Quote ="tigermanrocks"Its not really a fair comparison. Chelsea are "new" money just the same as City. No one knows whether they will dominate. Real however have won 31 League titles which counts as dominance in my book. Altho when you have a fascist leader in Franco meaning you can effectively steal one of the worlds best players (De Stefano) then perhaps a salary cap might not have helped with parity there anyway.
I like the idea of the cap. I like NFL and its cap is brilliant but that is in the context of essentially a cartel league and a draft system that tries to bring top and bottom together. Rugby, like football is not in that position so a parity creating cap cannot work as all it will mean is that your best players go to or at least consider another sport. I prefer the % of turnover cap myself to ensure teams are solvent. No loopholes and the current fine structure for any breaches. In those circumstances you are free to pay one superstar any amount below that level and we can see if it really is a team game.'"
But 31 titles is over a 108 year period, and they've only won 6 of the last 20 seasons. I think to be called dominant you'd need to be winning at least a majority of the seasons. In Greece for example, until last season, Olympiakos had won 12 of the last 13 seasons. That is dominance.
I hear what you're saying, and for a long time i was in favour of the salary cap, but i have recently changed my opinion for the reason i stated before, that i don't think any team will ever dominate.
Also, the argument for many years has been that the smaller clubs will be left behind. I think this is a bit of a loser mentality it's like we want to play to the standards of the bottom teams rather than the top teams. Why not aim higher?
