasting rights
the tickets are still expensive, the players are still paid millions and are among the highest paid sports people on the planet, the TV stations still need to pay huge amounts for broadcasting rights
If these guys had any ounce of humanity in them they'd be doing charitable stuff with their free time. Sadly they're all self-obsessed narcissists who can't see further than their own nose and don't give a **** about anyone else.
If someone gave me that kind of money you can bet your bottom dollar I'd be using it to help others out, or help beat cancer.
If someone gave me that kind of money you can bet your bottom dollar I'd be using it to help others out, or help beat cancer.
![[FnG]magnolia](/styles/overclockers/avatars/9.png){kind=avatar}
Caporegime
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 28,728
- Location
- Auckland
I'm the "or" in that sentence.
Well said. I'd do the same. Why have millions in the bank that you don't need when you could put it to some philanthropic cause.
I think some of them really do live in a bubble, and end up believing they deserve what they're paid. Possibly a trap many of us might fall into.
A lot of footballers do? Jermaine Defoe has hit the headlines this year but he's far from the only one using his spare time for good.
You think they have much spare time?
why don't they deserve it?
In answer to OPs original question... Yes, there should be. However, there won't be.
As long as football fans keep paying for it through over priced tickets, kit and TV subscriptions etc to watch it'll just keep going and is very unlikely to stop.
As long as football fans keep paying for it through over priced tickets, kit and TV subscriptions etc to watch it'll just keep going and is very unlikely to stop.