Inflation in Football Manager

[17Gonzo]

I personally don't think that there is any need for inflation in FM. Is there really much benefit in having a feature where the record transfer fee gets artificially broken ever season or every other season?

The media love to harp on about the most expensive player in the world in nominal terms (i.e. before inflation is applied), but it's solely to build hype and to make a talking point. If you adjusted for inflation based on the UK rate of inflation each year then Pogba was never the world's most expensive player;  Ronaldo cost more than Bale; Bale cost fractionally more than Pogba;  Zidane cost more than Kaka etc.

When you consider the above the nominal transfer fees really don't mean anything. At least in FM when you get a transfer for 100M plus you know that it's a big deal and the player always know what value they will be getting for their money, whatever season they are in.

I do agree, however, that something needs to be done to maintain the larger teams spending power. I've just started season 24/25 in my save and the Spanish teams financial power has diminished. I suspect that they spent too much money on the wages of Messi, Ronaldo, Bale, Neymar etc and that this hamstrung them. Whilst Messi, Ronaldo and Bale have all retired a 32 year old Neymar is on 500k a week for another 2 seasons. So far neither Real Madrid or Barcelona have signed anyone and it's mid August. Bayern Munich have spent more, but perhaps not quite as much as I would expect.

One potential solution to the big clubs losing their financial clout could be to have a "Global Brand" setting within the finances that would work broadly similar to the sugar daddy function. Clubs within this category would then get more stable finances in the medium term propped up by their finances holding even if their on field performance dwindled (so pretty much like Man Utd) to offset any decreases in prize money and sponsorship. It would be a dynamic option so clubs could gain it or lose it over time depending on their reputation and league reputation, so a team like Man City might well on its way towards gaining this status now for instance compared to a 5 years ago say. This could be done without the need for anything inflationary.

[BMNJohn]

On 18/08/2017 at 20:02, Malicious Penguin said:

Apologies if this is an obvious question, but with new TV deals and the like, does the amount go up/down?

The quality of the TV deals/prize money can increase or decrease depending of the reputation of the competition. However, it will not vary that far from the base value in FM. So even if you brought a small European country to the Top 10 or especially the Top 5 in terms of reputation, you won't see TV deals approaching the big countries; nevermind England. There's one exception which is Gibraltar. My reading (on which I may be wrong) is that the starting reputation of Gibraltar is so low that the rather unimpressive prize money becomes enormous when the reputation of the league increases to somewhat decent level. The TV money absolutely skyrockets in ways that aren't even funny. And since the reputation of the league and clubs aren't so good, you'll see clubs in Gibraltar paying insane wages for very average and sometimes somewhat mediocre players.

[SideLineBiscuit]

This is not needed in the game, and I think I have SI and 99% of the users with me on that

[Guest]

A finance model that allows the elite to spend ever increasing sums that filters down the pyramid has been a must ever since dynamic league rep was introduce. FM cannot have a key factor such as comp rep being variable while leaving an intrinsically linked aspect such as spending fixed at the top level.

[Seb Wassell]

Again I do not believe inflation is the answer to that. In an FM context inflation would not alter the real value of anything so your above and previous concern would persist regardless.

[Guest]

Are you focusing on the idea of £1 being worth £0.95 in 5 years rather than the idea that the upper limit available for the top teams to spend on their shortlist should increase as the teams below start to match their spending?

Germany offers a prime example where Bayern cannot increase their wage limits while those below can grow to compete, irl Bayern deal with a club coming close to matching their spending by increasing their own spending, that upward pressure ends up producing an inflationary outcome without inflation being the primary intent.

[Seb Wassell]

2 minutes ago, Barside said:

Are you focusing on the idea of £1 being worth £0.95 in 5 years rather than the idea that the upper limit available for the top teams to spend on their shortlist should increase as the teams below can match their spending?

That's a separate conversation. 

[Guest]

Same coverstation, just a different perspective as I agree the idea of simply increasing the cost of everything by a fixed or even variable amount each year to simulate inflation would be a flawed methodology.

[Ji-Sung Park]

Remove balance sheets from the game. No IRL managers have any clue how much monies is in the bank. No IRL manager negotiates contracts for other than themselves, and sometimes not even that. 

[Guest]

All sweeping statements that are unlikely to hold true in every circumstance & have little to do with the subject of this thread.

[ilkork]

3 hours ago, Ji-Sung Park said:

Remove balance sheets from the game. No IRL managers have any clue how much monies is in the bank. No IRL manager negotiates contracts for other than themselves, and sometimes not even that. 

Nooooooo.
That's one of the reasons I buy FM every year. The financial aspect of the game is incredible, don't take it away from me .

Spoiler

Although, to be fair, you are right...