Quote: bren2k "It's not my argument - it's one that's been made in research [ispecifically related[/i to sports teams - and it found that on average, in an uncapped environment, owners will overvalue players in pursuit of on-field success; and the result of overvaluing talent is, undoubtedly, wage inflation. It's logical to assume that financial difficulties for less wealthy teams, and aggregation of talent to more wealthy teams, would follow.'"
did they over-value them or overspend on them? If over-valuing how are these studies quantifying value? If their pursuit is on field success, and that is achieved, how can that possibly result in those players being over-valued? Im not disputing that these studies have been done (i know they have) simply that the terminology and conclusions are different to how they are being presented here.
Again, wage inflation isnt a bad thing, my wage inflates every year, as im sure most do. So i dont think it is logical to assume that financial difficulties for less wealthy teams will follow and there would be more aggregation of talent at the wealthy teams.
Put in a real world scenario, which players not at Leeds, Wigan, Saints, Wire, Hudds, Hull or Les Catalans are elsewhere in SL because those clubs cannot afford them under the cap?
Quote: bren2k "The procompetitive argument I think is still sound - we may not have a perfect system in SL, for some of the reasons you've described, but there is precedent in other sports worldwide, and the general consensus seems to be that sports SC's are not subject to anti-trust or anti-competition law; largely because they are an agreement between the clubs and the governing body, and that players sign up to that based on collective bargaining by their representative organisations. Didn't US baseball players challenge it and end up locked out for the best part of a season? The fact that the big 4 sports in the US are still salary capped would suggest that Derek Beaumont, with all his bottles of water, won't get very far in his attempts to overturn it here.
I understand the argument from a purely market forces standpoint - but you're applying rules to a situation in which those rules are not relevant or applicable. Sport is not a perfect market - the product is inelastic, there is no meaningful substitute and the primary driver is not profit maximisation.'"
In the US there is specific exemptions from anti-trust laws which is entirely dependent on agreement with players unions. Something which is shamefully lacking here. But we arent the US and have different laws to them. Id also argue even if exactly the same principles were to apply, when your salary cap is nearly 150m it is a lot easier to argue it is working in everyones favour than when it has been stuck at 1.8m for nearly 15 years falling by about 50% in real terms over the course of its life. You are going to struggle to convince anyone that whilst the TV deal has gone up hugely and attendances and advertising have gone up it is necessary and beneficial for the market to function that wages are 1/3rd of what Wigan were spending when the cap was brought in.
With regards to the market forces argument, as i said, it isnt my preference and is a clear 2nd choice. I dont think you can argue on one-hand a salary cap is necessary and beneficial for all parties and on the other hand that clubs arent even trying to make a profit anyway. As for there being no meaningful substitute I dont think that holds water. Sport is entertainment, not only are there a huge amount of alternative sports out there, there are even more alternative entertainment options .