The Premier League teams have approved a proposal that would set limits on the amount of money they may spend on wages, agent fees, and transfers.
The plan received more votes than the required majority of 14, capping spending for elite teams at an as-yet-unconfirmed multiple of the amount received by the lowest side in broadcast money.
16 of the 20 teams in the Premier League supported it during the Monday shareholders' meeting; Manchester United, Aston Villa, and Manchester City are said to have voted against it. The Times said that Chelsea decided not to participate.
The theory is that if clubs are prevented from spending so much money, the Premier League will become more competitive.
as opposed to one that is controlled by only one or two incredibly affluent clubs.
The Premier League is already planning to replace its Profit & Sustainability regulations in 2025 with a new squad cost control policy that caps a club's expenditures on transfers, wages, and agent fees at 85% of their total revenue.
This would impose a limitation on spending using the "anchoring" approach. Supporters of the spending cap were motivated by worries about potential state-sponsored club spending power as well as fears of the highest-earning clubs having an unfair advantage over others.
A representative issued the following statement: "We have always been clear that we would oppose any measure that would place a 'hard' cap on player wages, but we will obviously wait to see further details of these specific proposals." This kind of suggestion, which would directly affect our members, must be appropriately consulted on according to a set procedure.
Southampton, the worst team, received £104 million in TV money in 2022–2023, whereas Manchester City spent £619.5 million, or less than six times, as much. The new plan would not require clubs to cut spending below existing levels, thus spending up to six times the worst club's TV revenue may be feasible.
At the June Premier League AGM, talks about the specifics of the expenditure cap will take place.
The outcome of those discussions and a subsequent vote on the final plan will determine the competition's future and its financial environment.
Comments
Post a Comment