I absolutely agree with this and worry that my position isn't clear. Again, there absolutely should be a cap on spend for fees or wages, or both?The model that Brighton have is based in the reality that we are a medium sized club punching above our weight, and it will be extremely difficult to maintain a position competing for European spots every season. This is why the club pivoted to targeting profits from player sales.
I am under no illusions to say that this will last forever. Eventually, the gold dust will run out and we will be relegated. This is part of the cycle. Other fans admittedly are not so pragmatic.
The biggest clubs do have the biggest resources available to spend (assuming for the moment that the numbers aren't pumped up, which we know in some cases they are). They therefore buy the best players off other teams, as has always been the case. The difference now is with the global branding and reach that these clubs have they can attract orders of magnitude more income than before.
But is the answer to that to falsely pump up the next tier of clubs with sugar daddy or state investment fund money, leaving them high and dry should the sugar daddy disappear later, and the community without that asset?
Wouldn't it be more productive and fair to revisit the distribution of PL income?
PSR is far from a perfect system, but I don't buy the argument that unsustainable spending must be allowed in order to challenge the big 6.
And it goes without saying that Chelsea and Man City need to be held accountable for their PSR shenanigans just the same as the other clubs.
There should be rules about the number of players a team has on it's books, the number of 'homegrown' talent they have to name in their squad, the length of the contracts they can give to players, the amount of debt they have, and loads more.
Something that doesn't penalise a team for success, but doesn't penalise the less successful clubs either.