Sneijder (maybe not) to Sign For Man U, £190k Per Week, Footballers Are Way Overpaid

[YehButNoBut]

Just saw this article stating that Man Utd hope to complete the signing of Wesley Sneijder for around £35 million with a salary of £190k per week.

Just made me think that football is going to destroy itself paying players an obscene amount of cash like this.

It's no longer a working class sport (probably has not been for some time) I mean kicking a ball around and getting paid £10 million a year is pathetic.

At the end of the day it is the punter that pays for it by going to games, merchandise, Sky etc so surely in tough times they should be paying players less and reducing the cost to go to a game for us punters.

Rant over. :soapbox:

http://www.caughtoffside.com/2011/07/14/man-united-to-complete-35m-wesley-sneijder-deal-within-24-hours-dutchman-agrees-personal-terms/

[easty]

They're worth whatever someone will pay for them. Like anything else.

It is obscene but that's just the way it is.

I'd say that on a day Liverpool are paying £20m for Stewart Downing, £35m for Sneijder seems like a bargain....:wink:

[Woody1985]

Revenues in the top 5 leagues (England, Spain, Italy, Germany, France - no particular order) have increased every year for over a decade. England have outstripped the rest of them in growth.

You say it's going to destroy itself. Whoever contributes the money seems to be doing the job. Ultimately it's the fans who pay for Sky, buy merchandise from the advertisers, match tickets, strips etc etc etc.

The only problem is, if you don't want it to increase, the only things you can do is stop buying it which in turn is cutting off your nose to spite your face!

That's the way it is.

Not a direct dig at you but all this 'footballers wages are obscene' is getting boring. It's not looking like it's going to change and when/IF it does clubs will go to the wall and things will become cheaper for a while. A bit like the recession but better for you. :greengrin IMO of course.

FIFA's fair play system won't change anything either, it'll just ensure an elite tier of clubs that always stay the same. The same same thing would happen if they introuduced a salary cap. Bigger clubs = better wages = better players. Team qualify for the Champions League which boosts the income and keeps the loop going.

Don't like it, don't buy it/support it!

I didn't start out with the intention of a rant but it seems like I ended up there!

[down-the-slope]

supply & demand...reality is there are not many real world class players at the moment particlarly in certain positions...and currently there are about 10 clubs world wide who are inancially in the mix....so up goes the cash ometer....

I think its a scandal...but its free market economics....unless we had an American style draft system it won't change much (even there top players are paid even more ludicrously)

My suggestion is a 10% tax on all fees pais split between social projects and football grass roots development so at least there is some drip down of all this cash....

[Stevie Reid]

They're worth whatever someone will pay for them. Like anything else.

It is obscene but that's just the way it is.

I'd say that on a day Liverpool are paying £20m for Stewart Downing, £35m for Sneijder seems like a bargain....:wink:

Agreed, Sneijder will be an excellent signing for Man Utd if they get him and £20M for Downing seems excessive, but he'll get plenty of crosses into the box for Carroll to attack.

This will be Liverpool at over £100M in spending since Dalglish came back - I thought it would have been interesting to see how he would manage at a club where he couldn't spend big (which seemed to be the case when he took over from Hodgson), but we're obviously not going to find out now.

[PISTOL1875]

Where are that lot getting money like that ??

[Woody1985]

supply & demand...reality is there are not many real world class players at the moment particlarly in certain positions...and currently there are about 10 clubs world wide who are inancially in the mix....so up goes the cash ometer....

I think its a scandal...but its free market economics....unless we had an American style draft system it won't change much (even there top players are paid even more ludicrously)

My suggestion is a 10% tax on all fees pais split between social projects and football grass roots development so at least there is some drip down of all this cash....

So you think that a successful business/franchise should start to be taxed more just because it's successful?

I agree with more tax being applies to things like oil and gas as they shouldn't be used for profit of shareholders as they're a natural resource but man made stuff like football shouldn't get punished because lots of people like it.

It should find it's natural balance one day. Just now, that balance seems to be just as steady, only with the numbers getting bigger.

[down-the-slope]

So you think that a successful business/franchise should start to be taxed more just because it's successful?

I agree with more tax being applies to things like oil and gas as they shouldn't be used for profit of shareholders as they're a natural resource but man made stuff like football shouldn't get punished because lots of people like it.

It should find it's natural balance one day. Just now, that balance seems to be just as steady, only with the numbers getting bigger.

Take our piddly little end of the spectrum....the powers won't even cough up the loose change to ensure a reserve league....hopless way to run a business / the game for the future, to say nothing of youth levels.

Something needs to be done ensure the long term future of football and the clubs / system which is such a part of so many local communities..

[Prawn Sandwich]

It's all going to go Pete Tong! Sky is not going to get the investment from News Corporation along with a reduction of subscribers. The EPL will not get the money they have been getting in pasted years from SKY and if a club isn't owned by a Billionaire.....then they are f£$ked!

In five years time some over valued players will be reminiscing on their power boats in the Med about the good old days!

TV deals for the SPL will be even worse than they are now.

[Shaggy]

how much are man utd in debt.....?? is it about 700million or something crazy..I wonder why?

...... I am surprised the owners havent come in for Rodders:wink:

[Pretty Boy]

how much are man utd in debt.....?? is it about 700million or something crazy..I wonder why?

...... I am surprised the owners havent come in for Rodders:wink:

Deespite the debt Man Utd still have an absolutely huge turnover, regularly competing with Real Madrid for footballs biggest. I'm sure they even turned a pretty healthy profit the past few years whilst still servicing the debt and remaining competitive on the playing side of things.

[IWasThere2016]

Deespite the debt Man Utd still have an absolutely huge turnover, regularly competing with Real Madrid for footballs biggest. I'm sure they even turned a pretty healthy profit the past few years whilst still servicing the debt and remaining competitive on the playing side of things.

:agree:

Income up 6%, profits up, commercial income heading towards £100m pa! (http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/business/Man-U-heading-for-the.6767988.jp)

[HibsMax]

It is obscene and the only way they can get away with it is because they know their customer base is emotionally tied to them and will, most of the time, pay whatever they have to pay, as long as it's still affordable. It's disgusting what they get paid. The only way to get it to stop is for everyone to stop going to football games and that's just not going to happen. Sometimes you hear the "short career" excuse. Let's say a footballer plays from 16 through 36. 20 years. The average person will work about 30 years more than that. 20 years versus 50 years. So by that reckoning if the average person gets paid 100K a year, a footballer should be on something like 250K per years (numbers plucked out of air for illustrative purposes only).

[SMAXXA]

I was speaking about this at the wk-end and it really angers me whats happening to football these days. The amount of money spent on players is ridiculas and until the clubs / countries / FA's come together and make a stance to cap wages / transfers etc its not gona improve. Taking a fmaily of 4 to football these days in the premiership especially is costing familys hundereds of pounds, gona are the days when this was a working mans sport IMO.

Start caping wages / transfer fees, regain control back from players and agents, reduce ticket prices for fans. Start getting more fans through the gates and fill stadiums (SPl like, I know most EPL games sell out)

[Hibeesb0unc3]

how much are man utd in debt.....?? is it about 700million or something crazy..I wonder why?

...... I am surprised the owners havent come in for Rodders:wink:

In saying that though until the glazers came in Man Utd had no debt or a very little amount of debt. The glazers used loans some at 16% interest to buy man utd hence why there debt is so big and keeps rising.

But i agree player salaries are far too high i mean they earn more in a week than what doctors and nurses earn which is shocking. But in saying that a footballer isnt exactly going to say no to £190k a weel is he?

[easty]

Just had a quick look at some websites, Tom Cruise was (apparantly) paid about £100m for War Of The Worlds, filming took 72 days. £10m a week then?

Not the same I know, but a bit of perspective into money in entertainment.

[Sodje_18]

I don't see the problem with clubs paying big wages as long as they can afford it, teams like Hearts and Man Utd. though are spending money they don't have and should be getting thereselves out of debt rather than spending thereselves into it. Also a lot of people blame footballers calling them greedy, are you aware they have agents? They're the ones who demand large sums of money for kicking a ball. Football has been all money for years but thats because it's just become too popular.

[easty]

I don't see the problem with clubs paying big wages as long as they can afford it, teams like Hearts and Man Utd. though are spending money they don't have and should be getting thereselves out of debt rather than spending thereselves into it. Also a lot of people blame footballers calling them greedy, are you aware they have agents? They're the ones who demand large sums of money for kicking a ball. Football has been all money for years but thats because it's just become too popular.

Nah....I'm not buying that. The players want the money. Agents get them what they want.

[HibsMax]

I don't see the problem with clubs paying big wages as long as they can afford it, teams like Hearts and Man Utd. though are spending money they don't have and should be getting thereselves out of debt rather than spending thereselves into it. Also a lot of people blame footballers calling them greedy, are you aware they have agents? They're the ones who demand large sums of money for kicking a ball. Football has been all money for years but thats because it's just become too popular.

The way they can afford it, one of the ways, is to make it more expensive for you to go to a game.

I know football players have agents but they can't hide behind them. "I didn't want this much money, my agent made me do it.". Hmmmmm,

[Cocaine&Caviar]

You also have to remember the tax man though, due to the 50% tax, he's literally going to be taking home the same figure he currently is at Inter.

[RyeSloan]

My suggestion is a 10% tax on all fees pais split between social projects and football grass roots development so at least there is some drip down of all this cash....


You also have to remember the tax man though, due to the 50% tax, he's literally going to be taking home the same figure he currently is at Inter.

Exactly...the main winners out of this are Sneijder then HMRC....

[PeeJay]

You also have to remember the tax man though, due to the 50% tax, he's literally going to be taking home the same figure he currently is at Inter.

You suggesting the elite footballing fraternity actually pay that much tax in the UK? :confused:

Has the loophole been closed?

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-1711078/Footballers-pay-22-tax-thanks-to-loophole.html

[cwilliamson85]

Yes a footballer gets paid a lot but how long is a footballer’s career on that kind of money? 5 years? Also if you think of getting that per week how much will he be paying to the taxman!

Also if you see the top players and how fit they are. They work hard to be there and sacrifice a lot. They don’t have a normal life like anybody on here, Can’t just nip to the shops on a Sunday morning for the papers without getting harassed by paparazzi and when they are out having fans interrupting you during a meal for an autograph.

[Speedy]

It is obscene and the only way they can get away with it is because they know their customer base is emotionally tied to them and will, most of the time, pay whatever they have to pay, as long as it's still affordable. It's disgusting what they get paid. The only way to get it to stop is for everyone to stop going to football games and that's just not going to happen. Sometimes you hear the "short career" excuse. Let's say a footballer plays from 16 through 36. 20 years. The average person will work about 30 years more than that. 20 years versus 50 years. So by that reckoning if the average person gets paid 100K a year, a footballer should be on something like 250K per years (numbers plucked out of air for illustrative purposes only).

That's a stupid and irrelevant argument.

They get paid what they get because they have the ability/potential to provide a service that makes their employers money.

[Woody1985]

Take our piddly little end of the spectrum....the powers won't even cough up the loose change to ensure a reserve league....hopless way to run a business / the game for the future, to say nothing of youth levels.

Something needs to be done ensure the long term future of football and the clubs / system which is such a part of so many local communities..

Fair enough on the grass roots side of things but not on social projects.

Then again, why should smaller clubs benefit financially? Presumably the big clubs would be paying for them to nurture talent and then be asked to pay fortunes for them when they want to buy them.

The money reinvested would then get blown on wages.

I think it's a good idea in principle but would be difficult to manage and regulate. You'd probably end up with a lot of mediocre players earning more than they already are.

[HibsMax]

That's a stupid and irrelevant argument.

They get paid what they get because they have the ability/potential to provide a service that makes their employers money.

Why not take your gloves off and tell me how you really feel?

I fail to see how comparing a footballer to an Average Joe is stupid and irrelevant. LOTS of people earn money for their respective companies, it's why they get paid. Some people work multiple jobs for a pittance, why do footballers deserve more than them? Are these other people not working hard? Are they less deserving in some way? Are they not providing a service that is profitable to their employer(s)?

If you think it's stupid and irrelevant that's fair enough but think about it as you watch the cost of going to a game increase and increase.

I wonder how the average football player's salary has changed over the last 20 years in comparison to some sort of median.

[Green_one]

I find myself occupying two opposite views on this.

I think transfer fees are OK as they circulate within football. They are crazy though. The wages go out of football and just seem to feed themselves. The next guy in wants higher wages than the last. They also seem almost demotivating and encourage very poor behaviour.

Getting new players in is a basic part of football and makes it interesting for us fans. Big names coming is exciting. So if you are a fan of a big club then you tend to benefit. The contrary is true of the smaller clubs.

Football is no longer a true working class game. It many ways it has improved but in doing so it has lost part of its soul. Despite all this it still has that ability to surprise , lift and hurt you in ways few other expereinces do. Is it all too often boring and predictable - yes. We live for the unexpected - usually bad unexpected with Hibs. :rolleyes:

[Sean1875]

turns out its all balls anyway, move along nothing to see here!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/14136334.stm

[Jamesie]

The quicker it destroys istelf the better IMHO. I'm scunnered by football in general and have never felt less enthused about the start of a new season at any point in my 23 years of supporting Hibs.

[Woody1985]

Devil's advocate here, why should football stay a working class game?

Surely the professional game has moved on.

Surely football at lower level clubs, which are the majority, are more working class based on prices.

You get what you pay for. I want the best house, car etc but I can't afford it.

I personally don't go to as many games as I could cos if I'm honest. I'd rather spend 60 quid on a night out than spend 35-40 going to a game.

[HibsMax]

Devil's advocate here, why should football stay a working class game?

Surely the professional game has moved on.

Surely football at lower level clubs, which are the majority, are more working class based on prices.

You get what you pay for. I want the best house, car etc but I can't afford it.

I personally don't go to as many games as I could cos if I'm honest. I'd rather spend 60 quid on a night out than spend 35-40 going to a game.

True, but relatively speaking you're paying more now for pretty much the same product. Is a guy on 190,000 a week 190 times more exciting than a guy on 1000 per week?

I could care less what people earn unless it adversely affects me. And it does. It costs me more to go to games and buy merchandise and concessions. Sponsorship isn't free / cheap. Companies like Nike need to recoup that money and I think we're all smart enough to know whose pocket it ultimately comes out of.

[Hibercelona]

The quicker it destroys istelf the better IMHO. I'm scunnered by football in general and have never felt less enthused about the start of a new season at any point in my 23 years of supporting Hibs.

I seem to keep telling myself that at the beginning of each and every season. :boo hoo:

Football in general is already down the pan, now its making its passage through the sewers.

[Hibercelona]

You get what you pay for.

Sorry, but in terms of the quality to price ratio in the world of football, you very rarely get what you pay for.

[camhibby1]

In saying that though until the glazers came in Man Utd had no debt or a very little amount of debt. The glazers used loans some at 16% interest to buy man utd hence why there debt is so big and keeps rising.

But i agree player salaries are far too high i mean they earn more in a week than what doctors and nurses earn which is shocking. But in saying that a footballer isnt exactly going to say no to £190k a weel is he?

Can we get a few things correct on here about Man Utd's debt. It's total debt at the moment is circa £540m. The PIK loans which were the ones attracting the 16% interest have gone - they were paid back last summer (approx £234m).
At the last calculation Utd. was reckoned to be worth between £1.5billion and £1.7billion - in other words its debt is about one third of its value. At a trading level Utd need only stand still for five years - do no transfer business in that time - and transfer its pre-tax profits to pay down its debt and the debt is cleared in those five years.

Unlike other football clubs we know Utd can afford the salaries and wages it pays as its wages to turnover % is one of the lowest in the Premier League (roughly 50%). Utd. is probably one of the best run clubs in the PL (along with Arsenal) and can well afford to do what it is doing even with the business model it has re financing the debt - that aspect of it has become easier since the bond issue last year and even there the company can actually afford to buy back its own bonds for its own account - that is how cash rich it is. Plus the fact that it is probably the most marketable football franchise in the world. It is also staggering to think that Utd's transfer business this close season (£53m) is well within the pre-tax profits it made for the financial year and therefore is well within the new UEFA FFP rules.
Many may not like the Glazers but they sure know how to make money - Utd's commercial revenue stream is on a growth curve even in a recession. They must be doing something right - plus they are a bloody good football team.

[Dashing Bob S]

I grow less enamored with the game every year, and attend fewer matches every year. I've all but stopped going to away games and canceled my Sky subscription as I was watching the European Cup final every year and not a whole lot else.

Football at he highest level is an event-based media fest, and at the lower domestic level, (outside top 4 EPL downwards and including the SPL) pretty much a dead, stagnant point.

If not for personal loyalty to Hibs and the network of friends I have who attend games, it wouldn't bother me if another ball was never kicked again.

Now there is very little to tie fans, clubs and community together, rather than support your local team, you tend, unless your parents take you along, to follow the one you last saw on telly, or like the replica strip.

I think football will be in big trouble as other media-driven stuff is competing and getter better. It's detached itself from its working-class fanbase and the nouveau fans won't stick around when something more fashionable comes along.

[weecounty hibby]

Can we get a few things correct on here about Man Utd's debt. It's total debt at the moment is circa £540m. The PIK loans which were the ones attracting the 16% interest have gone - they were paid back last summer (approx £234m).
At the last calculation Utd. was reckoned to be worth between £1.5billion and £1.7billion - in other words its debt is about one third of its value. At a trading level Utd need only stand still for five years - do no transfer business in that time - and transfer its pre-tax profits to pay down its debt and the debt is cleared in those five years.

Unlike other football clubs we know Utd can afford the salaries and wages it pays as its wages to turnover % is one of the lowest in the Premier League (roughly 50%). Utd. is probably one of the best run clubs in the PL (along with Arsenal) and can well afford to do what it is doing even with the business model it has re financing the debt - that aspect of it has become easier since the bond issue last year and even there the company can actually afford to buy back its own bonds for its own account - that is how cash rich it is. Plus the fact that it is probably the most marketable football franchise in the world. It is also staggering to think that Utd's transfer business this close season (£53m) is well within the pre-tax profits it made for the financial year and therefore is well within the new UEFA FFP rules.
Many may not like the Glazers but they sure know how to make money - Utd's commercial revenue stream is on a growth curve even in a recession. They must be doing something right - plus they are a bloody good football team.

Possibly one of the saddest things I have ever read about football. "The company", "the franchise". It is a football club, a team, a focal point for peoples emotions. I do not and never have liked Man Utd but I hate it when I see clubs refferd to as companies and franchises. They are now becoming playthings of the rich and famous and people like us do not matter to them anymore. Hearts is a great example owned by a nutter who has NO respect for the club, its history and traditions and couldn't give a flying one what the fans think. Man Utd are the same, why do you think so many of the fans detest the Glazers, Liverpool likewise with their Yanks. I have become so sick of football over the last few years that I barely even watch on tv unless it is Hibs related.

[camhibby1]

Possibly one of the saddest things I have ever read about football. "The company", "the franchise". It is a football club, a team, a focal point for peoples emotions. I do not and never have liked Man Utd but I hate it when I see clubs refferd to as companies and franchises. They are now becoming playthings of the rich and famous and people like us do not matter to them anymore. Hearts is a great example owned by a nutter who has NO respect for the club, its history and traditions and couldn't give a flying one what the fans think. Man Utd are the same, why do you think so many of the fans detest the Glazers, Liverpool likewise with their Yanks. I have become so sick of football over the last few years that I barely even watch on tv unless it is Hibs related.
You may be right in one aspect and that is 'certain' clubs becoming playthings for the rich. Where you are wrong is suggesting that the 'company ' or 'franchise' is something new in football - far from it. Look at Hibs pre Tom Farmer and before then run as a company albeit not very well run. Football since I can remember has been run by owners for a profit. Why do you think Jimmy Hill was so voiciferous within the players' union in the 1950's? Players being mis-treated by unscrupulous owners and managers who were bullies. Methinks you are being a bit too romantic about the good old days.
As for Utd the anti-Glazer brigade were as good as non-existent last season in spite of the yellow and gold - ask yourself why - success; four PL titles & a Champions League title in five years and people are still not happy. For me it is a football club with a wonderful history and tradition and which I have supported since 1966 and which still radiates itself at OT today and I must say, contrary to myth and popular opinion, the majority of OT crowds are from the Manchester area. I am sorry it saddens you but at least in a global scene Utd has not lost its soul in quite the way others have.
I am interested too that you are quick to quote Liverpool and United and denounce the yanks. These two clubs still have a massive community outreach. Let's not criticise Roman - you might get your head blown off by one of his henchman or Man City's owners - might be had up for racism - your criticism of the yanks is a tad cheap to say the least in comparison.

[weecounty hibby]

You may be right in one aspect and that is 'certain' clubs becoming playthings for the rich. Where you are wrong is suggesting that the 'company ' or 'franchise' is something new in football - far from it. Look at Hibs pre Tom Farmer and before then run as a company albeit not very well run. Football since I can remember has been run by owners for a profit. Why do you think Jimmy Hill was so voiciferous within the players' union in the 1950's? Players being mis-treated by unscrupulous owners and managers who were bullies. Methinks you are being a bit too romantic about the good old days.
As for Utd the anti-Glazer brigade were as good as non-existent last season in spite of the yellow and gold - ask yourself why - success; four PL titles & a Champions League title in five years and people are still not happy. For me it is a football club with a wonderful history and tradition and which I have supported since 1966 and which still radiates itself at OT today and I must say, contrary to myth and popular opinion, the majority of OT crowds are from the Manchester area. I am sorry it saddens you but at least in a global scene Utd has not lost its soul in quite the way others have.
I am interested too that you are quick to quote Liverpool and United and denounce the yanks. These two clubs still have a massive community outreach. Let's not criticise Roman - you might get your head blown off by one of his henchman or Man City's owners - might be had up for racism - your criticism of the yanks is a tad cheap to say the least in comparison.

Sorry you are a bit touchy about your clearly beloved Man Utd. I could have mentioned Abramovic, The Saudis at City, Sam Hamman, Flavio Briatore at QPR etc et etc. I used Liverpool and Man Utd as examples being the most high profile clubs. My point still stands and was the same in the 50s, 60s, 70s it is a business only to the people who own the club financially. The people who own the clubs emotionally will never see it that way. Most of these people can't even claim to be fans of the clubs they own they are in it either for profit or for their own personal egos.

[HH81]

You may be right in one aspect and that is 'certain' clubs becoming playthings for the rich. Where you are wrong is suggesting that the 'company ' or 'franchise' is something new in football - far from it. Look at Hibs pre Tom Farmer and before then run as a company albeit not very well run. Football since I can remember has been run by owners for a profit. Why do you think Jimmy Hill was so voiciferous within the players' union in the 1950's? Players being mis-treated by unscrupulous owners and managers who were bullies. Methinks you are being a bit too romantic about the good old days.
As for Utd the anti-Glazer brigade were as good as non-existent last season in spite of the yellow and gold - ask yourself why - success; four PL titles & a Champions League title in five years and people are still not happy. For me it is a football club with a wonderful history and tradition and which I have supported since 1966 and which still radiates itself at OT today and I must say, contrary to myth and popular opinion, the majority of OT crowds are from the Manchester area. I am sorry it saddens you but at least in a global scene Utd has not lost its soul in quite the way others have.
I am interested too that you are quick to quote Liverpool and United and denounce the yanks. These two clubs still have a massive community outreach. Let's not criticise Roman - you might get your head blown off by one of his henchman or Man City's owners - might be had up for racism - your criticism of the yanks is a tad cheap to say the least in comparison.

The Glazors are my hero's. I love to see them take money off the stupid glory hunting norwich scalf loving wierdos. Roll on the new season.

[The Falcon]

The reality is that he will be paid more than any Scottish club outside the OF has income.

[camhibby1]

Sorry you are a bit touchy about your clearly beloved Man Utd. I could have mentioned Abramovic, The Saudis at City, Sam Hamman, Flavio Briatore at QPR etc et etc. I used Liverpool and Man Utd as examples being the most high profile clubs. My point still stands and was the same in the 50s, 60s, 70s it is a business only to the people who own the club financially. The people who own the clubs emotionally will never see it that way. Most of these people can't even claim to be fans of the clubs they own they are in it either for profit or for their own personal egos.

Not touchy at all - merely stating facts. That said you seem to have been saddened for rather a long time - football 'becoming' is now been going on since the 50s, ie run by owners for profit or for their own egos - in some cases yes but not all - I'm sure Tom Farmer would be delighted to know that he used his own money to save Hibs just for his own ego - you know as I know that that is not the case. There are many owners in all sports including football who are in the game for their love of it and a particular club.
I think it is worth remembering that the behometh which is Manchester United today is one that has been built by football people for football fans in spite of being a successful business and I am pretty certain the owners appreciate that as well which is why they have major plans for the club and why SAF is now building his next, hopefully and probably his last great team. It's not all about money and playthings - it is about pride and passion too which many at OT have in abundance.

[matty_f]

The Premiership is a massive product, watched globally and is a huge profit-making organisation.

If the money didn't go to the players, it would be lining the pockets of the owners of the clubs and nobody else. It wouldn't be (IMHO) cheaper to watch as they'll always charge what people are willing to pay.

Footballers have a case that they are of a skill level and talent good enough to sell the product, and therefore deserve to be suitable renumerated for doing so. It's hard to argue that when Beckham sells millions of shirts that he shouldn't get financial recognition for doing so.

The amounts are, on the face of it, obscene. However in a multi-billion pound industry that is the going rate. People will pay to watch good football, people will buy into the hype that surrounds it and when packaged well (as Sky have undoubtedly done with the Premiership) that product has a worldwide market place to draw income from.

Irrespective of how long a footballers career is, he fact that a player has the ability to make it to that level, and to contribute to generating that level of income is why they are paid as handsomely as they are.

[Speedy]

Why not take your gloves off and tell me how you really feel?

I fail to see how comparing a footballer to an Average Joe is stupid and irrelevant. LOTS of people earn money for their respective companies, it's why they get paid. Some people work multiple jobs for a pittance, why do footballers deserve more than them? Are these other people not working hard? Are they less deserving in some way? Are they not providing a service that is profitable to their employer(s)?

If you think it's stupid and irrelevant that's fair enough but think about it as you watch the cost of going to a game increase and increase.

I wonder how the average football player's salary has changed over the last 20 years in comparison to some sort of median.

It's stupid and irrelevant because football clubs don't pay people more just because their career is shorter.

Whether they deserve more is also beside the point. They(Wesley Sneijer for example) are part of a very limited group of people that can provide that service hence why they can demand more money. Yes, your average joe's provide a service to make their employers money but then there are hundreds of thousands of other people that could also do that job which is why they can't demand so much money.

[Speedy]

The Premiership is a massive product, watched globally and is a huge profit-making organisation.

If the money didn't go to the players, it would be lining the pockets of the owners of the clubs and nobody else. It wouldn't be (IMHO) cheaper to watch as they'll always charge what people are willing to pay.

Footballers have a case that they are of a skill level and talent good enough to sell the product, and therefore deserve to be suitable renumerated for doing so. It's hard to argue that when Beckham sells millions of shirts that he shouldn't get financial recognition for doing so.

The amounts are, on the face of it, obscene. However in a multi-billion pound industry that is the going rate. People will pay to watch good football, people will buy into the hype that surrounds it and when packaged well (as Sky have undoubtedly done with the Premiership) that product has a worldwide market place to draw income from.

Irrespective of how long a footballers career is, he fact that a player has the ability to make it to that level, and to contribute to generating that level of income is why they are paid as handsomely as they are.

This is essentially what I was trying to say

[HibsMax]

If the money didn't go to the players, it would be lining the pockets of the owners of the clubs and nobody else. It wouldn't be (IMHO) cheaper to watch as they'll always charge what people are willing to pay.
I know I am being an idealist but it would be nice if the money was left in the pockets of the fans. The fans are being ripped off just because they can. The prices go up. Player's wages go up. Everyone is getting nice and rich. Except for the poor fans who the club know will pay whatever they can. It's a piss take.


Footballers have a case that they are of a skill level and talent good enough to sell the product, and therefore deserve to be suitable renumerated for doing so. It's hard to argue that when Beckham sells millions of shirts that he shouldn't get financial recognition for doing so.
Agreed. I don't think that players should be working for free and they definitely deserve their piece of the pie. My problem is that the pie is being filled by the fans and they are being asked to pay more and more for the privilege.

There was a news article I saw recently that stated it now costs an average family of 4 over $300 to attend ONE game (Red Sox). I saw that article recently but the one I found just now is over a year old. Here's the link (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/33/baseball-valuations-10_Boston-Red-Sox_330700.html) and here's a snippet:

The Red Sox also have a fan cost index of $326 (typical amount a family of four will spend to see a game), the second-most in baseball (the Yankees are first at $411) according to Team Marketing Report.

Quite a kick in the nuts when some players are earning 20 million a year. The Sox have one player in the top players list (Josh Beckett on 17mm). The Yankees have four players earning 16mm or more. (source : wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest_paid_Major_League_Baseball_players #Highest_paid_players_for_2011)).


It's out of control IMO. But they know people will pay.

[HibsMax]

It's stupid and irrelevant because football clubs don't pay people more just because their career is shorter.
I see what you're saying but the "they get paid more because they have a short career" is not my argument. I said in my post:
Sometimes you hear the "short career" excuse.

and my post was in response to those types of replies.



Whether they deserve more is also beside the point. They(Wesley Sneijer for example) are part of a very limited group of people that can provide that service hence why they can demand more money. Yes, your average joe's provide a service to make their employers money but then there are hundreds of thousands of other people that could also do that job which is why they can't demand so much money.

I agree, people at the top of their game do deserve more compensation. It's the amount of that compensation that chides me because it indirectly affects me. Your point is not lost on me, the guys at the top of their game are in a league of their own and they do deserve to be well paid for the entertainment they provide. The harder it is to replace you, the stronger position you are in to command a higher salary. But, IMO, the amounts are waaaaay too high and it's us who suffer (voluntarily).


Let's not forget the one important point here. Without the fans, there would be no game and no money. It's the fans who foot the bill, directly (going to the game) and indirectly (buying merchandise from sponsors).

[Speedy]

I see what you're saying but the "they get paid more because they have a short career" is not my argument. I said in my post:
Sometimes you hear the "short career" excuse.

and my post was in response to those types of replies.



I didn't say it was your argument, I just said it is was stupid and irrelevant.




I agree, people at the top of their game do deserve more compensation. It's the amount of that compensation that chides me because it indirectly affects me. Your point is not lost on me, the guys at the top of their game are in a league of their own and they do deserve to be well paid for the entertainment they provide. The harder it is to replace you, the stronger position you are in to command a higher salary. But, IMO, the amounts are waaaaay too high and it's us who suffer (voluntarily).


Let's not forget the one important point here. Without the fans, there would be no game and no money. It's the fans who foot the bill, directly (going to the game) and indirectly (buying merchandise from sponsors).

I don't disagree with that.

The bottom line is that players wages will continue to go up if fans continue to contribute to clubs' revenue by going to games, buying sky sports or going to the pub to watch it on sky sports.

[HibsMax]

I didn't say it was your argument, I just said it is was stupid and irrelevant.

OK. I think it's a stupid argument too because footballers choose to be footballers. There's nothing to say a player has to stop working when he's over the hill. He could be an accountant or anything. :)

[GhostofBolivar]

£9.5m a year isn't an anomalous amount in pro sports these days and certainly isn't anywhere near unusual considering the huge amount of money a club like Man Utd can generate.

When measured against US sports where salaries of $20m pa are common, it's not even among the top contracts.

[Woody1985]

Was anyone sick when tiger woods earned a billion dollars playing golf?

[HibbyAndy]

I hate Manure utd.

[H18Y GW]

I hate Manure utd.

Me too and how any one can love them or Chelski and then moan about the old firm weakening the teams about them, by buying there players or being able to buy players the rest can't afford is beyond me.

Wipe away the religious nonsense and they do the same job only at a different scale these days.

[joe breezy]

I like Man United cos I've got mates that support them and have been to a few games including Leeds away.

I don't like the glory hunting support 'new fans' they get but there's also a lot of proper fans, especially at the away games.

[H18Y GW]

I like Man United cos I've got mates that support them and have been to a few games including Leeds away.

I don't like the glory hunting support 'new fans' they get but there's also a lot of proper fans, especially at the away games.

Would you say the same about Huns or Smellies,I know quite a few of both that are decent guys doesn't mean I like either and they are also proper fans.

Capping time is not far away, give Wigan a chance to go 700 million in debt and I'm sure they would do not too bad either and that goes along with us spending and going forty million in debt , an SPL title and a Cup in this present climate would be in touching distance !

This news corporation scandal may soon have a knock on effect as new money, growing money was needed or Murdoch wouldn't even have been given the opportunity .

[joe breezy]

Man United are a big club but they're not sectarian like Rangers and Celtic. All the big English clubs have glory hunter / international followings. There's quite a few Hibbies that like Man U and quite a few Man U that like Hibs, some Cardiff some Newcastle.
I live down south so need to have someone to cheer on as I like live football and Edinburgh's too far.