Subject: [idea] Game economy

I think the way to equilibrate creation and distruction of money is taxation:
-a tax in trade that grows a lot in the first 3 season from bouying.
-a tax in money account of teams (patrimonial tax), not using money should COST.
(edited)

On the contrary...

Money not used should bring up...interests

But supporters should revolt against teams without sportive ambition...
Loss of stadium revenue, fines for violent supporter behaviour,...

additional in-game expenses: fines for violent supporter behavior and reparations of stadium facilities broken by supporters .. I like the idea because it is very realistic :))
(edited)

There should be ways to really make a good looking stadium, incl suppoters home and those things, that will cost a lot of money. That way money will leave the game at the highest level.

What you get in return, supporters mood will drop slower because supporters go to a great place?

And ofcourse prestige, 'look at my stadium' :)

Supporters should also revolt against teams having a wild trader as president... could easily go till the club destruction I think.

Few more thoughts about the inflation problem.

The money supply circulating the game is increasing because (overall in the game) the income from tickets/sponsors overweights outcomes from salaries, stadium maintenance, junior school maintenance, including other irregular expenses like transfer fees, stadium expansion, or coach recruitment. This imbalance caused over the long course of time an increase in money supply and is the original source of wealth that transferred to clubs that were more successful in making a profit from their players.

This is just a theory. I believe it is the right one because considering the money flow I don't see any other possibility. But I don't have any data about incomes and expenses of other teams, so I cannot further work up the theory and possible solutions based on it.

It may seem a little bit drastic but I think that reducing the income (temporarily) could help because teams would be forced to sell their players in order not to be in red numbers. Not sure about the change in the number of sold players, but it could force people to overpay less and think more about the money they spend. Nowadays people think more in terms of bargain/robbed (if even that) than in terms of if they can or cannot afford to buy the player. And they are certainly much less worried about possible financial problems caused by bad strategic decisions when buying players.

I already mentioned the possibilities of sinking the money (buying/recruiting coaches, expansion of stadium facilities, taxes, ..) in my previous post. I would like to focus on the problem of the transfer market now.


Demand side - if we are to shorten the season and add more matches, I expect that the demand for old quality players will raise as squads will have to be wider. I think that the demand for young players could rise as well. The high basic training for everyone (even without minutes from league matches) will overweigh the impact of a reduced number of players in pace training. If we expect the flow of new users and possibly wakening of old ones, this could lead to higher pressure on the demand side too


Supply side – Imbalance between demand and supply together with rising money supply leads to an increase of price levels. So if we are to keep the prices low, we have to strengthen the supply side. In the past, we have lost plenty of users who ended with the game and their players with them, so I welcome the Devs' initiative to put players from such teams on the market. Another great initiative is slowing the falling of the old players. Players who would quickly lose skills and turn unusable are in demand now and people pay millions euro even for 35-36yrs. But there is one part of the supply side that needs a serious upgrade, alongside with the overall upgrade of its system – juniors. I believe that there is an insufficient number of good/average juniors in the game. There are a few top juniors everyone wants, that go for crazy amounts (+10M euro), and then there is an insufficient number of good juniors. At first, it looks like there are enough of them, but if you compare their number with the demand side, you can see that it is not. I have a junior school with magical coaches opened for 4 years and in all those years, my youth academy has produced only 4 players that were eventually good enough to join my A team and several others good enough for weaker teams. Because of my inability to produce more juniors, I too was taking part in creating pressure on the demand side and contributed only minimally on the supply side.
(edited)

Another solution to inflation, introduce corona. Football matches without spectators = no income ;)

Not for real ofcourse, because not the rich clubs will be hit hard.

The money supply circulating the game is increasing because (overall in the game) the income from tickets/sponsors overweights outcomes from salaries, stadium maintenance, junior school maintenance, including other irregular expenses like transfer fees, stadium expansion, or coach recruitment.

I agree, but it is important that the devs look closely at the solution, it is a complicated issue. Still, there are many ways to try to lower inflation. for example,

increase the salary of the best players considerably.
transfer tax, higher player price -> higher tax.
junior player generated by the system, so the money goes out of circulation of sokker.
etc.
(edited)

The money supply circulating the game is increasing because (overall in the game) the income from tickets/sponsors overweights outcomes from salaries, stadium maintenance, junior school maintenance, including other irregular expenses like transfer fees, stadium expansion, or coach recruitment.

I disagree, i am in red numbers when taking only this "balance" into consideration.

I also think it could be more complicated, there is another important factor, new users rotation. In past years many users spent their money and quit the game, but their money is still circulating, now agregating in remaining 9,8k clubs.

Unfortunatly, we dont have any DEV tools to measure economy, it would be good to have some global data to check current situation and trends (like avarage club budget, avarage club budget in 10% richest clubs, average prices, etc)
(edited)

Then where did all the money come from?

Also, I have a lot more valuable team than you, I am sure that I have higher expenses.
Our stadiums are pretty close.
My average 2-week balance is positive.

There is also a factor of clubs being deleted while having a lot of money.

Sell your best players and go to sleep mode, forget about sokker and get deleted. Money out of the game, but despite that there is still a lot of money left in the game.

A few managers not being able to have a positive 2-week balance is their fault.
Sorry, BlueZero, maybe reevaluate those ticket prices :)

You touched a good subject. this is another problem. countries should also have ratings and revenues should be distributed by coefficient.
because there are countries with low competition and number of users. For example, teams equivalent to you spend these money to fight in the second league in some countries, so the income is lower.

Ranking is the thing that drives the incomes.
Teams in countries with more users have higher rankings.
So, higher ranking and higher ranked opponents means more income, but on the other hand, stronger competition means more expensive team, so higher expenses.

Look at the differences in ticket income between Czech Republic (261 users) and Bosnia (74 users).
This is only one round, but you can already see that the situation in Czech Republic seems to be financially more favorable for users.
Average number of spectators in 2nd Czech leagues is higher than in Bosnian 1st league, but the competition in those 2nd leagues is much weaker.


Bosnia:

Spectators:
38519.00 Premijer Liga
Average Mark:
67.27 Premijer Liga


Czech Republic:

Spectators:
41055.00 První Liga
45517.00 Liga II.01
35344.00 Liga II.02
40509.00 Liga II.03
39335.00 Liga II.04
40176.25 All 2nd Leagues

Average Mark:
67.81 První Liga
61.71 Liga II.01
65.64 Liga II.02
60.18 Liga II.03
65.06 Liga II.04
63,15 All 2nd Leagues


Also, big thanks to BlueZero for making all this data available at https://www.sokker.cz/sk/statistiky :)

Ticket sales depend on mood and ranking too. You have higher rating. No idea about the mood. Also you get higher attendance when team with higher rating plays in your stadium.
Both factors also come in the calculation of sponsor money.
Teams that are winning do not have any problems with this, which is your case. You cannot see the situation only from your position. You are in the first league, all the teams have high rating, including you, you are winning so you have high mood. There is no reason for you not to be in positive. The teams at the bottom not so, and how can they catch up if they are loosing money?
Teams in position 3 start to have this problem, and for the ones in bottom it sucks (That's why many do not want to promote to higher league).

I recently sold a few players with high salary, so currently i would probably be in positive, but here are my economy stats:
Expenses:
Stadium: 45 000 $
Salaries: 466 875 $, from that players 297 726 $
Junior school: 20 000 $

Total: 531 875 $

Income:
Sponsors: 273 492 $

Balance without ticket sales: -258 383 $

Ticket income max (with the best team in my league): 736 828 $
This happens once in the season (16 weeks).
Other matches are between 300 000 $ and 433 333 $

So from this you can see that only when i play the match with the best team i gain money.

(edited)

That is why I also demanded a long time ago that there should be rules to limit the finances somewhat. For example, if a club has more than 100 million euros in its account, it has to pay a kind of tax of about 5% every week until it has less than 200 million again.

This also prevents you from just accumulating money like crazy and at the same time you can't use 100 million to sign up a finished squad for a so called cup run or something like that and forces a manager to do more strategic planning (this affects everybody) and makes sure that the active managers are rewarded.

So it is actually a good thing, even if this idea is not very popular. You have to think three times whether you really want to spend 25 million on an 18-year-old super talent. Then you have to scale back your sporting ambitions.