Alarm bells rang when the news came through – for United fans and fans of the Premier League.
When Wayne Rooney signed his £300,000 per week contract last Friday, analysts were quick to discuss the development from a negative perspective.
Certainly, the significance of player power has rarely been more apparent than in this case; Rooney’s loyalty has been in question for the past few seasons, and his rifts with Fergie over squad strength well documented. Indeed, if Sir Alex was still in charge at United, it is doubtful that this deal would have gone ahead.
Other difficulties include the astronomical fee, eclipsing the weekly wages of Ronaldo and Messi – players who are a cut above any other players in the game.
The relationship between this contract and Financial Fair Play (FFP) regulations have also been discussed.
Will this increase leave United vulnerable when caps on contract increases kick-in this summer? Will United have to sell to compensate for this deal? Will they use sponsorship money to cover the cost?
These questions regarding FFP are relatively meaningless – caps this summer (which will restrict further increases on club wages for United to £4 million pa) will not be affected, United are known to be offloading Nemanja Vidic (which will cover the Rooney wage increase itself) and a new sponsorship deal with Chevrolet is likely to take the edge of this deal too.
However, Rooney’s new contract could have highlighted one of the more positive future implications of FFP.
While United have just committed £62 million to secure Rooney’s signature for a fourth time, Gary Neville has been one of a few to recognise United’s thinking behind this.
“Talking about Wayne Rooney and the money he is signing for, the question you have to ask is how much does it cost to replace him?” said Neville.
“The market now is demanding. For a player who has scored the goals that he has scored in his ten years at United, you would be talking £50, £60million.
“I think from that point of view, the market forces that you have to pay the player what it would cost to replace him.”
This is certainly true – and was demonstrated when signing Juan Mata. Costing £37 million and given a contract worth £35 million until 2018, even if United had planned for Mata to replace Rooney, this would have cost more than giving him a new contract.
This way of thinking could, and should become a pattern of Financial Fair Play. This is not to say that the wages should be reaching this level regularly – they won’t even be allowed to so dramatically after this season.
But the pattern of clubs showing loyalty and faith in the players already at their club can only be a good things for securing the future of long-term British talent in the Premier League.
In combination with the minimum quota on home grown players registered for the Premier League season, FFP has the potential to change the incentives of clubs when it comes to deciding whether to replace, or keep faith in a young British talent.
The nature of this renewal may not show this in its purest form – Rooney is approaching 29, and his talents are exceptional, making him indispensible to this struggling United side.
But the move to invest in current squad members over high transfer fees highlights the potential benefits of FFP during it’s early conception, and the positives here should be seen, just as clearly as the negatives.
Jamie Kirby
Images courtesy of The Daily Mail, The Guardian and The Telegraph