Quote: bren2k "I think it's you who's got this wrong. There is research to demonstrate the very phenomenon that you're trying to suggest won't happen; it even has a name - destructive competition - and it clearly describes that sports team owners will, on average, overspend on playing talent if it means they are more likely to win. The result of destructive competition is wage inflation and bankruptcy for some teams.
I think that salary caps are an attempt to safeguard sports clubs from the comings and goings of various owners with different levels of wealth and/or sanity - and to maintain the interest of fans through a more even competition; and history seems to suggest that it works - it disaggregates playing talent and maintains the revenue of clubs (through ticket sales) due to continued interest from fans, who above all, are attracted to unpredictability.
There probably is a decent argument to suggest that in clubs that are profitable, the SC leaves a disproportionate amount of profit for the owner, but that's hardly an issue in RL - at least not in SL.'"
Destructive competition isnt as easily applicable to sport as your argument supposes. There are, after all, only 17 players in a matchday squad. And there are other barriers, as described earlier within the thread which would stop such a thing. It also could, certainly in the case of RL, that the salary cap encourages more star players to congregate at bigger clubs, giving them an even greater advantage.
The destructive competition argument assumes that all clubs are in the market for star players and it is the open bidding which would force them out. The unfortunate fact is that the lower SL clubs are not priced out of the market because of the lack of the SC but the SC acts as a barrier to market to them.
As i have said earlier in the thread, if destructive competition is a worry (which i dont believe it to be as big a worry as you suppose) there are far better, more natural, fairer and more targeted protections.
I would also clarify that the negatives of destructive competition do not equate to an artificial inflation of market value.
As for your procompetitive arguments in favour of the salary cap, this is the big problem the RFL would have if the case ever did go to court. All those arguments could certainly be made in favour of a salary cap. The problem is that they simply havent been borne out. The Salary Cap hasnt protected clubs from owners incompetence, hasnt maintained interest through a more even competition and hasnt either created an unpredictable competition nor can it point to having taken advantage of the opportunities having done so would have created.