I only agree in part.
It's wrong to suggest that the big buy transfers have no effect. They do: I don't think they have no effect, just very little on the point central to Platini's claim. Their effect is little if anything on the vast majority of clubs, but marked on the handful of 'elite clubs' and has a noticeable knock-on on the clubs just below them. In other words, FFP is about the elite.
1) Invariably, a headline transfers stimulates the market, as clubs selling a high value player will then purchase another high value player, or a number of lesser value players. I say 'invariably' because that pattern happens almost without exception.
I don't disagree, but really this involves the 'elite' clubs, so its effects on the majority aren't worth mentioning.
2) The big name transfers set a market benchmark. That doesn't mean Wigan Athletic will be buying Ronaldo any time soon, but it sets the upper tier value, which in turn influences the next tier down price, and so forth. By the time we're 4 or 5 tiers down, the effect will likely have all but dissipated, but it will still have had an impact on the average price. It's very rare for polar opposites to occur in the market, where the top tier prices increase, and the lower tier decrease. The percentage increase can be marked different, but definitely very rare for them be opposing.
Again, wouldn't argue with what you're saying other than I think we're only talking 2 tiers down, not 4 or 5. Therefore would say it only sets the benchmark for the 'elite'. It would be interesting to see any figures which can show how it trickles down because I don't think it will
3) The club on the receiving end of a big name transfer is typically earmarked as 'having a pot of cash' and that tends to inflate the asking price of players they then seek to purchase. Spurs and Liverpool are prime examples of this in recent years. It's not always the case, but nobody's ever lowered their price towards such clubs, that's for sure.
You've really got me there as the facts are all on your side. However, I would say that its misleading as its a short term effect and not limited to transfer fees. Spurs have now spent the Bale money, and if they put in for another player they won't be quoted a premium. On the other hand, if they signed a new sponsor mega deal they may well find there's suddenly an upsurge in price. In effect, the market distotion here isn't about transfer fees, but about money generally with transfers being only the most eye-catching factor. Market forces are market forces no matter what.
4) One single record breaking sale, must by definition increase the current average price. Of course, the average might be brought back down with a below average transfer fee, but at the very any above average fee is paid, the average goes up.
Yes, that's common sense, so no arguement about that, but I did specifically point out that averages are not good indicators in situations like this. Any statistical correlation worth its salt would take out these anomolies and work with mean figures in order to avoid the distortion. That is the main reason I contend the eye-catching mega deals are no real indicator of possible over inflation
5) It's a fairly reasonable assumption that the number of players transferred per season is fairly stable. Across all the clubs, there's no obvious reason why it should fluctuate too dramatically. Of course, I stress this is an assumption, but in general I think it's a fairly sound assumption. With that in mind, you need only look at the total transfer fee records - the ones where Sky will present a grand total of the season's transfer spend. If that increases (which it usually does, then divided by the same number of transfers per year, the average must have increased in line with that figure.
Fair point, but again that brings us to averages and I would repeat the above.
The whole conversation around transfer fees though IS a bit of a diversion, but it's brought up because Platini's suggested that the likes of Chelsea, and not PSG and City are distorting the market (and argument also used by some other clubs). There's not a lot of evidence behind that accusation though.
When the big spenders spend, it really is like a splash in a pool. It sends out a lot of ripples across many clubs, but the actual water level doesn't rise. There's just a bit of turbulence for a short while. The TV money on the other hand is akin to opening up the floodgates and that really DOES start to raise the water level.
Couldn't agree more. It would be interesting to see some figure on transfers from somebody who knew how to come up with something meaningful, but, at the end of the day, its just so much smoke and mirrors. There is no doubt (and we don't need anybody else to tell us) that the TV money and the CL money are the real things distorting the playing field. And they distort it year in, year out.
Platini can make a fair few subjective comments about the fairness of rich clubs, but he's on a hiding to nothing trying to substantiate his claims that they distort the market.
He doesn't even seem to be trying too hard - "Berlisconi made me do it"
