A different take on salary cap

stepson_and_toe

New Member
Aug 11, 2019
386
I wan't sure where to put this but since the first thing I thought about upon reading it was baseball, I'll put it here and if someone thinks it should be moved, then okay. However...

It seems as though an English rugby team (champions, no less) was just fined 5.36 million pounds and had 35 points deducted from their season's standings because they had breached salary cap regulations in three seasons.

"Premiership Rugby introduced their salary cap in 1999 to ensure the financial viability of all clubs and the competition.
The regulations are also designed to control inflationary pressures on clubs' costs and provide a level playing field for clubs and a competitive Premiership."
https://www.bbc.com/sport/rugby-union/50300756

Change baseball's approach, anyone? Maybe not as many losses.
 

InstaFace

The Ultimate One
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
21,753
Pittsburgh, PA
union would never go for it. Frankly I can't believe the NFL was able to introduce it as late as 1994. The current model is the closest we're going to see to one, I think. It still provides a lot more competitiveness within the league than the viciously capitalistic euro soccer markets, which are basically permanent oligopolies.
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
15,667
Salary cap in baseball is also complicated by the fact that franchises have varying and embedded relative values based on their revenue and profits. For example, in 2012 the Padres sold for 800 Million and the Dodgers sold for 2 billion. Any system that shifts revenue to the small-interest markets too much or limits profitability on the big markets too much would theoretically jack up the value of the Padres and lower the value of the Dodgers. You or I may be fine with it in the name of competitive balance but I'm sure the owners of the high-value teams would rightfully fight to protect their investments.
 

stepson_and_toe

New Member
Aug 11, 2019
386
I'm sure that it wouldn't go over well if someone proposed it. I just thought it was an interesting take on punishment for breaking salary cap regulations and maybe MLB's method could stand some rethinking. Take Miami. Over the past nine seasons, the club has average 69.67 wins per season. I'm sure there owners are making money even if they can't draw fans. Why? Network TV. Money from from luxury taxes passed on down to less successful teams. If that is used to rebuild clubs that is one things but if it just goes into someone's pocket?
 

singaporesoxfan

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2004
11,882
Washington, DC
I'm sure that it wouldn't go over well if someone proposed it. I just thought it was an interesting take on punishment for breaking salary cap regulations and maybe MLB's method could stand some rethinking. Take Miami. Over the past nine seasons, the club has average 69.67 wins per season. I'm sure there owners are making money even if they can't draw fans. Why? Network TV. Money from from luxury taxes passed on down to less successful teams. If that is used to rebuild clubs that is one things but if it just goes into someone's pocket?
But the punishment in your initial post was about the English rugby league being punished for overspending by having points deducted and a large fine, whereas your concern here is about teams that are drastically underspending. I'm not sure you get much if you punish Miami by vacating wins, though I suppose you could take that principle of punishment and say that teams that don't spend enough get punished by having draft picks docked (like, if you're the worst team in the league, you only get the #8 pick or something like that instead of #1)