GROUP 2 - Top-team economics: high salaries, exhaustion, income
Superheld [forum]
Thanks for taking the time, @Marin.
I am a very long term player of BB, started in season 4 and really enjoyed the game for many years. Thanks for contributing to this experience.
However, during the past years I feel the game is not progessing in a positive way any more.
My biggest concerns are the following:
- Having success in any higher league depends almost exclusively on the starting five. Backups hardly make a difference.
- Training is disincentivised from a certain point because it hampers long term economic feasibility as salaries rise too much and lowers expeced transfer revenue. Some "almost" NT-like players with 150 TSP often only trade for a few thousand dollars, while some average 115TSP guy trades for way more.
- Incentive to train your own draftees is minimal. My former draftee (today 153k salary) gets me lousy 11k marketing revenue (in D1).
Do you also feel that the game may improve in these points?
Without having thought everyting through in detail, I think that the game would benefit much from a hard player-salary cap of ~150k, combined with a significant increase in exhaustion.
js8 [forum]
With the changes affecting the salary of most players above 180k+, how do you expect B3 or top teams to run? With exhaustion implemented a few seasons back (good addition!) and now these salary hikes, but no extra source of income in the game, how do these teams function?
usual.suspect91 [discord]
So what are you planning to do with high level teams? Is the level in D1 teams supposed to lower, do we need to get our team budget lower? Are you planning to raise the income as an answer to the new salaries?
A: Starting 5 are the most important players, but there have been incentives to make short rosters less feasible. We will continue to make these changes and the role of subs will grow.
Training should be stopped before a player reaches too high a salary. Those players are trained and improved long after their age, at least in real life, would allow so. We could slow down training for older players even more but it would be very unpopular, we know our managers love their trainees and those green arrows on Fridays, so this is not planned. So, overtraining is a thing, and paying high salaries for such players is a good incentive on limiting that. As an undesireable consequence of overtraining we have a surplus of high salary players with very low value. This functions like a very soft salary cap, and managers are incentivised to find way to work within that system, so a hard cap is not necessary, but we will continue to make hoarding tax even higher and add other measures if necessary to level the playing field.
Training your own draftees also builds overextension tax space. Also, players with high salaries generate more merchandise, but it isn't linear, the effects are mostly hidden. There isn't much other incentive on keeping your own draftees, this is a trading game too, so most of them should be traded out to keep the team roster balanced.
Top teams like the ones in B3 are functioning well above their resonable economic power, but most can't keep that up for long (and with higher hoarding tax, it should be even shorter). How will they fare after the salary update? The same as before, it is the same for everyone, so adaptability will be key, since no income increases are planned. One key note: while players on the top end of the salary spectrum (180k+) mostly had their salaries increased, other, lower salary players had their salaries reduced. This will incentivise longer rosters and better salary budget handling. And don't forget; top salary teams only had their total salaries very marginally increased, we're talking low single digits in percentages.
Last edited by BB-Marin at 8/6/2026 1:18:05 PM