rabidbeeWestYorksRoyal I would agree with this approach, but you will get a counter argument that it stops ambitious owners investing which would favour the big clubs. And it would make it harder to crash the top table, but not impossible. And I'd say it's a price worth paying.
Also, I support Reading. If I wanted to support a team who won all the time I'd support Man Utd given they were the best as I was growing up. Obviously the big clubs are always going to win more; our best moments will always be rare and celebrated with an ecstacy that big club fans can't understand. Maybe older Man City fans with memories of their dark days used to appreciate it, but even they must be spoiled now.
So if you're worried that such controls would stop you seeing football manager lived out for real, perhaps go and support another club?
There would be nothing stopping a big club from spunking large amounts of cash (within their greater means) on players who turn out to be shit, they just couldn't spunk even more cash on buying replacements, they'd have to live with it, or at least sell the dross first.
Further, I think it was said that clubs competing in UEFA competitions are already subject to 70% squad-cost ratios anyway.
So yes, it would stop a club owner spending £300m to shoot up the leagues and gate-crash the PL, but does anybody want to see that happening anyway?
In our context, clubs like Wolves, Sheffield United, Leicester, Derby, Leeds, Sunderland etc. all have more resources than us - they are bigger clubs.
But we could absolutely outperform these clubs run with such a wage cap in place, if we were run well. I don't think it kills competitiveness.