The Premier League has just passed a new rule agreeing in principle to the limits on the "salary cap", and there are mixed opinions on this. The rule appears to be aimed at top clubs, with United likely to sell Marcus Rashford, while Manchester City and Chelsea are not in favour of the challenge.
The Premier League, which is made up of 20 Premier League teams, voted to approve the "salary cap" rule, agreeing in principle to the expenses of all clubs, including the salaries of players and club personnel, the amortization of transfer fees, and the fees of agents, etc., which cannot exceed a certain amount in total. This amount is calculated based on the broadcast fee income of the last team in the Premier League, multiplied by a factor, which is expected to be between 4.5 and 5.
That is to say, Southampton, the last place in the Premier League last season, earned about 104 million in broadcasting, and according to the formula, the above expenditure of the Premier League team cannot exceed 5 times at most, that is, 520 million. In fact, this is an expanded "salary cap", which includes not only wages, but also transfers, etc., or it is more reasonable to call it a "spending cap". In the voting process, Manchester City, Manchester United and Aston Villa voted against, Chelsea abstained, and the remaining 16 clubs voted in favor, so it was approved in principle and can be implemented after a re-vote at the shareholders' meeting in June, which is expected to be implemented after 2025.
This regulation is very interesting, unlike the PSR financial limit of Everton, Nottingham Forest and other teams, the "salary cap" has no effect on small and medium-sized teams, and even for some big teams, it is far from reaching this number. After all, there aren't many teams that spend more than $500 million in a season, so who is this rule for?
Sky Sports once made a statistic, last season's net expenditure on player transfers, Chelsea spent a total of 540 million, ranking first, Manchester United also exceeded 200 million, followed by Nottingham Forest, West Ham and Newcastle and other teams, Manchester City is net profit in the transfer market, earning nearly half a billion, and won the treble, which is simply a value-for-money performance, and only Brighton, Leicester City and Everton are profitable.
Sportbible also made a statistic, in the Premier League team's weekly salary list before tax, Manchester United ranked first with 3.82 million, followed by Manchester City, Arsenal, Chelsea and other giants, the front team in the weekly salary list corresponds to the teams in the upper reaches of the Premier League rankings, and the last few are Burnley, Sheffield United and Luton, which are the three teams in the relegation zone, in line with the generally recognized law.
Therefore, it is not difficult to understand that the Premier League's "salary cap" rule may be aimed at giants such as Manchester United and Chelsea, Manchester United are the team with the strongest opposition, Manchester City is also opposed, and Chelsea abstained. In this regard, Sir Ratcliffe, who took charge of Manchester United earlier, has made various changes to the team.
According to reports, Lajue began to cancel various "benefits" one after another, including canceling the executive's corporate credit card, business trips need to take ordinary cabin, and Manchester United in the FA Cup final, the club got more than 1,000 tickets, but the staff who watched the game did not enjoy free treatment as in the past, but needed to bear their own expenses such as accommodation, food, travel, etc.
In terms of players, the top five in the weekly salary list, including Marcus Rashford, are all likely to leave, Anthony Martial will not renew his contract, Jadon Sancho will seek a transfer, Casemiro and Varane will leave, all of which are highlights of the summer transfer. Rajue has hinted that Manchester United players cannot earn more than 300,000 a week, and if these high-paid players can leave, it can bring in a lot of space to bring in more players.
Of course, there are plenty of ways for the big clubs to deal with the new rules, with no charges being made against Chelsea for financial breaches, and City's alleged 115 investigations still far away. The concern is, what if a team's income increases, but it is limited by the "salary cap" and it is difficult to significantly increase spending?
For example, Manchester United, due to the frequent absence of the Champions League, the Premier League results are also poor, the income has been affected to a certain extent, but one day, if the king returns, the income exceeds 700 million, and it will be restricted, is it really reasonable? The feasible solution is to try to increase the income of the last place, so as to expand the spending ceiling, perhaps this is the benefit of the "salary cap" for small and medium-sized teams.