If we removed the sponsorship penalty, it wouldn't change the fact that 21 to 25 year old players simply aren't worth playing IF you want to get the best possible results. What it would do is incentivise teams to sell off their better players entirely so they can get all the benefits of sponsorship with a much lower wage bill. This was a legitimate strategy prior to 2022 if you were willing to tank for a season or two or had promoted into leagues where you were likely to lose a lot anyway. It could make you a ridiculous amount of money very quickly. That's what the sponsorship penalty is there to prevent.
My assumption would be that the difference between 21-25 year old players for a division 1 side compared to a lower division is smaller than the difference between 26+ year olds. As such, if 200k is a forgiving match rating threshold for a division 1 side, allowing them to play a handful of those players without penalty, 180k, 160k, etc. should in theory be even more forgiving for lower division sides where the difference is smaller. If I'm wrong and there are (genuinely competing) teams in lower divisions who legitimately can't play less than their best XI without risking falling below the threshold and lose sponsorship, then please let us know, because that is not what the thresholds are designed to do and would indicate they are too strict currently.
But yeah, my view is that as it stands, removing the sponsorship penalty wouldn't solve the problem we're after; it'd just create a different problem.
DISCUSSION POINT - SUGGESTION
-
GA-James018
- MOD
- Posts:1613
- Joined:Sun Nov 11, 2007 7:56 am
- Location:Adelaide, South Australia
Manager of the mighty North Eastern CC.
Unless I state otherwise, any opinions expressed above reflect my views as a FTP player, not as an admin/staff member.
Unless I state otherwise, any opinions expressed above reflect my views as a FTP player, not as an admin/staff member.
-
Rbtrager
- Posts:13
- Joined:Tue Nov 26, 2024 5:52 am
Re: DISCUSSION POINT - SUGGESTION
I agree that there should be a mechanism preventing teams from selling their senior players, slashing wages and collecting full sponsorship while deliberately tanking. Simply removing the sponsorship threshold could recreate that problem.
However, today provides a practical example of the other side of the issue. If I selected all my lowest-experience 21–25-year-olds, while retaining enough older players to form a balanced XI, my match rating would sit around the 180k threshold (Div 2) and could easily fall below it.
I would not be deliberately tanking, stripping my squad or exploiting the sponsorship system. I would be fielding a legitimate development-heavy side in a match with no ladder impact, specifically to give those players the experience they need to become competitive. Yet the rational financial decision is still to leave some of them out and play older players instead.
That might delay their development by only one match, but repeated across clubs and seasons, it goes to the crux of the 21–25 problem. These players need senior matches to close the experience gap, but the system adds another reason not to play them—even in matches that would otherwise provide an ideal development opportunity.
Preventing tanking also does not necessarily require a sharp financial cliff. There is a meaningful difference between:
a legitimate side falling marginally below 180k while developing younger players; and
a stripped-down team rating far below the divisional standard throughout the season.
A graduated penalty could distinguish between those situations. For example:
full sponsorship at or above the threshold;
90% when slightly below;
50% when materially below; and
increasingly severe reductions for teams rating far below the threshold.
That would retain the anti-tanking protection without treating a rating of 179,500 as fundamentally different from 180,000.
The suggestion that lower-division thresholds should be more forgiving is plausible, but I am not sure we can assume that without looking at the data. Lower-division clubs may have a smaller gap between their younger and older players, but they may also have less depth, less money to retain experienced reserves and fewer established players capable of carrying a development-heavy XI.
The relevant question is not whether a strong Division 1 club can rest four or five players and still clear 200k. It is how close genuinely competitive clubs across every division sit to their respective thresholds—and how often teams falling below them are deliberately tanking rather than legitimately developing players.
I accept that changing the sponsorship mechanism would not suddenly make 22-year-olds competitive with 30-year-olds. Results would remain the main disincentive. Managers playing younger teams would still accept weaker performances, reduced supporter income and potentially relegation.
But those decisions are cumulative. Softening one additional financial penalty could change selection decisions at the margin, even if it does not eliminate the underlying problem.
The anti-tanking purpose is legitimate. I am simply questioning whether the current binary threshold is the best way to achieve it, or whether a graduated system could preserve that protection while removing one of the existing disincentives to giving younger players senior experience.
However, today provides a practical example of the other side of the issue. If I selected all my lowest-experience 21–25-year-olds, while retaining enough older players to form a balanced XI, my match rating would sit around the 180k threshold (Div 2) and could easily fall below it.
I would not be deliberately tanking, stripping my squad or exploiting the sponsorship system. I would be fielding a legitimate development-heavy side in a match with no ladder impact, specifically to give those players the experience they need to become competitive. Yet the rational financial decision is still to leave some of them out and play older players instead.
That might delay their development by only one match, but repeated across clubs and seasons, it goes to the crux of the 21–25 problem. These players need senior matches to close the experience gap, but the system adds another reason not to play them—even in matches that would otherwise provide an ideal development opportunity.
Preventing tanking also does not necessarily require a sharp financial cliff. There is a meaningful difference between:
a legitimate side falling marginally below 180k while developing younger players; and
a stripped-down team rating far below the divisional standard throughout the season.
A graduated penalty could distinguish between those situations. For example:
full sponsorship at or above the threshold;
90% when slightly below;
50% when materially below; and
increasingly severe reductions for teams rating far below the threshold.
That would retain the anti-tanking protection without treating a rating of 179,500 as fundamentally different from 180,000.
The suggestion that lower-division thresholds should be more forgiving is plausible, but I am not sure we can assume that without looking at the data. Lower-division clubs may have a smaller gap between their younger and older players, but they may also have less depth, less money to retain experienced reserves and fewer established players capable of carrying a development-heavy XI.
The relevant question is not whether a strong Division 1 club can rest four or five players and still clear 200k. It is how close genuinely competitive clubs across every division sit to their respective thresholds—and how often teams falling below them are deliberately tanking rather than legitimately developing players.
I accept that changing the sponsorship mechanism would not suddenly make 22-year-olds competitive with 30-year-olds. Results would remain the main disincentive. Managers playing younger teams would still accept weaker performances, reduced supporter income and potentially relegation.
But those decisions are cumulative. Softening one additional financial penalty could change selection decisions at the margin, even if it does not eliminate the underlying problem.
The anti-tanking purpose is legitimate. I am simply questioning whether the current binary threshold is the best way to achieve it, or whether a graduated system could preserve that protection while removing one of the existing disincentives to giving younger players senior experience.