????國際頂級足球賽事歐洲冠軍聯(lián)賽（Champions League）于9月16日展開小組賽。歐洲的頂級俱樂部將利用這次機會，展示他們夏季斥資引援的成果。

????這真是個一擲千金的夏天：英超球隊總共花費了10.5億歐元（約合14億美元）購買球員，而去年這一數(shù)字為7.52億歐元。西甲球隊購買球員的總開支為4.79億歐元。意大利和德國職業(yè)球隊則分別花費了3.28億歐元和3.15億歐元。

????當然，歐洲足球的人才機制與其他行業(yè)的國際人才聘用模式?jīng)]什么不同，表現(xiàn)最好的員工都傾向于為最慷慨的雇主工作。

????美國范德比爾特大學(xué)（Vanderbilt University）體育經(jīng)濟學(xué)家約翰?弗魯曼表示：“轉(zhuǎn)會花銷類似于國際貿(mào)易差額。比起收入較低的國內(nèi)足球聯(lián)賽，富有的聯(lián)賽通常會引入更多人才?！?/p>

????根據(jù)德勤會計師事務(wù)所（Deloitte）發(fā)布的足球財政年度報告（Annual Review of Football Finance），在2012-2013賽季，英超聯(lián)賽收入29億歐元，而德國和西班牙聯(lián)賽分別收入20億歐元和19億歐元，考慮到這點，英超聯(lián)賽的俱樂部花錢最為慷慨也就不足為奇了。不過今年夏天的斥資引援也體現(xiàn)了歐洲足球聯(lián)賽在組織上的很大差異。將英超聯(lián)賽和西甲聯(lián)賽進行對比，這種差異體現(xiàn)得尤其明顯。

????自英超聯(lián)賽于1992年成立以來，電視轉(zhuǎn)播收入的分配就十分公平。目前，所有國際轉(zhuǎn)播收入由各隊平分，國內(nèi)電視轉(zhuǎn)播的一半收入也采用這種分配方式。另一半國內(nèi)電視轉(zhuǎn)播收入則根據(jù)球隊表現(xiàn)和在電視轉(zhuǎn)播中出現(xiàn)的頻率進行分配。

????這種分配相對平均的做法，使得英超聯(lián)賽各隊的電視轉(zhuǎn)播收入相差無幾。在今年5月結(jié)束的賽季中，賺錢最多的利物浦隊（Liverpool）在電視轉(zhuǎn)播上收入1.22億歐元，僅是墊底的卡迪夫城隊（Cardiff City）的1.57倍（收入7,770萬歐元）。這種公平的分配體系讓規(guī)模較小的英超球隊也有財力購買球員，這使得聯(lián)賽在人才引進方面的整體花費水漲船高。

????國際體育經(jīng)濟學(xué)家協(xié)會（International Association of Sports Economists）主席兼西班牙奧維耶多大學(xué)（University of Oviedo）經(jīng)濟學(xué)教授普拉西多?羅德里格斯表示：“因為各隊都有著不錯的收入，因此英超聯(lián)賽墊底的球隊也能角逐轉(zhuǎn)會市場?！?/p>

????當然，最大英超球隊的收入和花銷都遠遠多于那些小球隊。在2014年的轉(zhuǎn)會市場上，被弗魯曼稱為“體育愛好者”或“糖果老爹”（即那些更在意球隊輸贏，而不是盈利狀況的富人）所持有或控制的四家俱樂部在購買球員上的花費，就占到了整個英超聯(lián)賽該項花費的一大半。這些俱樂部分別是利物浦（1.458億歐元）、切爾西（Chelsea，1.113億歐元）、阿森納（Arsenal，9,270萬歐元）、以及在德勤足球隊財富排行榜（Football Money League）上位列第四的曼徹斯特聯(lián)隊（Manchester United）。

????When soccer’s top international tournament, theChampions League, begins its group stage on September 16, it will offer a chance for Europe’s top clubs to show off the results of their summer spending.

????And quite a summer of spending it was: Teams in England’s Premier League spent €1.05 billion (about $1.4 billion) buying players, up from €752 million last year. In Spain’s La Liga, the teams paid €479 million. And in Italy and Germany, they spent €328 million and €315 million respectively.

????Of course, European soccer operates like any international talent business, with top performers gravitating to the most generous employers.

????“Transfer spending is analogous to the international balance of trade, where wealthy leagues usually import more talent than lower revenue domestic leagues,” says John Vrooman, a Vanderbilt University sports economist.

????So it is no surprise that Premier League clubs spent the most, considering that its revenues hit €2.9 billion in the 2012-2013 season, compared to €2.0 billion and €1.9 billion for the German and Spanish leagues, according to Deloitte’s Annual Review of Football Finance.

????But this summer’s spending also puts on display the vast differences in how European soccer leagues are organized. This is especially true when one compares England’s Premier League with Spain’s La Liga.

????Since its founding in 1992, the Premier League has distributed television revenue fairly evenly. Currently, all international distribution revenues are spread evenly among the teams, as is half of the domestic TV income. The rest of the domestic income is paid out depending on performance and television appearances.

????This relatively egalitarian distribution means that the difference in TV revenues among Premier League teams is low. During the season that ended in May, the top earner, Liverpool, received €122 million in TV revenues, 1.57 times what last place Cardiff City got (€77.7 million).

????The Premier League’s equal payout system allows smaller English teams to buy players, which increases the league’s overall spending on talent.

????“As they all have good incomes, the last team in the Premier League can participate in the transfer market,” says Plácido Rodríguez, president of the International Association of Sports Economists and an economics professor at Spain’s University of Oviedo.

????Of course, the biggest English teams make and spend a lot more than the smaller ones. During the 2014 transfer window, Premier League buying was driven largely by the spending of four clubs owned or controlled by what Vrooman calls “sportsman” or “sugar-daddy” owners (i.e. rich men who care more about winning than profit): Liverpool (€145.8 million), Chelsea (€111.3 million), Arsenal (€92.7 million) and the fourth richest team in Deloitte’s annual Football Money League ranking, Manchester United.