If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Football players - should they be paid so much?
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Do you think that football players should be paid such high salaries?
0
Comments
I agree that people like nurses and teachers could do with increases in pay, but that really has nothing to do with how much footballers are paid. It is a flawed argument - some people seem to think that if footballers weren't paid as highly then nurses would be paid more. It doesn't work like that. Clubs wouldn't give the money away.
I think footballers are paid far too much for what they actually do, but as far as the game itself goes, I can see why they are and I agree that in order to secure the best players, you need to have high wage bills. Supply and demand.
From the ethical point of view, it seems ridiculous that a man who works 10-12 hours a week (and that is including training) kicking a ball can earn 180 times more money than a brick layer who does 45-hour weeks in shit conditions.
That's partly why the new transfer system came into play last season.. to help the poorer clubs.
But then how many people will pay to watch the builder?
Funny, although we have threads here (and newspaper stories) asking about the "ludicrous" amounts paid to footballers, no-one questions the £5m+ per film that Ewan McGregor (for example) earns... or compares it with the bugger all amount that some actors earn.
Perhaps we need to lose the impression that football is sport and recognise that it's entertainment with as much validity as any other form of such media
I am fully aware of the pull football has, but nevertheless things are getting ridiculous.
I understand there are salary caps in the Baseball League (or is it American Football) and they work fine and give smaller clubs a fairer chance. Football should follow suit.
If the market rate for a top player like (say) Sol Campbell is eighty thousands pounds a week then so be it.
The same could be said of others. The new Chelsea owner is said to have offered £60m for T. Henry. He's hardly worth half that amount but this man is a multi-billionaire and when he wants something he's prepared to pay well over the odds for it.
In this case, it's supply and demand. No different to a painting being auctioned. Let's face it, he's a commodity. Had other clubs been after Beckham the price would have risen.
No can do in Europe. This would effectively be a restraint of trade, I have a feeling that this has been looked into.
The way you get around that issue is to restrict clubs to a certain % of their turnover being spent on wages...
For once I agree with monocrat, market forces should be allowed to dominate here.
Although not when he says that Sol Campbell is "a top player"
Im not saying pay this people £90K a week because that just wouldnt happen, but £14k a year? thats just taking the piss.
If its more important to people to give money to those who they like to watch walking down the street in skirts, or those who will one day save their lives.
anyways, i need to be off to work, i'll finish this with you later!
The average fan will spend £400 on a season ticket, £40 on a shirt and a most £500 travelling and food on matchdays.
How much tax do you think they will pay, over the same period?
That's just taking your financial argument,
But it isn't as simple as that, is it?
The massive wages are starving the older, good clubs of players. Take Notts County, the oldest football club in the world. It's facing bankruptcy along with numerous other clubs.
The "fantastic" players start off life at these clubs until they are poached by another one.
What the richer clubs are doing is forcing the smaller ones into banlkruptcy, and eventually they will lose their source of players.
Oh no im not trying to suggest that its as easy as a click of the finger and transfer in the bank, and i dont think you think I was, but the thing i was trying to point out is that there are better things to spend our money on, more beneficial things that people would be more greatful of.
Im not trying to suggest David Beckham isnt grateful for what he has, but lets face it... if he wasnt paid for another 10 years he wouldnt go hungry at all, provided he's put some of that money into savings.
There should be limits on what people earn.
So what incentive is there to better yourself?
The whole capitalist system is based on the drive to earn more...
Bettering yourself would be doing a job you enjoy and are good at, and working your way up the chain, not going straight in at the top because you happen to be skilful with your feet.
A surgeon is skilful with his eyes and hands but can't command £50,000 an operation, you put your safety and trust in the hands of police officers who are doing the job because they know they can provide a service and eventually get paid more for doing a more demanding job. That is the essence of capitalism, and protestantism. Working to better yourself, for the sake of it and being paid for your effort. Footballers exert effort for about 3 hours a week, they should be paid accordingly surely?
Why should a person who is unemployable recieve anything? Why should someone who's only ability is to kick a ball into a net recieve anything? Football, is a sport, and a hobby, not a job. it doesn't improve the lives of anyone else.
yes, capitalism is about bettering one's self, but it is also about working for the betterment of society as a whole.
And just because somebody can kick a ball around well, they get played thousands for a match! It's sad, I mean in a perfect world we'd get paid for what we've worked for in school, not because we can play a ball game.
It's better than what they were on before.
No they don't, that would be like (to use you analogy) saying that a surgeon only works for 7 hours a week, which is how long he operates for.
Perhaps you should look at what the players have to give up or avoid in order to reach the top of their profession. As well as looking at what they do during the moments between games. Do you honestly think that they only do anything on match days?
You can make a distinction? How?
You mean like someone who is significantly mentally disabled?
Not a fan then. If you were then you wouldn't have said that.
If you think that it doesn't improve peoples lives perhaps you missed the national euphoria around Euro 96, for example. You certainly didn't see me in the 93rd minute of the 1999 Champions League Final.
Hate to say this, but you are talking tosh.
But thats just the way it works today...
I disagree i think footballers are paid far to much what do they need all that money for it could go to better people who do more in the world then playing a game the entertains us. I think that docters or nurses could get paid more then footballers because at least docters help people even footballers need them an they get less money.
Why the chuff has this thread been dragged up?
But yes, supply and demand.
If you think of it in one way- how much money does Beckham make for Real Madrid in terms of merchandising? Why should be left on £50 a week regardless?
Though it does make me laugh how our new 20-stand bus station is worth one quarter of Wayne Rooney.
On another note, I really did think pnj was back then...