Madejski right to hit out at wages
Reading chairman John Madejski once said that the best way to make a million in football is to invest 10 million, the suggestion being that for whatever reason the other nine disappears along the way.
It would be a fair assumption that the Royals chairman had players' wages in mind to at least some degree.
After all, as far back as May 2003 he opined from his luxury home: "There are three things wrong with football: players' wages, players' wages and players' wages. If you sort that out, you sort football out as far as I'm concerned."
As such I guess nobody should have been all that surprised when the 67-year-old recently told BBC Radio Berkshire that footballer's wages are "obscene".
"I think players are paid quite enough already and they don't need to be as high as they are," said the man who made his substantial fortune as the founder of Auto Trader.
"I'm pleased they get good salaries - that's only right - but it's gone off the Richter scale."
I've spoken to a couple of Reading fans about this and I wouldn't say it was exactly the news they wanted to hear. They are more than familiar with Madejski's fiscal prudence and his theories on the salaries of his key assets.
What they what to hear is that most of the £8.5m raised from the sale of David Kitson to Stoke and Nicky Shorey to Aston Villa will be reinvested in the transfer market.
It isn't going to happen.
Reading received a parachute payment of £11m but Madejski reckons relegation from the Premier League cost his club £22m. What's more, he has made it clear that plenty of funds have been used in extensive "remedial work" on the stadium. Add to that the large squad of players at the club and reduced season ticket sales of 14,000 and the owner has a strong case for suggesting that the club need to "cut our coat according to our cloth."
I've been told that the staff at the club took a substantial pay cut as a consequence of relegation, while the cash raised from the sale of players will be used to underpin the deficit incurred as a result of Reading dropping out of the Premier League.
I think there is a lot to admire in a chairman running his club with a very definite eye on the bottom line. Football is littered with tales of boom and bust, ridiculous overspending and chronic mismanagement. Fans want to hear about exciting new arrivals, though surely not as much as they don't want to hear about their club entering administration.
But is Madejski correct when he suggests that the biggest problem in football is players' wages?
I have trouble computing the supposed figures involved in Frank Lampard's new contract at Chelsea. Can any sportsman be worth a reported £150,000 per week?
Some would suggest that football is now entertainment, not to mention a business of supply and demand. Footballers are the stars of the show, the reason people pass through the turnstiles and buy replica shirts and all the other merchandise that is now available, and if a club is generating huge sums of money as they mine ever-expanding markets then why shouldn't players be paid their slice of the pie?
And to an extent I think the aforementioned argument holds water. The top players in the Premier League are the faces of global brands, superstars. Whether they are cosseted, pampered and spoilt with no idea of what it is to be a normal human being is another argument entirely.
But what about wages in the Football League?
A survey in 2006 revealed that the average Championship footballer earns £195,750 per year, or to put it another way £3,764 a week. The figure dropped to £67,850 in League One and £49,600 in League Two.
I would be absolutely staggered if there were no footballers in the Championship earning at least £20,000 per week - just over £1m each year.
You could argue that if your club brought in a top player who made the difference between promotion and a near miss, then he would certainly be worth every penny of a £1m a year contract. But how many of these are there in the Championship? Not many.
And as I have read story after story over the summer months of managers talking about their frustrations in the transfer market because players are waiting on deals, hoping something better will come along, it underlines the belief that for most footballers, or their agents or a combination of the two, cash is a prime motivation. Yes, footballers have short careers and must look after their own interests, but the relationship between club and cash is one that often ruptures a player's loyalty.
Looking at the bigger picture can it really be right that a footballer in the second tier of the English game earns so much for playing football when so many other people in unquestionably important professions, people who save lives, or educate children or serve the public in so many other ways, earn a pittance in comparison? It is part of the reason why my Dad no longer bothers to watch the team he supports, the price of admission being another key factor. The argument sounds a bit worthy but that doesn't mean it isn't right.
I think Madejski is right when he says that salaries have gone off the Richter scale. Do you?
Hello, I'm Paul Fletcher and I mainly write about life in the Football League. I have a great enthusiasm for a whole range of sports and love to spread the word about the great game of rugby league.
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~08~RS~)
CommentsSign in
You need to sign in to contribute to this page. If you're new to BBC Blogs, creating your membership is quick and easy.
Of course he's right. Incomes around the world across the entire global consumer economy continue to polarise and the football industry surely awaits its own credit crunch. Yes, they have short careers, but even footballing premiership journeymen can earn a lifetime's wages in one season. Anyway, who can really be comfortable earning such sums, knowing that somewhere in the world, a child dies every three seconds for a lack of even an extremely basic standard of living?
Complain about this comment
I fully agree with you Andie, theres dark days ahead for professional football. Its just not feasible that Championship clubs can have wage bills in excess of 100 grand a week when they only take maybe 150 grand at the gate. That still has to cover transport costs, maintenance, insurance etc...
Morer people should support Madejski on this one, Ive recently heard the commentators on Sky Sports News propose a protest or a petition about the ridiculous level of players wages. I personally think the cap should be 100 grand and that would be only for players like Giggs or Gerrard or talismen who have worked hard over the years to earn that kind of cash.
Complain about this comment
I think it's a bit daft constantly blaming players for their wages. If the clubs and chairman are willing to pay the wages then why shouldn't the playes take them. It's the clubs and on a smaller scale the fans who are to blame. Not many fans will of spent their pre-season saying "lets not buy any new star players, lets coach the youngsters, wait 5 years for success and that will keep my season ticket price down". Footballers try to get the best deal they can the same as anyone else in the commercial world. When the players do try to get the best deal and try it on a bit, everyone screams about loyalty, another myth.
As for feeling comfortable about taking such big wages because that makes them guilty for starving kids, that's a bit harsh. Thats the equivalent of saying anyone who earns more than they deserve on a global scale or anyone who spends on a luxury item should feel guilty because that money could of saved a childs life.
Saying all that I do think the wages are crazy, the maths just doesn't work out for most clubs. I would like to see some sort of financial regulation which says teams can not spend more on wages than they are projected to get from gates and TV revenue or what they have in the bank. But I guess legally it can't be done.
Complain about this comment
I personally think £20,000 per week should be the absolute maximum as that would give players a million a year contract.
How much do they need/want.
Most people I know dont earn the equivalent of 1 or 2 weeks of that.
Yet OUR clubs still want to squeeze every last pound out of us for memorabilia/refreshments etc.
Time has come to say enough is enough.
Disgruntled Leicester fan.
:-(
Complain about this comment
People have been using this argument since the abolition of the maximum wage. Why is it that only footballers come in for this kind of stick? Is it right (fair) that people can get many millions for their business, or get millions in bonuses for selling shares, etc. at times when you can't lose ? Surely it is the same argument, if you charge too much, nobody will buy.
It only seems to be this year, when his FA dole out is cut that he is concerned. How does he think that teams promoted to the Championship are supposed to compete, with a sudden increase in wages, but no immediate big FA bonuses?
What I do think should happen is that players should have an appropriate wage cut when relegated.
Complain about this comment
For me, the biggest question mark with the levels of player wages is are players becoming more distant and out of touch with fans.
Complain about this comment
In reply to MaybeNextYearSon,
a salary cap is legally possible, the RFL imposes such a salary cap on super league clubs and they can only spend 50 or 60 percent of their projected earnings for that particular season on players wages. (I tried to find some more about this rule but wikipedia seemed to know nothing *shrug*)
The argument against having a salary cap of this sort is that players seeking the sort of wages they were paid before the cap a la Ballack/Lampard etc. would leave the Premier League and go elsewhere.. then the league would supposedly no longer be the "best" league in the world.. Something would have to be imposed on a worldwide scale and this seems very unlikely.
It is however something I think will probably benefit football in the long term given that most clubs are reportedly running on a defecit. Of course it does probably mean that Man Utd will have billions to spend on their squad and the Hulls of the world may be left with little more than a fiver, but at least they are probably less likely to go bust??
Complain about this comment
I completely disagree with this article. I realise you have jumped at the sight of the earnings of these sportsmen and have claimed that somehow they are crazy. Football is not the only sport that is like this, baseball players earn equal amounts, Kimi Raikonen is the highest paid sportsman in the world. In fact, David Beckham is the only top footballer in the earnings bracket of sportsmen. Only Ronaldinho comes close.
The attempt to link footballers wages to supply and demand is also not really correct. Entertainment industry wages (which football undoubtably is as it is run by entertaining the public, if it wasn't as entertaining the players would not earn as much e.g. bowls) are high across the world. This is not similar to standard employment. Like movie stars, there will always be someone willing to pay more for your talent, thus each player has their price depending on talent, sales appeal (how many shirts they sell for the club etc) and various other factors.
If Inter Milan are willing to pay £140,000 a week for Frank Lampard, and Chelsea are willing to pay £150,000 per week because they feel he is worth this to them, then he should be paid that. It has partly to do with greed etc but all jobs are to do with this.
Complain about this comment
Of course footballers, like many other sportsmen, are grotesquely overpaid - upwards of £100,000 for a 90 minute game of football is disgusting to most hard working people who struggle to make ends meet in the current climate.
The fact that footballers are almost universally poor role models, generally disloyal to their clubs and actually behave disgracefully when they are on the pitch only adds to the feeling of indignation I have!
Complain about this comment
Nah, Manny Ramirez has earned $143,328,346 prior to this season.
Complain about this comment
The argument is that that the players are helping to make all of this money in the first place so of course they are entitled to a slice of it- that's how capitalism works after all.
The problem with that argument is that most clubs are run at a loss. If even Man Utd are sitting on a mountain of debt then it must be concluded that the players are earning wages grossly disproportionate to the wealth they are helping to create. It's all very well saying "if a club can afford it why not?" but the simple bare facts show that your Man Utds, Liverpools, West Hams etc actually CAN'T afford it, and it's the fans who suffer.
Complain about this comment
There are strict rules regarding player wages in baseball were for the first couple of years players earn set amounts and are totally under the control of the clubs. When they have player for a number of years they are eligible for free agency and can negotiate a deal. Only the superstars earn superstar money.
Complain about this comment
Of course they're paid too much. As far as I'm concerned they don't deserve it but I can't blame them for taking advantage of it.
The argument that the clubs are making a fortune so why shouldn't the players take a share is a bit rich (OK bad pun!)
Why are these clubs making so much money? Because they're charging us a bloody fortune to get in and Sky and the like fleece us as well.
Bring down wages and pass those savings onto us, the poor mugs who fork out £30+ each time we go to a game.
Someone said they're entertaintainers? B*****x I say. Bruce Springsteen is an entertainer, Titus Bramble isn't.
Complain about this comment
How sad is that line about Paul's father no longer going to support the team he has been a life-long fan of. The twofold reason being repulsive players wages, and detestable admission price's.
Duh !!! you don't have to be Einstein to do the math.
Everything is treated like a commodity now. No love, passion, loyalty, community spirit. PLC's ? The City ? Conglomerate's owning football club's?! It make's me sick to my stomach. It has also made it more predictable and less exciting than before.
And, like Paul's father... I can now neither afford the admission, nor wish to contribute to the nauseating level of players wages.
Complain about this comment
I have supported Aldershot since the dark days of 1992 and unfortunately not a lot has changed since. W
Complain about this comment
Here it is, the classic English "drag 'em down" attitude. All this nonsense about the starving children in Africa, or "most people I know won't earn in a year what they earn in a week" blah, blah, blah. Putting aside the fact that most players come from working class backgrounds where football is a legitimate escape, or even more so, the same African or South American poverty holes that everyone is whining about; why shouldn't they earn the big bucks? YOU are the ones who pay the entrance fees and the Sky subs; if you really object to the state of player's wages, take that season ticket money or those Sky subs, and send them to those starving kids in Africa (not that it will do them a damn bit of good), and there will soon be an adjustment in players' wages. But you won't of course, because its easier to moan.
Complain about this comment
again, another article which mentions the poor poor players who had a wage cut, but what about the off field staff who lost their jobs - no mention of them at all, in any article I have read
Complain about this comment
Of course he's right. A salary-cap is desperately needed in the Premier League as Players Wages are out-of-control. There needs to be a maximum wage, and a minimum wage. Considering that lower league clubs could solve some of their financial crises with John Terry's monthly wage is ridiculous to say the least.
I wouldn't end it there, either. The Premier League is a procession now because it's a money-race, and there's is no level-playing field (imagine, if you will, if any of the 20 clubs in the Premier League would be in with a shout of winning the title, wouldn't that be great? A competitive league, for once.) Caps on transfers, wages and season-ticket prices are needed to keep the sport healthy, competitive, and most of all, accessible to the fans.
Complain about this comment
That is an article pandering to be popular if ever I read one. It seems nobody involved in sport understands the basic economic principles we live under. The definition of being worth something is not one person's opinion, it is purely defined by what someone will pay for it. That is how our free market, capitalist, economy works. If everybody is so up in arms about the players wages, they should stop watching football, stop subscribing to sky and stop buying replica nodding John Terry's to hang in the back of their car. Then the worth of the footballers would be reduced and they wouldn't be paid as much. Consequently of course, our football would get worse and we'd all have to start getting up at 9 am on a Sunday morning again to watch Lazio and Napoli pass it around between their back fours on Gazetta Italia, not to mention the horrifying prospect of John Barnes and that guy from Robot Wars doing the commentary.
Pay the little princesses the money and keep our football great.
Complain about this comment
I have supported Aldershot Town since the dark days of 1992 and then like now we are heading for recession. A terrace ticket last season was £13 now it is £15 or to sit £18; a rise from £15. The nasty surprise this season is the rise in concessionary tickets; from £9 last season to £12 now for the terraces. I assume these increases are due to improved wages and increased travelling expenses to away matches; both things can be solved; a cap on wages in all divisions and north and south divisions to avoid the travelling and thus generate bigger crowds.
Complain about this comment
I read an article on the BBC website the other day about a new wage deal for England international rugby union players (these are the guys who came second in the last world cup, and won the previous one. As opposed to Englands international football record of late, which I'm sure we're all aware of), who apparently now can earn something around the £180,000/ year mark. I'm fully aware of the differing nature of the sports, and the diffrence between club/ country etc but still, it makes you think.
Complain about this comment
I stopped going to football in about 2002, which is roughly when football players turned completely mercenary. They're in it for themselves 100%, there's no loyalty and they don't care about anything apart from how much they earn. I think Martin O'Neill was quoted recently saying that it a player had 3 good games, their agent was knocking at the door asking for a new contract.
To those talking about supply and demand - most clubs are sitting on a massive pile of debt or are reliant on a rich backer. It would be interesting to see which clubs are actually trading within their means. Re-financing that debt is going to be prohibitively expensive given the current economic situtation. We've already seen what happens with some rich backers - who'd be a Man City fan at the moment?
Complain about this comment
Not sure the argument that players come from a poor background vindicates their wages really works....
a) It is not universal that all players come from a poor background.
b) no matter where you are 'from' nobody needs to earn £5-7M a year!!!
Its hard for people to just stop going to games, as these are teams they may have grown up supporting and therefore feel attached and loyal to so by implication will follow them anywhere.....its this loyalty that the clubs and in turn the players are taking advantage of...its a disgrace..
P.s Joey Barton STILL on £60,000 a week after all he has done.......newcastle should be very ashamed....bottlers.
Complain about this comment
In the Football League there is a 60% of turnover cap on wages. Players also take a mandatory pay cut if they get relegated.
This argument is so futile. Yes from a social welfare point of view maybe footballers don't deserve their money. But that's not how society works so why should football be different? People are paid what someone offers them unless they are self-employed. Footballers just happen to be in a booming industry with massive money floating around it. For Madjseki (a man richer than almost any footballer) to complain about it is ridiculous. If he's that bothered, don't pay it but your club will slip backwards like as not.
The unspoken truth is that we as a collective are to blame. Fans pay their money which goes to pay the players, and demand instant success in return which further fuels the need for the club to sign players to keep the fans happy. Look what happened at Everton, a successful well-run club, on Saturday because they hadn't signed any big names. The fans booed. Is it any wonder then that boards are so ready to give players large sums.
Complain about this comment
Most footballers come from ordinary working-class backgrounds. The best of them are now paid a fortune.
The press dont like it. They complain.
Most top businessmen come from wealthy backgrounds. The "best" of them have always been paid a fortune.
And nobody in the press complains.
It's just hypocrisy.
Good luck to the footballers I say! Take what you can, when you can. Just like the rich and privileged have always done.
Complain about this comment
Yes, cap people's wages. However I believe they tried a similar thing in Russia for about 70 years last century, and it was found to be widely unpopular. Where have all these communists suddenly come from? Firstly, if you impose a wage cap, every top footballer in the country will just move to Italy, Spain, Russia etc. There will be a decrease in quality of English football (just look at Germany where they have such a system). Secondly, why should footballers be discriminated against? Why not limit wages of builders, plumbers, surgeons etc? The market decides what footballers are worth, and they should not be castigated for doing what anybody in their position would.
Complain about this comment
Its simple Supply and Demand and wages are merely a result of this. If clubs are willing to offer these wages and fans/sponsers are willing to fund the clubs then whats to stop it all.
The fallout is clearly the fact that bar a 'freak' season, only one of three clubs will win the premiership.
American sports have the right idea with 'the draft' where the poor performing clubs get first pick of college players. There is a problem in that we dont have a 'college system' like theirs.
Complain about this comment
Madejski is right, because there is hardly a club that isn't in debt. If clubs made profits, you could understand the wages, although ticket prices should also be cut. Arsenal, Man U, Chelsea and Liverpool are hugely indebted, so what chance do other teams have of cutting their cloth?
If something isn't done, there will be another Leeds-style implosion, and it will be worse than Leeds. I think Michel Platini has a point, that clubs shouldn't be allowed to operate with huge debts.
Complain about this comment
For all of you moaning and saying reduce players wages so clubs can charge us less to watch them, please get real.
If the miracle of all miracles happened and players wages were reduced the money would not go towards reduced tickets prices or reduced sky sports subs. There are only two places in the world that this money would go - the transfer market or the chairmans pocket.
So the repercussion of this would either be the top four having even more money for the transfer market (seeing as they pay the biggest wages they would stand to gain the most by a wages cap) or even more money hungry corporations buying clubs because it would be more profitable for them.
The truth is the money problem with football is a result of the modern lifestyle. There's so much cash floating around (even with the credit crunch) that we're happy (maybe not happy but we do) to pay £40 for a ninety minute game of football or subscribe to sky to watch the games.
These clubs aren't charities and will charge us what we'll pay. The only reason Barnet or Chester don't charge £40 quid for a game is that they know that nobody will pay it.
At the end of the day it's basic economics, high prices lead to high rates not the other way around.
Complain about this comment
Why footballers wages, what about Bankers, Lawyers, etc. Many people get paid daft amounts of money, we have a system to address this called taxation.
If you object to footballers stop going to games, their wages will soon come down. However realise that some of these guys are global icons and recognised all over the world, as such they can generate huge amounts of money in sponsorship, marketing deals and selling mechandise.
I agree most get paid too much, so stop gping to games and get the government to tax top earners (say over £200,000 per year) at a higher rate.
Complain about this comment
@ Andywr:
Bankers and Lawyers get fired if they make decisions that cause their firm/clients to lose money.
When was the last time a footballer got fired for making a wrong decision?
There is a salary cap in place within Rugby Union - whilst English clubs sometimes miss out on the absolute top players in the world to French clubs with more money, it hasn't stopped English clubs or the England team being relatively successful.
Complain about this comment
Eventually there will be another Leeds United style implosion, and eventually, it will be one of the "big four" because they don't qualify for the Champions League.
Only when the big big teams start going bust will this be sorted out.
Having said that, I have no real problem with the wages that the players are paid, it's supply and demand.
I would however, like to see more of the television money distributed down the football pyramid to help those local teams (such as one of mine - Goole AFC) keep going as theirs is a constant financial struggle.
Complain about this comment
I completely disagree with this article. Lets be clear football is the most popular sport in the world and as such the key element of the sport (the players) should be rewarded according.
The clubs, UEFA, FIFA are the ones who really make the money lets have a look at what Blatter and co earn in wages and bonuses for being pencil pushes??? Never mind how much FIFA earn yearly??
Players get paid these amounts because the clubs can afford to do so and like any other working people will want to earn as much as possible while they are able to do so.
Complain about this comment
I understand not everyone is an economist, but a number of posts here refer to clubs having 'huge debts' and 'running at a loss' as if the two were equivalent. They are very, very different situations, this being highlighted by the top two clubs in the Premier League.
Man Utd have debt, just as most businesses (and individuals) have debt. This is effectively a mortgage against the value of the club's assets and market value as a business, as a result of the structure of the deal the Glaziers did to purchase the club. However, the club runs at a profit which enables them to make their 'mortgage payments' with money to spare. They do not run at a loss, and therefore are in now way living beyond their means.
Chelsea however have no debt to speak of - all debts were paid off by Abramovich when he acquired the club. However, they run at a loss and have done for some years, ie they pay out more money on salaries etc each year than they earn from tickets, merchandising, prize money, sponsorship and so on. The shortfall is made up from Abramovich's pocket, so they don't build up debt.
The Chelsea situation is one of the drivers in pushing up salaries - a club is offering bigger salaries and paying higher prices for players than the income they actually earn would otherwise allow them. If not for Abramovich subsidising them, Chelsea would have gone into administration long ago with their spending levels. This is turn has driven up the prices other clubs have to pay to attract and retain talent.
Rather than capping salaries for players, some of the root causes need to be addressed. Rules are in place to penalise clubs for going into administration, in order to ensure that they are run in a financially responsible manner. It wouldn't be too hard to extend this rule to say that any club that runs at a net loss for more than, say, two years would receive a points deduction.
This would quickly ensure that clubs have to 'cut their coats according to their cloth' as Madejski wishes.
Complain about this comment
Earnings linked to worthiness is a very spurious business. Much of the sports/leisure/entertainment sector has highly paid individuals, but are they worthy of that payment?? In terms of contributions to humanity and the betterment of life on this planet, probably not! But then, we have allowed ourselves to become a celebrity obsessed culture, judging and valuing by level of fame rather than by talent, worth or (God forbid according to popular culture here) intelligence!
The Reading Chairman is hard-headed in business terms, but knows the score in football. Mr Murdoch ensured, with the full collusion of the football authorities, that it died as a sport and was re-born as an entertainment. No doubt at some point the gravy train will dry up and it may well return from whence it came. Until then, our western society will reap what it sows within it's culture, and football is not excluded form that.
Complain about this comment
Making a million = having 1 million more than you started with...
Thus, £10m invested + £1m earnt = 10% Return On Investment.
I think what Mr. Madejski was saying that the ROI in football is poor, not that you generally suffer huge losses.
The latter would surely see him get out of football?
/ end pedantry
;)
Complain about this comment
I wholeheartedly agree with this article, there should be a cap on wages. If anything to increase loyalty of footballers to a club why not have salary tiers. Two years at the club sees you on £50,000. Then 4years you get £60,000... this will reward players for loyalty and the only reason they would leave would be because they want to play for another team not that the money.
Complain about this comment
We all know they earn too much, but its called reality.
London bonuses are also far too much, and they affect the whole country.
If people are willing to pay so much for tickets then wages will be high.
I doubt they will go down until theres some sort of footy downfall.
Complain about this comment
The real problem with football today is that money decides the Premiership table. There is a realistic chance of winning the Premiership for 4 clubs.
Now one of these is Arsenal, which is run on correct financial lines.
Chelsea and ManU run vast deficits and are alone in competing for the top wanted players.
Liverpool have their ownership problems but are still more or less competitive.
The Premiership needs to require all clubs to be financially viable over a period of, say, 4 or 5 years and not allowed to run up huge losses.
That may not be a complete level playing field but it would make the Premiership much more competitive.
One ray of hope - the current world-wide credit crisis may yet force some sense into the bloated system.
Complain about this comment
John Madjeski's complaint sounds analagous to that of mill and mine owners in the 19th and 20th centuries, "profit, profit, profit"! Seeking ever greater returns on their investments becomes an obsession for the ultra wealthy entrepreneurs, like Madjeski. Perhaps he should take some solace that he is paying the lowest ever rate of tax on his huge income under the current government. That aside, even if clubs achieved a cap or some other form of wage restraint, would they invest the additional capital into the clubs, or take those profits for themselves ala Sam Hamman?
Complain about this comment
I completely agree that they are massively overpaid! But it is not the Footballers fault i know i would want to earn as much as i can!
It boils down to things like the clubs and chairman. unless there is a cap enforced like there is in other sports (namely US sports) then there will always be one team or chairman (Chelsea springs to mind) who will be willing to buy success.
My biggest gripe is that they have say a 5 year contract and if they were to be sacked or a club wanted to get rid of them they would have to pay this out, that happens in no other job. If i was to be sacked i would not be paid for 3 years salary i had not worked for!! thats insane, not to mention that they get full pay when injured, this should be reduced or even go down to statitory sick pay and see how they manage!!
Fifa and Uefa need to look and this and enforce it, either on an individual player level or club level.
Most footballers these days and have little or no respect for the fans, Nicky butt is the rudest person i have ever met!
Complain about this comment
If you cut the players wages surely this money that would usually go to the players would simply be lining a few fat cats pockets who have not dedicated their whole life to the game for a short career?
Do you really think clubs would cut tickets, merchandise etc if they cut the wages?
Complain about this comment
Of course he is right. Not just for the reasons he gives but for the atittude of players and managers who complain about their life. Pressure, travelling, injuries etc are quoted as reasons for the need for high wages. On one hand they tell us they play too much football and then say its a short career. The reason all the wealth is in football is because for the same reason that people still smoke when cigarettes are so expensive and drinks the same, people who are passionate about football will pay so much either through the turnstile or Sky.
Complain about this comment
I'd like to see footballers paid on performance, determined by what the crowd think. Give them a standard basic wage which increases if they get a game. They get paid more the better they play. Because the crowd decide they would really need to work hard to impress them. Bring back the days of the colusseum!
Also it would mean losers like Joey Barton would get the wage they deserve, Nothing!
Complain about this comment
I'm amazed at how many communists are on this message board. This is what happens with a free market economy. There is lots of money in football (and other big businesses) and so there are vast amounts of money to be earnt. As vital as nurses etc are they are not going to earn big money because the NHS doesn't make money (unless of course you all want your taxes to shoot up to put the money in?). It's no good picking and choosing which bits of living in a capitalist society you want to keep and which you want to scrap.
Complain about this comment
I just think it's hilarious that a used car salesman who was paid £180 million is complaining about other people's wages. Madejski was a very talented used car salesman, Lampard is a very talented footballer. Madejski ran his business for 24 years so was paid the equivalent of £7.5 million a year which is exactly what Lampard is being paid. Talent attracts money - even if you're a used car salesman.
Complain about this comment
Psudo-viking, I know being in debt and running at a loss are different things but you know what? I'm still right - most football clubs ARE run at a loss and also DO have huge debts.
So MAn Utd are one of the tiny minority not run at a loss - they still have mountains of debt. And if they "make their payments with ease" how come their debt gets bigger year on year? When I pay my mortgage with ease the sum I owe get's smaller. So my point remains the same, thanks. The clubs CAN'T afford it. Man City, a team at the top of the pile, just took out a £30m loan to pay an instalment on a player they signed over a year ago. Three clubs went into administration towards the end of last season and a fourth is on the way as we speak. Newcastle can't even afford to fire a player who got himself sent to jail even though they said they would. The money being thrown at players is more to do with desperation than any glorious financial situation that football finds itself in and it simply can't be sustained. Well no actually it probably can, but it will involve most Premiership games happening in the far east. But you lot won't mind that will you? Because that's the price we are all willing to pay for having the "strongest" league in the Wolrd.
Complain about this comment
Re post no.2 - If true, it's ironic that Sky Sports commentators were calling for a fan protest at players' wages, given that their employers are almost entirely responsible for kick starting the greed culture in football.
A real protest would be for armchair fans to stop subscribing to Sky (you can watch most PL matches on the net for free anyway). Once the Sky millions dwindle away, you could start a book on which PL club would go bust first. My money's on Man U or L****pool. Their owners would jump ship so fast even the rats would be left behind.
Complain about this comment
Footballers and sportsmen in general seem to be the only people enjoying that slice of the revenue pie. I as a member of the financial industry receive my wage and a bonus each year. I do not enjoy a slice of the revenue pie. Nobody does. Let's try to look at this in black and white. A guy goes out on a field and plays soccer for 90 minutes. So he basically does something he loves and gets paid (all the power to him). How can anyone ANYONE anywhere in the world justify giving him what some people make in 3-4 years of hard labor. Crikey... Even people who SAVE LIVES do not get paid that much in a year. In black and white this is a no brainer, but of course we live in a world smeared with brown too.
Complain about this comment
Paul Fletcher loses his way down another tired old cliche when he says that the players argument about deserving their share of the enormous sums of money holds water.
This is the only defense ever offered by money-hungry footballers who like to kiss the club badge after scoring and pledge allegience to their club after holding out for nearly a year for an inflated salary.
The real situation is that they are the extremely lucky, rich elite who are taking advantage of the system and looking for reasons to justify their advantages instead of ways to improve the system.
Take the example of Lampard. He sees his owner has billions, his teammates are paid millions and he wants his piece of the pie. Meanwhile, down the road, Crystal Palace have their best young prospect, John Bostock, stolen from them by Spurs for £750,000 because Bostock is lured by the prospect of millions of pounds and his piece of the pie.
The lucky individuals can win big but the loser in any society where capitalism is allowed to run un-checked is society. In this case, the society is the football community as a whole.
The big clubs are getting richer and the little clubs are going bust. The smaller clubs can't afford to invest as much in youth, local talent dries up and foreign workers are brought in. It doesn't bode well for the national team where we have a decent first 11 but the rest of the squad spend the season on the bench at a big club which bought them in case they became great but ultimately let them rot behind a player who'd already established himself overseas - Bostock be warned.
Something needs to be done. A huge amount of stuff has been written about the best way to govern countries and societies but it seems to me our national game has been left to be run by a bunch of greedy children. This constant bleating of how the Premiership is the best in the world reminds me of American nationalism at it's worst and it will only take one south coast hurricane to expose the real social problems that underpin their economic dominance.
I see the future in a captilism that is checked by social conscience. Like most European countries, I think the rich should be taxed proportionally and the money redistributed to those that need it.
Whether it is taxing players wages or the clubs that pay them, football in England would benefit from a redistribution of it's wealth. That doesn't mean redistributing it to a handful of players to spend on their Christmas party and another 6 cars. That means reinvesting in the foundations that support the end product.
No one can justify £150,000 a week. Please don't insult us by trying.
Complain about this comment
At 12:47pm on 20 Aug 2008, ziggythehamster wrote:
I just think it's hilarious that a used car salesman who was paid ?180 million is complaining about other people's wages.
----------------------------------------------------
Not quite the same thing. Madejski got paid because lots of people bought his product, Lampard gets paid because a Russian billionaire is on an ego trip.
If the top four had to pay their way, they wouldn't be able to hog all the best players.
Complain about this comment
Re: #27 Bring Back Suzuka:
"American sports have the right idea with 'the draft' where the poor performing clubs get first pick of college players. There is a problem in that we dont have a 'college system' like theirs."
- Not only the draft, virtually every sporting league here also has a salary cap.
I really couldn't care whether sportsmen are worth what they're being paid, but enforcing a salary cap creates a lot more interest whichever team you support, they at least have a chance.
I love football, and I still follow the premier league somewhat, but it lacks all the excitement that comes with a league where there are 20 title contenders, not 2-3.
Of course, I don't think a salary cap would ever fly in football, because the "big" clubs would lose their status, and even were you to set a cap at 50mil or so, the Hulls and Stokes etc. probably don't even have that to spend.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
It does appear that some of us miss the point. I agree that some player's wages are out of control, but one can hardly blame them for taking the money. After all, if someone were to offer us a hugely inflated pay deal, even if we knew we did not deserve it, how many of us would turn it down? All the time there is money in the game, there will be individuals who will exploit it. I suspect that there is a large helping of envy here. That said, having been a Chelsea fan for forty years, i am greatly concerned at the effect our wealth is having on the game! The result of our spending appears to be that all of the so called big clubs are ramping up their spending in order to compete, with barely a glance at the source of the money. Scarcely a day goes by without some allegation of corruption, and questions of how a club's owner came by his enormous wealth. perhaps it is time for root and branch reform. I wonder how many fans or players would submit to this idea? Oh for the innocent pleasures of watching the game, and wondering if your team were skilful enough to win, and not just there for the money.
Complain about this comment
It isn't right to compare footballers salaries to those in the medical or education professions. The money the footballers earn is generated by football, it would never end up in the pay packet of a doctor.
Do they earn too much? Probably, but a top film star or musician can earn similar amounts by also marketing and exploiting their talent
Complain about this comment
I think John Madejski is right, even though he is a capitalist and has made his money by letting others do all the work. Wealth should be spread and money should be earned.
The average footballer has a career around 10 years. The average working career is around 40 years. Because footballers invest so much in their careers at a young age, they find it extremely difficult to earn a living outside of football. Therefore, there should be a base salary four times the average working salary (to compensate for short careers) - this should amount to around 100,000 a year plus bonuses. Now obviously some players are more skilled than others and hence of greater value to their teams. That's why there should be an independent ratings panel for each division. The panel sends 4 staff to each game, two rating players of each side respectively. At the end of the season, players then get allocated ratings bonuses, plus goals, points, win and trophy bonuses.
The basic salary should increase by 8% (4x the average raise) every two seasons as an incentive for players to remain loyal to their teams. Obviously basic salaries would differ from division to division (by 10%), but also from country to country based on UEFA club coefficients. The best teams would still attract the best players, but you wouldn't have the present situation of purely money motivated moves.
Complain about this comment
Pseudo-viking: take your point about the difference between debt and running at a loss. However, what I was alluding to was that this debt never existed to the extent that it does today. Man U, Liverpool etc used to operate with no/minimal debt and the new owners loaded both clubs with (cheap) debt when they bought them. I know for a fact that when Arsenal financed their new stadium they struggled to raise the money - and that was a few years ago when money was cheap.
Now the circumstances have changed these clubs with huge debts will end up making massive interest payments when they come to re-finance themselves which will impact on their operational finances. So to an extent, debt and losses are linked.
And it's all based on one assumption - that the TV deal will grow and grow in size. I can't see that happening.
I completely agree with your suggestion that points deductions for clubs that run at a loss might be the way forward but I doubt if the Premier League would enforce it. They certainly don't enforce the 'fit and proper' person test when it comes to club ownership.
Complain about this comment
interesting to see the estimated average wages of pro footballers in all 4 divisions. all are vastly overpaid, to my mind!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
The credit crunch will affect football-it's not immune. The main actors at the clubs are corporate sponsers and television. Television will cut down the money when subscribers bolt for the door and a few corporates will go belly up AND cut back. A lethal combination which may level the playing field a bit. I hope so.
Complain about this comment
Frank Lampard is a great player but how many weeks during the season will fans leave the ground saying "£150,000? Worth every penny"?
Complain about this comment
Went to see my team Charlton against Watford at the weekend. Two teams that highlight your comments. Charlton were said to have the biggest wages outside the prem last season. They had one player who looked like he justified his ammount, Andy Reid maybe also a faded and jaded but committed Matt Holland.
On saturday two clubs who are cost cutting at every turn would have had a few players on the pitch at £10,000 a week plus. In actuality there was no player on the pitch worth more than £2,000. The skill and poise was no better than pre prem days. I gave up my season ticket long ago in Charlton's early prem days as the talented but many championship players turned into overseas average prem footballers; certainly not the class of Cantonna's and Tevez's. I'll not subsidise athletic but awful footballers to their millions. Brian Clough lamented in the 80's that most footballers can't kick a ball. When I watch premiership football let alone championship football there are so few that can consistently cross the ball well.
I don't begrudge their wages, certainly the levels in the bottom two leagues. But I won't financially support them unless ticket prices are similar to that of Bundesliga games. Watching athletic boring football is not why I paid to watch the game. So few ball players so much turn over ball.
Complain about this comment
Why shouldnt footballers be paid what they do? At the end of the day football is just a business, they will be paid what the owners/chairman at. Why is Ronaldo, Gerrard and co paid what they are? Because the owners believe that they are worth more and will help earn the club more money. People are paid in relation to how much they can earn the company, stockbrokers get paid a large amount because they help their business earn an even larger amount. Football is no different, owners believe paying ronaldo 100,000 a week or watever he is on is worthwhile because he helps bring a substantial amount more, through sponsorship deals and prize money. Why should footballers be any different? If the managers believe that paying their staff x amount will help them recieve a larger amount in future then it means good business. Football is no different, footballers earn a good wage because football is multi-billion pound business and they help create that so deserve a fair share.
Complain about this comment
Just because it makes sound business acumen to pay top performers a fair percentage of the income they generate does not mean it has any logic in a moral or ethical sense. It does not.
Quite obviously £150,000 a week is an obscene amount of money for anyone, anywhere to have. It does not matter how it is justified. It is 5-10 years salary for the average person. The footballers paid such wages are....average people, no matter what their 'market value'.
The argument is not whether footballers have a right to earn such money- yes, if it was offered, we'd all take it, at least in the short term!
It is what is wrong with a business that is so inflated and out of touch with reality that is is happy to court such figures in the first place.
I've often felt the same about house prices. £300,000 for a poxy crumbling pile of bricks and mortar on a few square metres of land, are you having me on, thats got to be worth £5,000 in 'real world, real life' terms at most!
Complain about this comment
Well I watched the game in Moscow between Chelsea and Man Utd, for all of about 5 minutes, then I had a strange epihany, why was I sat watching 22 millionaires kicking a ball around in the park?
Like so many things in life, the media has taken something, honest and pure and created an overhyped and overpaid industry.
Too many people in this country have become enamoured with the cult of celebrity for people that can barely be described as "celebrities", footballers having their wedding pictures published in celeb magazines, dating big brother/barely plausible girl group "stars".
What do you need to be a famous footbal star now and command your 20,000 + a week?
1. A celebrity girlfriend
2. At least one conviction or accusation
3. A "sad" rags to riches story
4. A penchant for older working girls
5. An ability to "identify" with the youth in your old home town who still, have to scratch around to make a living whislt you turn up and tell them to "stop the violence", then drive home to your gated perimeter fenced prefab mansion with dogs (theres the girl group members again), cameras and a sports car for each foot
if i want to watch millionaires knocking a ball around I will go to the polo,
Anyone for a Chukka?
Complain about this comment
How many clubs would welcome Ronaldo in their team, forget it's Man Utd. Most. The only way to get him is by paying him more than his current team. This is how wages are escalated, that is nothing to do with greedy players.
Towards the end of George Best's career he became a bit of a nomad, demanding £1000 a match, supposedly. There was uproar from the same type of people moaning here. But in every game that Best played, the club got at least double what Best got, so why shouldn't he have got what he deserved.
Basically, it is still the same principal.
Complain about this comment
"It is what is wrong with a business that is so inflated and out of touch with reality that is is happy to court such figures in the first place."
Why is it inflated? Football is a multi billion pound business because its so popular, footballers therefore are paid more so clubs can attract better players and get a bigger share of the money available in the market. Therefore isnt it unfair that a player should have his wages capped and can earn only a certain amount when he is earning the club a ridiculous amount more?
Complain about this comment
Let?s summarize. Football is, at the end of the day, a business. It is difficult for us, the average fan, to view it as such because we are emotionally attached to our clubs ? and therefore words like ?loyalty? and ?love? and ?fairness? get tossed around a good deal. But it is a business. The clubs are the employers. The footballers are the employees. Football itself is the product. We are the consumers. How much should footballers be paid? Whatever the employers are willing to pay them. What are employers willing to pay them? Theoretically, whatever the consumer is willing to pay for the product (there are clearly exceptions to this in the form of Abramovich who is subsidizing his club with his own wealth). As long as people like you and I are willing to pay ever rising ticket prices, buy the team jerseys and subscribe to Sky, then player wages will continue to increase.
1) On debts and losses ? The one real constraint to footballer salaries (aside from fans voting with their feet and staying away). Many clubs are indeed operating with large debts and annual losses, made possible by many years of cheap credit which has effectively enabled them to borrow for free. With the cost of debt rising, this may become more difficult and clubs may have to cut back on spending.
Up until this point, the Premier League has had no incentive to impose regulations on the clubs...more debt = more money spent = more talented players = better league. Banks are now having their balance sheets regulated, but only because the financial savings of millions are at risk. The EPL has no such burden. It will only enforce financial constraints on clubs if the viability of the league is at risk (i.e. if multiple clubs begin to go under). Clubs themselves will continue to be as aggressive financially as possible without running their business into bankruptcy.
2) On Abramovich ? Ultimately, the debt/profits of a club are unimportant if a billionaire owner is willing to cover any losses/interest payments with his own cash. Is it fair to other owners? Probably not. But that?s business and his decision. It?s also difficult to regulate against. Unless, in theory, the EPL imposes a salary cap.
3) On salary caps ? They won?t work. Not unless every league in Europe implements them too. The top players now playing in England will simply move to Spain or Italy or Germany. They work in the US for baseball, basketball and American football because there?s nowhere else in the world that these athletes would rather play. And even in this case, there are rumours of a basketball team in Greece offering $50m a year for LeBron James...an offer which NBA teams couldn?t match.
So don?t blame the clubs, the league or the players for their wages. You can only blame yourselves and the financial markets. I personally don?t think anyone is ?worth? 150,000 a week, but that misses the point entirely. In a free, capitalist economy, a person is paid whatever the market determines he/she should be. And that is how it should be, regardless of whether the person earns $10 or $1,000,000.
Complain about this comment
Cooldelayed... Great comment.
Complain about this comment
Wages are crazy Michael Owen is set to sign a new contract worth 140,000 and he has been injured most of the time for the last two years. So what he gets in a week for basically working for 2 hours on a saturday maybe a couple of hours on a tuesday or wednesday and then a few hours the rest of the week it would take me about 4/5 years to make in a job thats is 9-5 monday to Friday. Salary cap is the way to go
Complain about this comment
Now then,
Thanks for all your comments. I think the talk of an American style draft idea is interesting but I'm not sure how it would work in England when players often come through a club's academy rather than the college system that they have in the US.
Salary capping seems more workable as an idea but I'm afraid I could never see it happening. It would simply not be in the interest of the top clubs who can, at least in theory, gain an advantage by paying higher wages to attract better players.
I don't blame most players for earning what they can - though some examples of blatant greed really rankle - but I'm not sure it helps their development as people. Earning so much so young, as happens to plenty of players these days, can cause loads of problems, as has been well documented over the years in the press.
Complain about this comment
Chris Hoy gets £23,000 a year. He is a literal hero. Average or below Average footballers could get double this in one week. What has the world come to. This fact doesn't shock me. It upsets me.
Complain about this comment
Um...Paul...I thought that was the whole idea behind a salary cap - to prevent those clubs who can pay more from gaining such a huge advantage. It's not even really meant to limit player wages (though it does that as well)....
The problem, as I wrote before, is that none of the other European leagues impose salary caps...this would make the EPL less competitive and attractive to top players.
Complain about this comment
On the draft system - it would be interesting but I cannot see how it would work. How could you justify a draft per league (in essence, the top youngsters going to the top 20 clubs so the gaps between leagues widens) or a huge draft involving every youngster in the youth system of every league?
The only solution to allow drafts would be to create a manageable number of franchises. I can just imagine the uproar of every team in league football if that occurred (think of Ferguson in full hair dryer mode).
Complain about this comment
coolDelayed - yes, but who, in theory, is going to introduce a salary cap in England? It is just not going to happen in the Premier League - the big clubs wouldn't want it and have too much influence to allow that to happen.
Don't get me wrong, I take - and agree with - your point about European leagues. And I imagine it wouldn't happen in other European leagues for the same reasons.
Complain about this comment
He may have a point, but his views may be sinister all the same. Players worked hard in the early 60s to obtain recognition for their efforts and if Majewski had his way, where would the savings all go? I suspect back into the gin swigging directors pockets.
Yes, some players arguably earn more than their real value to a Club, but ultimately the fans pay to see them, not directors and owners. Without the players there is no game.
He can cap his own players wages if he likes, but who would be the person or body to cap all players wages? It smacks of autocracy somewhere.
Complain about this comment
I refuse to pay to watch a Premiership match to fund the obscene wages of professional footballers. We are all being taken for mugs
Complain about this comment
The footballers and mangers are the people who create the appeal of the game. If more and more money is being made from football, the footballers should get most of it. Putting a cap on their wages would only make the people at the club richer. Tickets will still be as expensive.
Complain about this comment
I am one of the few thousand Reading Supporters who did not renew their season ticket, yes I may got some flack but the reason why is simple. In RFC's accounts for year end June 2007 they made over £6M operating profit - after transfer deals. This was the figure from their first year in the premiership. In year two they report to earn even more. Mr Madejski OBE has not hidden from the fact he want to sell the club to "someone with deeper pockets" and I appreciate this statement. The Prem is a hard spend for most Millionaires and one needs to be a Billionaire to compete with the best. But his failure to re-invest in what was predominantly a Top Championship Team is why we are now back in Championship and he has not sold the club for the many millions he could have received, this would not have been the case had he spend some of the £6M profit in bringing in just a little more class to protect the defence. Simply put, replacing Steve Sidwell , making a break even figure and not a £6M profit might have meant Reading who went down on just Goal difference might still be a prem side today. I am gutted and I hope JM OBE has learned his lesson. He is now selling the crown jewels (£8.5M) on Kits and Shorey and with more to go and no big re-investment will mean we may well lose Coppell too. Now that's off my chest. As for wages. JM never complained about the Millions he made in business. He chose the football business!.
Complain about this comment
The one factor many people fail to consider is how much the top sportsman have had to sacrifice in order to get to where they are.
They are literally the 1 in 1000 that make it, and is supply / demand terms - it is basic economics that the scarcest commodities are going to attract the highest price. As prem football globalizes it is only going to go higher.
At the end of the day - no one forces people to go to games / buy merchandise / subscribe to sky - and in a consumerist democracy - if you want to see change happen - stop spending money enabling this to continue.
Complain about this comment
There is no easy solution to this to be honest. Ideally wages should be limited to a percentage of the clubs earning ability. Unfortunately this plays into the hands of the likes of Manchester United who continue to build up bigger and bigger fan bases aided partly by previous success but also, in no small part, to the assistance of the media. So if we do have a wage cap, clubs like Man Utd will still snowball success. However I also dispise the ability for any person with money to bankroll teams, especially as no great effort is made to identify the legiticamy of the funds or the person investing them.
It almost highlights the crooked nature of business as a whole that certain people can seemingly buy a club with little to no questions asked. As for the suitable person garbage thrown out by the Premiership? Don't make me laugh!
Bottom line is that, yes, many players are being paid an obscene amount of money but the utter disregard for the good of the game in the face of Skys billions is really more to blame.
Complain about this comment
el-nickpcr-io and everyone else,
Man Utd and many other clubs may be in debt, but it's because their new owners borrowed the bank to buy them out. It's not because of the wages. Now the banks want their money back and the owners want to make a profit, so if you want to blame anyone for the debt, it's the Glazers and Morgan Stanleys.
Having said that, I think a salary cap on a club level will enforce fiscal responsibility. I also think that the wealth should be spread among clubs of all levels, so that promotions and relegations aren't as desperate and clubs wouldn't resort to buying success, which is what inflates wages in the first place.
To be extent any specific cap is placed on individual wages, it should be across all industries. Focusing on football is stupid.
Complain about this comment
Where did he get his millions? Flogging dodgy second-hand motors. Politicians and estate agents apart he's the last person with a right to talk about obsene wages.
Complain about this comment
One other point I think deserves mentioning is that in addition to their salaries, quite a few athletes make a tidy sum in endorsements. Makes me wish I'd spent more time in sports and less in schoolwork!
This is happening all over the world. I'm a yank, and American football, basketball, and Baseball salaries are similarily obscene. The professional leauges have done a few things to mitigate it, which I'll explain (to my understanding), but they are still rather fat cats.
In american football, the leauge has a bargaining agreement with the players union, and a set amount of revenue is set aside for salaries. Then, each club has that "salary cap" to spend as it sees fit. So, all clubs have $60m per year to spend on salaries.
In baseball, there are no set caps, but the owners impose a "luxury tax" on bigger teams that gets spread to smaller market teams. So, the New York yankess may pay salaries to their player that add up to $300M, but then they have to pay the luxury tax to the leauge (say $60M) that gets divided by the smaller teams. This doesn't limit players salary--quite the opposite--but it does allow smaller teams funds to compete for talent.
Lastly, in basketball, new players salaries are set for their first few years, and afterwards they can expotentially increase their earnings. It does slow down the extravagence, but it's still there.
Not for a moment saying it's any better, just passing along some things done elsewhere.
Complain about this comment
jlarkin a great comment. its almost like JM OBE has made his money and no one else can.
Complain about this comment
Unfortunately the facts are simple: if you are good at a job and another company can afford to offer you more money to do it then it is very likely you will accept their offer or use their interest to secure a pay rise. Player's wages should be capped - in this country one of the main reasons why our young players aren't developing appropriately is because they're losing their love of the game to their love of money and hence why our national side is a joke they are all pre-madonnas who can't play together yet most of them command in excess of 100,000 a week. Who needs that kind of money anyway?
Complain about this comment
To be honest, I think that wages are too high but I can see why they are so. With a choice of them getting the cash (seeing as they have worked hard to get where they are) or it going into the back pockets of shareholders, then I'd pick the former every time. Most of the teams putting the money into further improving the facilities, coaching, stadium and lowering prices is not going to happen.
Furthermore, whilst a traditional salary cap could be seen as needed, it has problems (as people have said before). I can think of a couple of other ways of introducing caps that could work, but I still think they are destined for failure (especially if other leagues did not apply a similar system).
First up - no overall cap but new players at a club can only earn up to a certain amount. Each year they are at the club this increases.
Secondly, have a heirachy system - 1 star player, 4 key, 15 first teamers etc. The star player has no cap, the keys have a high cap and as you go down the order the maximum you can earn decreases.
Complain about this comment
Footballers are paid too much. Now there's a shocking revelaton. Can we please change the record?
Musicians, actors, bankers.. they all make too much money. Either accept that's the way of the world or campaign to change it. But don't single out one overpaid group from many from your armchair and spend your time moaning about it. It's unbelievably tedious for a start.
If anyone can convince me that Britney Spears or Tom Cruise is a more deserving millionaire than Wayne Rooney I'd be intrigued to hear it.
Complain about this comment
It's a little hypocritical of the players to kiss the badge of the club they profess to love
with a passion when they are doing their best to bankrupt it. Ian Wright of Arsenal would walk into the office and ask "where do I sign?"
I love this club but I am doing my best to bankrupt it, John Terry England Captain, Frank Lampard, Ashley Cole, Nicholas Anelka, Adebayor, Fabregas, Bentley, Torres, Ronaldo, Ronaldinho, Henry, Capello, love your team or destroy your club?
Complain about this comment
I think it really is supply and demand and wages will not change, unless demand changes.
When you consider other countries it supports what's happening here. US has multi millionaire basketball and baseball players, Canada Ice Hockey. Japan Sumo (don't laugh) and don't forget how much top Boxers earn. We are talking here the top 0.1% of course. There must be at least a 1000 people who play football everyweek to the 1 who makes it to the Prem.
What I would like is a rule that stops clubs sacking a manager during the season as some head strong chairman seem to do. Manderic at Leicester City comes to mind, but that's another story.
Complain about this comment
Tartanhyena - the majority of musicians and actors don't make much money at all. Orchestral players might earn enough money to be comfortable, as will the very top successful soloists, but a lot of the professionals have to earn money in other ways to get by , such as teaching.
Complain about this comment
Kapelnikov - I don't think that Tartanhyena was talking about musicians in an Orchestra... hence the reference to Britney Spears....
Complain about this comment
The current upcoming recession will most certainly have a long term effect upon the game and that may be good but I feel the guy is absolutely correct. It has become a nonsense.
For the good of the game there should be a financial handicap, both on transfers and salaries. Expenditure should be capped, both to allow the smaller but ambitious clubs to succeed and to prevent a further runaway at the top of the premier league.
However partisan supporters maybe such regulation would in time be of benefit to all.
It simply cannot carry on has it is at present, we have reached a watershed in the game and unless a strategic common sense financial plan is implimented the whole thing will implode. It will be a "Dead Duck" within ten years.
Complain about this comment
They are worth as much as people are willing to pay.
Complain about this comment
94. At 6:56pm on 20 Aug 2008, Gerrard_8LFC wrote:
They are worth as much as people are willing to pay.
------------------------------------------------------
If they were only paid as much as people are winning to pay there would be no problem. If clubs expenditure was confined to their income, all the problems would be solved.
Complain about this comment
95. At 7:19pm on 20 Aug 2008, trevor4491 wrote:
If they were only paid as much as people are winning to pay there would be no problem. If clubs expenditure was confined to their income, all the problems would be solved.
________________________
Doesn't work like that, nothing will change.
Complain about this comment
Frank Lampard scores from the penalty spot against Portsmouth and jogs over to the corner pulling the left hand side of his shirt to kiss the Chelsea badge. But for £10,000 a week extra he'd have been kissing the Milan badge with a similar 'passion'.
Over time the whole Frank Lampard affair will probably be the catalyst when this 'passion' is little more than greed. To think he would have moved his family and kids to another part of Europe for more money that he could never spend in a lifetime.
We need to call it what it is, greed. I hope Frank Lamard scores lots of penalties this season and for the next 4, with all those kisses remember for him, its not about the club, the traditions and the values. Let's be Frank, its greed. That's the word.
Complain about this comment
I disagree with this article. What are you? all communists, thinking everyone should be paid the same?
If there wasn't the demand for football then fans wouldn't pay as much for gate entry and for football on tv, then the clubs wouldn't be able to afford the high wages.
It's supply and demand.
Clubs can pay players what they want -it's their choice.
If you think it's too high why don't you become a top footballer? oh you can't. Why don't you stop paying for football and creating the demand? Because you're happy to pay the price for the football you get.
Complain about this comment
Absolutely correct. These wages are far too high. In my opinion, there should be a limit to the salaries players get in the top flight [which would be approximately £25,000 - £75,000 per week] and the way they decide between these amounts should be PERFORMANCE-RELATED.
Complain about this comment
Paul Fletcher.
YOU WOULD HAVE TO BE BLIND TO NOT NOTICE THAT PLAYERS WAGES ARE WRONG.
HALF EMPTY STADIUMS,
DADS WHO CAN'T TAKE THEIR KIDS,
.......................BUT THE CAR PARK IS FULL OF FERRARIS, A MARTINS, R ROVERS ETC.
GET A GRIP MY FRIEND.
Complain about this comment
@el-nickpcr-io:
I agree with you, many clubs are run at a loss, which leads to debts. Just like many individuals try to solve the difference between their income and expenditure by using credit cards, which can be useful for a short term 'bridge', but don't represent a sustainable solution.
Clubs are being forced to play on a non-level playing field (no pun intended). Most industries have some form of regulation, but the regulation surrounding football seems to be just to weak, and, frankly, devised by people who are not qualified to regulate the industry that football has become.
I find it hard to understand your point about there being a tiny minority not running at a loss - if that is the case then there must be a lot of mini-Abramovich's bankrolling the clubs or they would go under. Unless, of course, (and here is the nail in the coffin) most clubs are in fact running at a loss and we can expect to see many more going into administration over the coming seasons, unless they all experience unprecedented success and get themselves back in the black.
IMHO, the key reference you made was to sustainability. I don't know whether most club owners / management teams / board members have enough grasp of business and economics to devise a sustainable strategy within the current setup.
If you don't like the Man Utd example, then what about Arsenal? I'm personally impressed by the way they keep a strong hand on the finances, whilst investing to build their future. What Arsene Wenger achieves with his transfer budget is incredible.
@hedley_lamarr
I agree, I would much have preferred to see clubs like Liverpool and Man Utd not saddled with interest payments as a result of highly geared takeovers. It makes the position of the clubs much more precarious, in that huge success on the field is a minimum requirement for survival, not a wonderful event to be savoured.
But, we live in a world where we get to enjoy one of our favourite products (I assume this to be the case given the money spent and the passion in this blog) sent directly to our homes all over the world more than ever before. Unfortunately, I don't think the regulation of the sport/industry has kept up. Your reference to 'fit and proper' person test is well made. Without comment to Man City's owner's personal situation, it does seem that they have made some investments based on the assumption of endless access to cash.
By now, after only two entries, (and if you got this far) I may have obtained a reputation for long and boring commentary. Sorry. But for what it is worth, my humble opinion is that the football (particularly the Premier League) has some serious issues to deal with, and that they need to be addressed before the bubble bursts. But I'm not going to stop paying to watch it.
I love it, I can afford it, and I'm only human.
Complain about this comment
Why do you say 'football is a short career?' Can't they get down the job centre when their time in football ends like the rest of us have to if we end up out of work? There is no 11th commandment which says 'Thou shalt not earn a living from anything other than football once we have ever played it professionally.'
Complain about this comment
I wish people would shut up with the 'football is a short career' nonsense. The rise of media like Sky and increased sports coverage in newspapers and online has created w hole new post-playing career environment for footballers. Pundits everywhere, critics everywhere, doing slots on something like MUFC's TV channel, all sorts of potential post-playing career options. And that's even without getting into coaching, physiotherapy, sports fitness etc etc etc. Football may well not be a twenty year career but few jobs are nowdays. Being a active Royal Marine isn't a job you will be doing aged 50 but I don't see them demanding more pay because 'it's a short career'.
The top footballers are paid too much. It all came from the glut of money that flooded in when Sky joined the party. You're seeing the same in cricket with the IPL. Currently there is talk of the slary cap being lifted and that player contracts could be worth a mental $14 million dollars (http://www.thetwenty20cup.co.uk/news/article.asp?NewsID=2688). It's there as a huge carrot for players rather than players earning it.
Some on this thread has said the players earn it because they bring the success to a club. If so, why isn't there more performance-related pay?
I am totally in favour of a salary cap in football. I believe it would make for a better competition as it would help everyone else come closer to matching the top 4. The NHL has a salary cap. The NFL has a salary cap. The NBA has a salary cap. All three are examples of the sort of commercial sporting enterprise that the Premier League has modelled itself upon. Bring it in over here please. If not, then I hope everyone continues booing certain £1150,00 per week midfielders when they play poorly on international duty.
Complain about this comment
Pseudo-Viking:
Your comments are similar to one I was going to make.
Football may well be a business, as many others have pointed out, but seemingly in an industry without the rules/laws that constrain other businesses.
If Abramovich behaved in the same manner in, say, the steel industry, would he not be accused of predatory pricing, i.e. selling at a loss to gain market share and damage the competition?
I'm not an economist, but I thought the European Union had a commission for fair competition.
Don't they call it "anti-trust" laws in the US?
Complain about this comment
Of course he is not right, it is utter nonsense. In American professional sport at the top level, the players are paid vast amounts. $20 million a year contracts are not uncommon. It is underpinned by television money. The TV companies pay a lot of money, they want to show the top games. The clubs want part of the action, but to get it they have to attract the top talent and that means paying top dollar for the most successful (not necessarily the best) players.
In Europe, similar applies. The Champions' League is the top telly attraction. The clubs employ the top players from around the world, just as baseball, ice hockey, basketball and US football franchises do in America. The nub is in how much cash is distributed to lower levels and how it is distributed. A couple of years ago, ITV secured the Football League for silly money, but could not deliver, largely because of poor marketing and inept commercial practices. That damaged English football. The FA has failed to structure its cash-flow so that the levels below the Premier Leagues get a fair slice of the cake. The US has commissioners in charge of the whole sport, people like Bud Selig, who also has a stake in the Milwaukee Brewers baseball team. It is a lean(ish), mean(ish) fighting machine, as opposed to a congregation of stuffed blazers like the FA management committee. Rumour is that Brian Barwick has gone because he has lost out in a power struggle with Chairman Lord Triesman, but surely the power ought to be applied in the opposite direction; the Chief Executive has to be the boss. Perhaps this is the opportunity for a change in direction by the FA, but do not hold your breath.
Meanwhile, players know their value, or at least their agents do. This is from whence the cancer spreads. Agents make money when players change clubs. Therefore long-term loyalty is a loss-maker. Transfer fees seem not to be linked with any objective measure of value. Barry might be seen by O'Neill as worth no less than Carrick and Hargreaves, who he keeps out of the England starting line-up, but a Liverpool fan would not rate him as worth near to twice as much as Crouch or Alonso. However, any attempt at capping agents' fees is unlikely to be applied effectively, as is evidenced by the various alleged "bung" scandals that have been uncovered, but not acted upon.
Like anything else in life, the value of a commodity will be as much or as little as somebody is prepared to pay for it. Most markets will find a way around any attempt to interfere in their workings, football will be no different. Care will need to be taken to avoid controls on players/agents remuneration leading to an uncontrollable and corrupt black market which would leave the situation in a worse state than it is at present.
Complain about this comment
I fully agree with the sentiment expressed by Mr Madejski and I can understand how it feels to be torn apart by relegation, I have painfully watched my own favourite club go the same way. However, in my opinion, to interfere with market forces, is a dangerous road to go down and maybe even impossible. Distribution of wealth is a social problem that we all sign up for by virtue of our supposed democratic freedom. The rewards in life are not necessarily justified in terms of money, saving a life may not make you rich, but still might make you feel better about yourself.
Good luck to Reading, they were fun to watch in the Premiership, but I am sure the teams around them, will not be feeling so sorry about their plight.
Complain about this comment
Of course he has a point. Why do we now question why the England football team do not perform in the same way as the Olympic Athletes when for example Frank Lampard earns more by Monday lunchtime than Rebecca Adlington gets in a year - and she trains around 3 times A DAY longer than he does.
While it is easy to criticise one player (Mr Lampard is not alone in earning obscene amounts of money) the collective earnings of the England team in a week would probably pay for around 100 Olympians a year. No wonder England football team get 'booed' and the Olympians cheered.
Complain about this comment
wait a minute.
companys NEED to run at a profit, that way its employees are secure in the future of their job's, why are football club's, especially one's like Real Madrid able to run at such staggering losse's?
my point is yes players are entitled to a 'slice' of all these capital gains, but what is the point if the club isn't making a profit? surely to enduce further trade, and to the benefit of all fans a regulatory body should be able to look at the 'books' and say excatly what a club can borrow, rather than run towards wreck and ruin, i hope the credit crunch hits football hard, i hope fans become less financially able to buy tickets and shirts, and i hope many more clubs fall into administration, purely because something huge will have to happen for anything to change.
Complain about this comment
JM prides himself on RFC's 'Business Model'.
Turns out that RFC don't pay their scouts anything, just expenses. Most clubs have their scouts on a retainer (3-5 grand a year is typical) plus expenses, but not RFC. Apparently the car park attendants earn more for a shift than their Scouts do!
Doesn't sound like a good business model to me. Rather a false economy.
Complain about this comment
I'm not going to get to retire at 35.
Complain about this comment
Something SHOULD be done, YES they are 'celebrities' and deserve a slice of the pie - but that pie is built upon inflated ticket prices.
Ticket prices should come down, and then players wages too.
Other writers have mentioned this could force players abroad. I disagree - I think we would suddenly see huge 'signing on fees/bonuses' for the payers to make up the difference, and therefore nothing has really changed.
The only way is for global change - and then we would suddenly hear all those players who play "just for the love of the game" up in arms!!
Complain about this comment
Oh and one other thing ...
Agents are ruining the game - I think it should be illegal for any approach to sign a player to be made through an agent.
If a club signs a player then that player is theirs - and if another club wants to sign that payer they should correspond with the employer first and foremost and then the agent should get involved ONLY WHEN the empoyer/owning club be interested.
That would help the business model of all clubs - they can keep their best players for as long as they want - selling only when THEY want to. I think Simon Jordon would agree.
Who's with me!!!!???
Complain about this comment
Loyalty? this really is not a valid arguement. you expect a top quality player to stay at a mediocre club because he supported them as a boy? or because they gave him a chance? whoever thinks this is living in dreamland.
last year i was given an internal promotion at work from a fairly low-paid position, to a typically higher paid position. i enjoyed the job, i had no problem with the company. but after 6 months in this position, i jumped ship for a better deal. does anybody think i should have stayed at the company, just because they gave me a chance? i doubt it, most people will have done it at some point.why are footballers any different? i support a lower league team and i too find it frustrating when a player leaves on a free because we wont offer him the money he wants, and he ends up playing of an equal or lesser team. but thats how it works
Complain about this comment
Footballers should not be grossly over paid because they are not celebrities for the right reasons. We create them as celebrities by buying newspapers to read stories about them unrelated to football. Salaries should be capped, give them a basic wage and if they want more then they get a performance related pay.i.e. so much for league position, winning the FA Cup etc. But adversly they should have money stopped for disripute offences. Joey Barton should have his wages stopped and as with other players in the past, have his contract terminated. If I had done that I would have been sacked at work and have trouble finding work again. Frank Lampard must be laughing all they way to the bank getting such a lucrative contract of that length at his age. And will Chelsea get value for money, I will bet they wont because he will get injured this season and probably every season and will take longer to heal as he gets older.
Complain about this comment
What is any player worth? (or anything else, for that matter) - anything is worth what somebody is prepared to pay for it.
So, if Club A is willing to pay a player 150,000 per week, and Club B only 60,000 it makes the player worth 150,000 per week - not 60,000 or some arbitary figure in between.
Yes, players wages are extremely high, and maybe even stupildly, ridiculously, unacceptably so, but if a club will offer it why would the player say "no thanks" - if your boss came and offered to treble you salary I boubt you would tell him "no thanks, I am earning enough".
And it's not only football - take any form of sport or any "entertainer" and you have the same scenario.
Besides FIFA placing a world-wide cap on wages, nothing can really be done about it.
As was earlier pointed out, the players play for money, and "if you want loyalty, get a dog" possibly sums it up. However, even that is wide of the mark - if you were only feeding your dog dry dog food (no matter how doggy-delicious) and he knew the neighbour would give him steak every day, sooner or later he would pick up his food-bowl and walk next door :-)
So, it is no good the FA capping wages in England, as the top players would simply move to clubs in countries with no wage cap. It would need to be a world-wide thing.
The problem, as always, starts at the top.
The TV companies and sponsors are willing to pay multi-billions to be associated with the game. This money filters down. WHat is the league to do with it other than pass most on to the clubs. And the clubs? To ensure they continue receiving this money, they need to attract the best players. There being no cap on wages, what is the obvious way to attract a player who would not otherwise be interested in your club? Pay him more than anybody else will, obviously.
So, which comes first, the chicken or the egg? The media billions or the inflated wages?
There are millions of fans supporting a relative handful of footballers - eve financailly, by tuning in to watch the games, purchasing the sponsors products, wearing replica shirts etc etc etc. It only takes a "few bob" from each fan to accumulate in mega-bucks for each player - exactly why recorsing artists make so many millions from royalties on a single hit song.
No use complaining, no use blaming the players.
Yes, there is something almost obscene about the players wages, but they are a simple fact of modern life and economics.
Complain about this comment
We live in a Market economy where people earn what the market is willing to pay.
What is wrong with earning money?
Last time I looked we still lived in the UK not North Korea.
Complain about this comment
The only way of putting an end to this is to introduce a cap on wages. The salaries that players are picking up is obscene. Fat Frank on £150,000 per week is an absolute joke.
How can any player justify those wages.
Its the fans who are suffering. As the players receive bigger pay packets us mugs are paying more and more for Season Tickets.
Its about time FIFA done something about it.
shabba1888
Complain about this comment
Yes, Madejski is right. As a Reading fan it's probably not what I want to hear, but you have to admire him for speaking up and vocalising what most of us feel : that they earn far, far too much .... and then moan because they have to play a few games over the Christmas period ! Life sucks, eh ?Can't remember if anyone saw a TV piece a few years ago about what drives a group of young academy players - the propsect of money or silverware ? I recall being disappointed that money was the more important of the two to some of them.
Complain about this comment
The people to blame are the fans. They pay the admission fees, the tv subscriptions and replica shirt prices. As soon as people drift from football's 'entertainment' to other better value forms of killing time then wages will keep going up. Footballers only take what is on offer and anyone suggesting they would do otherwise is daft.
I will not go and see my favourite premiership team because I can't justify £40 to watch an hour and a half's worth of tripe which has taken me 3/4 of a day to earn! My local league 2 side costs £20 to watch a standard not far off sunday league! Its just not worth it!!
People should stop watching football and start playing it or encouraging playing it instead - miles cheaper and gets you fit and active...
Complain about this comment
There has to be a balance here between the needs of the footballer and the needs of the clubs and fans. If you look at the US (and I accept that there are players out there getting money that would dwarf the salries being discussed here although much of that comes from sponsorship deals) almost all sports have a wage cap. Surely this has to come in both for the premiership and the championship and would be one way to save football. Because the more the prices of matches go up and the less entertainment on display (I spent £100 last season to travel to Glasgow to watch Liverpool in a dreadful 0-0 draw with BHam) the more people are going to leave football for other sports. If that starts to happen and gate receipts fall then a number of teams are going to be in serious trouble and not ones at the lower end of the leagues either. Take a look at the attendances in the premier league on Match of the Day and compare them even to a couple of years ago.
Complain about this comment
Mikewsa:
"So, it is no good the FA capping wages in England, as the top players would simply move to clubs in countries with no wage cap. It would need to be a world-wide thing."
Would this be a bad thing though? We've seen in cricket that many nations are better than us because their players play in the County Championship. They are exposed to different conditions and get to test their skills and improve that way. Most of the top footballing nations are filled with players who don't play in the domestic leagues. In the England squad, our only non-domestic player is David Beckham. English players moving abroad is a very rare thing.
So, with the cricketing example, would England get better as a team if they had more players playing overseas instead of the domestic competitions? I think they would.
"The TV companies and sponsors are willing to pay multi-billions to be associated with the game. This money filters down. WHat is the league to do with it other than pass most on to the clubs. And the clubs? To ensure they continue receiving this money, they need to attract the best players. There being no cap on wages, what is the obvious way to attract a player who would not otherwise be interested in your club? Pay him more than anybody else will, obviously."
Wrong. In order to keep receiving the millions from Sky, the clubs needs the fans home and abroad to actually buy the subscription TV packages. Revenue generated through fans attending games is important but it's not essential to a sporting success, as the cricket IPL showed. The millions given by the TV companies to the clubs relies on subscription packages and rights sold overseas. Fans who wanted to protest at the way football is going would have far more impact if they ditched their Sky Sports packages for a year rather than stopping going to games. Stick to MOTD and the ITV Champions League, even if they keep on with David Pleat (shudder). Do that for a year. Don't buy the replica kit for a year. Fans don't realise that they actually do have the power to affect change within these clubs. If you keep on bending over and letting them take advantage of you, then fans shouldn't complain. You know you're being ripped off so why take it?
"There are millions of fans supporting a relative handful of footballers - eve financailly, by tuning in to watch the games, purchasing the sponsors products, wearing replica shirts etc etc etc. It only takes a "few bob" from each fan to accumulate in mega-bucks for each player - exactly why recorsing artists make so many millions from royalties on a single hit song."
Many recording artists don't actually own the songwriting rights so make a lot less than you might think. Songwriting rights are where the real money is made. But you have seen a contraction in the recording industry over the last year. Look at EMI. That ludicrous contract Robbie Williams signed will not be repeated. REM's huge contract with Warner will certainly not be repeated. Things got out of hand and now things have been cut back. Football needs precisely the same shot of reality otherwise by the next Olympics we'll see £200,000 a week contracts in place.
Complain about this comment
There should be some sort of wage cap similar to that in American Football. I can't ever see it happening unfortunately because it would have to be work wide and then you have the currency differences. Oh well a nice idea.
Surely there has to be something done though. It is sickening the see these wages and then see the people who get them not doing their job professionally game in game out. And as a fan watching knowing that your hard earned wages is paying for them when you go to watch them makes it even worse.
It's not just wages though, you have transfer fees that are just plain stupid for very mediocre players.
Hopefully like the internet and the housing market, football wages bubble will burst soon and the some sense may be restored.
Complain about this comment
The question of equality of distribution is separate from how much money (in absolute terms) is in football. Given, the money is already in football, driven by TV, the question is who receives the lions share? It should be the entertainers, not the suits: though both are important.
Nonetheless, the most important people in football are the fans. Football is a life committment to many people and many clubs have a monopoly regarding fan loyalty (glory hunters aside!). In a market, the situation where the fan is ripped off is then inevitable, as famly lifestyles are cut-back to support "Dad's" outlet in life. Therefore, there is both an economic (monopoly) and moral justification (inequality) for government regulation, coordinated throughout Europe to put a cap on prices - of transfers, wages, ticket prices, and perhaps TV money being recycled to subside youth development. It is all very well club owners waxing lyrical about unfair distribution, but if wages are capped in isoltaion, then the profits go to them! Logically, once we put the fan as the main consideration, we should see that simulationeous solutions (as above), on a pan-European level need sorting out.
Kenny
Complain about this comment
If you want a free market for footballers wages then do away with transfer fees. I read today Everton are prepared to pay £4 million in wages for 1 year on Tiago on a loan deal, they obviously justify this because there is no transfer fee to be paid. Clubs may be able to afford higher wages without having to spend ludicrous amounts on transfers. 79 mil for Kaka, 18 mil for Gareth Barry, mad money
Complain about this comment
Whether any sportsman is worth 150,000 a week is very debatable. Whether Lampard is worth 150,000 a week is not a debate. He is useless overpaid primadonna. Did anyone see the pathetic performance he put in last night? Unbelievable people still rate him.
It also says something about Chelseas principles that they lost in that batle of wills and gave an overweight 30 year old a 5 year contract.
What a joke.
If you want football sorted out start at the top with the ridiculous behaivour of the big clubs as exempified above and the rest will take care of itself through a knock on effect.
P.S. Drop Lampard from England squad.
Complain about this comment
Player's 'wages' are not sustainable (and I will be proved correct in future).
The problem now is how do you stabilize - 'reduce' or cap - 'wages' without sending the wrong message.
And, the 'officials' and vultures - agents - who allowed player 'wages' to reach obscene heights should be eased out into a dole queue. Cruel? Maybe. But it is going to take some pretty drastic action to keep Football afloat.
EMPTY SEATS AND EMPTY STADIUMS
One day, Advertisers, Sponsors and Television Companies will be paying Rates according to the number of (live) Spectators in Football's stadiums. Times are getting hard and nobody can afford to continue 'subsidizing' Football's empty seats and empty stadiums.
Complain about this comment
If those comments were coming from anybody else other than John Madejski... well!
Does 'cutting your coat according to your cloth' mean that for the 2 seasons Reading were in the Premier League, a prize worth roughly £80million, you barely strengthen the team, and expect to remain in the division??
No use whinging about it now you're relegated!!
With little significant investment, coupled with increased season ticket sales, I'm surprised Reading fans aren't staging protests as to where the money has gone.
John Madejski in my view is a greedy man, who was literally dying to sell the club at an inflated price while they were in the top tier! He, for one, shouldn't be pointing the finger at other people's wages without perhaps divulging how much his bank account has grown since Reading's promotion 2 years ago!!
Complain about this comment
As is pointed out by other peole below, people are worth what people will pay them.
And this is decided by supply and demand. I'm a teacher and recognise that while teaching is hard work there are thousands of people who could do my job. There are few (none!) of out there who could compete with Ronaldo.
It is up to clubs to stick to their business models and if they can afford player's wages then good luck to them, and the players.
It is interesting to compare footballer's wages with those available working in the city, which does not seem to live to supply and demand quite as accurately. I am more convinced that I (along with thousands of others) have the talent to be a CEO than a professional footballer. Yet CEO wage structures do not seem to reflect this!
Top footballers are genuine one-off articles and their wages should indicate this.
Complain about this comment
My grandfather played for West Ham (and a short while at Fulham) in the 1920s. When he retired he went to work in the local sugar factory. He actually deterred my father from becoming a footballer because he had other career opportunities that were much better paid. Times have changed somewhat.
If we accept that players wages are a problem (not everyone does) the only solution I see that might actually work in the real world is the path Mr Platini is pushing for : banning clubs with debt from entering UEFA competitions (eg the Champions League). Wage caps will not work in a global market place, they work in the US in many sports, but even in soccer the best US players ply their trade in Europe
Complain about this comment
I disagree with madejski. Television companies across the world pay hundreds of millions of pounds for premier league television rights. The player's are the star of the show, and the Lampard's, Ronaldo's, Gerrard's are what people want to see. Put it this way, when Harrison Ford, Tom Cruise, Robert de Niro etc star in films they get paid more than say someone making their film debut. This is because they are the big attraction. If all the superstars left the premier league and went to Serie A, they would recieve all the revenue, thus leaving English clubs with less money and forcing them to pay the mediocre players they have been left with much less. Is this what Madejski wants? A league with average players earning average money? Oh and you get what you pay for..Perhaps if Mr Madejski brought in some players and paid them these 'so-called' ludicrious wages then Reading would have stayed up, thus saving him 22 million pounds in the long run. Something to think about if they get promoted this season perhaps?
Complain about this comment
He's spot on, and its time that salary-caps were introduced, similar to the NBA, NHL and NFL, where there is parity. Right now, the Premiership is dominated by a handful of teams, and the discussions regarding players like Lampard and Renaldo are obscene....not to mention all of the players making well over a million a year for just sitting on the bench.
Limit the Premiership to 50 million, the Championship to 20, and so on and so forth....and the playing-field will be levelled: meaning that the success of teams will depend upon the skillful use of resources by management...the way it should be.
Complain about this comment
The Reading manager justifies to a degree that the player has become a global product so he is entitled to a piece of the action but muggins i.e. the supporter is constantly having to pay the extra cost on the entrance fee to pay greedy footballers and their agents and it is all to do with market forces and then you look at the salaries that top medical people get saving people's lives and wonder if there is any sense of sanity in all this.
You see Frank Lampard when he has scored a goal kissing his badge.. bullshit!!
He is kissing 150,000 bucks!
I rest my case.
Complain about this comment
As a Brit living in the US one thing I really admire here is the salary cap in American Football. This is not a cap on players wages , but a cap on the total wages bill of a squad. It ensures that a few rich teams can't hoard all the good players and you certainly get a greater degree of parity on the field.
Complain about this comment
"Can any sportsman be worth a reported £150,000 per week?"
No!!, not now not ever, with out a doubt totaly and definately not. Especially not Frank Lampard. A hundred and fifty grand a year perhaps sounds reasonable to me, but a week absoultley diaboical, its shameful, i feel embarresed for the players.
Complain about this comment
Footballers were recently likened to slaves by a certain person with few brain cells. Footballers are more like mercenaries, extorting the game, clubs and us the supporters for every penny we are worth.
Its no wonder supporters have such high expectations these days, when you consider how much these plonkers get paid, and unless you are a Man utd supporter they dont deliver any where near often enough.
When i think of the saleries that nurse's, fire fighters, police constables etc are on, and then think about footballers wages it really makes me livid. Football is just a game, these people saves lives ffs!!.
Complain about this comment
Football clubs are set to come down with a bump. Clubs accomodate wase rises etc but raising door prices. When you look at the premiership gate fees they are absurd. The average punter isn't going to pay £20-40 week in week out, potentially plus travel costs, its just not viable and as the punters start tightening there purse strings football is most certainly going to get a shock.
Complain about this comment
I trust that jblaverick post 128 is not a teacher of English.
Complain about this comment
I suppose footballers wages are pretty much in line with other athletes wages in the major sports around the world. Look at the wage structure in Major League Baseball. I don' t know if it's right or wrong to pay athletes in the world's major sporting leagues the salaries they get. I can't say. I can say, though, that if I dedicated my life to becoming a professional footballer, or NHL, NFL, NBA, or baseball player, I wouldn't have a problem accepting my multimillion dollar salary. I think a lot of people take issue with it because they're jealous. I'm the only person who stopped me from becoming a top professional athlete. The same person who stopped me from becoming a rock n roll star, or movie star. They all get paid huge amounts, because we all buy what they're selling. But, they're the ones who got themselves there. We all could have done the same for ourselves if we were all so inclined. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it.
Complain about this comment
For those people complaining about players' wages the answer is simple. Don't watch it! Like anything else, if it becomes too expensive then find a cheaper alternative. Where do you think all the money for their wages comes from ?
If you want to talk about obscene wages then look at what some executives and other fatcats earn. A lot earn huge salaries even when they leave things in a shambles.
Complain about this comment
I think that everyone accepts that players wages are obscene, but I dont blame the players who have negotiated a good deal for themselves. Its the clubs and they do so because their business pays the most money if they are successful. Its chicken and egg. If you want to change it, I think the answer is in our hands. Dont go to the Premiership matches, go to the local park or watch a side in a lower division. Dont subscrbe to Sky sports or Sentanta, turn off the TV. After a couple of years they will get the message. In reality this wont happen so enjoy. Also, I ask the question why do the super rich put the money into the clubs in the first place. Personal glory or do they want to take the club public and make more money out of the shares. There will be major problems if they pull out!
Complain about this comment
Salary caps work in the NFL because the players cannot go anywhere else for a comparable salary. A strong single governing body invigilates only 32 clubs all in the same country none of which is ever relegated. In Europe the players can go anywhere and weak, vacillating, mutually antagonistic national/continental/world authorities cannot oversee the financial practices of the several hundred clubs in umpteen countries who elect them. All of the clubs are fearful of falling into a lower division leading to wage inflation.
What people ignore with US sports is that there is also a salary floor, teams have to spend 90% of the salary cap figure on players wages. The players union insists on this in return for a cap.
In the prem, the disparity in fanbase and therefore revenue is reflected in hugely differing wage bills. Without revenue sharing all talk of a salary cap is a non starter.
The Premiership is further distorted by European Cup revenue going to the same four teams. Something the US sports dont have.
We had a salary cap once. It was called the maximum wage but still the larger clubs won the trophies.
I would say that Australian Rugby League NRL salary cap has seen top players move to Europe but the NRL continue with the cap to ensure a competitive league and therefore fan interest and TV ratings.
BTW if a luxury tax was imposed in the prem there is no guarantee this would be spent on salaries, it could be pocketed by team owners.
Complain about this comment
You cannot blame the players for going where the most money is offered, at the end of the day if I or 90% percent of the population was offered a significantly higher sum of money then we would go where the higher wage is offered.
I think the issue off clubs paying wages and trabsfer fees that simply aren't sustainable (Chelsea, West Ham, Portsmouth) is the biggest issue. Portsmouth took a £27 million loss last season and that 'was within expectations'. How can other clubs compete when you have these clubs paying wages they can't realistically afford? The success of a club is now due to the amount the millionaire owners of these clubs plough into their respective clubs.
I am a Derby fan and whilst we are something like the 11th best supported club in the country and have a revenue income inside the top 15 we cannot compete with clubs like Wigan who are completely unsustainable.
The fact is that success is down to the amount of money now, nurturing and building a good quality academy doesn't even get you anywhere now because Liverpool, Chelsea, Man U and Aresnal just steal the best kids from every region.
Complain about this comment
A person is worth whatever their employer is willing to pay them. End of story. It's the same for every profession, if they're not making a profit out of employing you they'll cut your pay or give it to someone else.
Having said that, I DO have an issue with their salaries but it's not to do with the size...more the age they get it. It's too much too young for some people. In some cases, it just means they can afford better lawyers to get out of punishments that they don't deserve to escape.
By the way, I often hear the argument that doctors/teachers/nurses do more worthwhile jobs, and I agree. However, it is we - the taxpayers - who employ them, so their salaries are in our hands. If they're earning too little it's everyone's fault, not just footballers or club owners.
Complain about this comment
I agree 100% that they earn way too much. It's ruining the game, doesn't matter how you look at it... Most modern footballers are nothing but mercenaries!
It ruins most of them as people too - greedy, horrible people who're obsessed with image and all things fake (Ronaldo springs to mind). They're not all that bad, there's some totally decent footballers out there who I have met but there's a large chunk of them who have no sense of reality anymore due to the obscene money they earn for not really doing all that much
Complain about this comment
Of course this is a debate about capitalism really. As it happens, football salaries are one of the weak spots in capitalism - nevertheless, it has significant strengths, and I wouldn't override the capitalism mechanism with wage caps.
The simple truth is that the money available to footballers has been provided by the fans. If they don't like the salaries, rather spend their time at the hospitals.
Complain about this comment
What we should also keep in mind is that this system is reactionary. If players become mercenaries to a point that angers the fans, the fans get upset and don't come to the matches, which reduces the salaries - you'd be surprised at how effectively the capitalist system is working already.
Complain about this comment
Of course footballers are overpaid. i go and watch my local rugby team (football in my country is shocking) whenever i'm not working 2 jobs. the difference between rugby players and footballers is ridiculous. Joey Barton - only someone with his past and gentleman like qualities can take those wages and not feel guilty.
I pay for Sky Sports and Setanta, because lets face it, TV sucks! So i guess i'm to blame as much as any.
But i'm fed up watching overpaid prima donnas roll about as if they've been shot and verbally abuse officials - not good for the kids to copy.
Rooney - sold out for Utd, could have been an Everton legend and helped them break into the top 4. took the money and lets face it, more chances with Utd for glory.
soon the kids will be mimicking pound signs in the street rather than scoring the fa cup winning goal against the garage door!
Complain about this comment
Its a simple fact of economics, when clubs income is almost all (in some cases all) spent on paying players, they they must be earning too much.
How many other businesses spend more only salaries than their yearly income?
Complain about this comment
i'm trying to add my two cents, but it won't add the comment.
therefore i am trying this, to see if it will also let me post.
strange!
Complain about this comment
Players wages reflect the high level of demand for skilled players, furthermore wages are nearly always the biggest cost to any businesses, so the same can be said for football clubs. The championship is also the third most watched league in the world (gate receipts) so it is not surprising to find that players wages reflect this fact. If you want to cap footballers wages than why don't we round up all highly paid celebrities and entertainers too, its only fair!
Complain about this comment
Whilst I agree footballers are paid too much, it's very unfair on them to trot out the argument that children are dying of starvation. That is very unfortunate, but if you have no money, don't have kids (I do sponsor a child in Africa, but I often wonder why). Most of our (and footballers) taxes are spent on people who 'breed for greed', so don't bring the 'kids are dying' argument into it. In Britain, breeding is often a substitute for work.
Jealousy is also not a virtue. Good luck to the players. Footballers are not the highest paid sportsmen. Basketball players van earn more, and that's just glorified netball. How great do you have to be at basketball if you're 7ft tall? Also, consider that, before he went to LA, David Beckham was apparently worth less than his talentless wife. That put players wages into perspective. You could also bring in huge payoffs for failure in business, and insider trading.
Lou Macari had the right idea, when he said wages should be performance-related. After all, lesser mortals have to tolerate it. It seems obvious that players who get relegated should take a pay cut. It seems certain teams did not have that written into players contracts, and they had huge problems when they got relegated from the Premiership. This is the clubs own stupid fault for not writing it into their players contracts, that they would get less on relegation, especially as certain teams (Ipswich) were favourites for relegation, and should have seen it coming. It's called a contingency plan, and any good business should have one. What if one of the big four fails to qualify for the Champions League? They will take a huge dip in revenue, they are all hugely in debt. You can blame players if they don't achieve the goals they should, but you can't blame them if their employers are too gormless to have financial punishments written into contracts.
Complain about this comment
I like your father never go to a football stadium nowadays.I am tired of hearing about players wages.Lampard is not worth the money is being paid as my GP is more worth to society.I used to follow my club reserves,youth team but not any more.I get more fun going over the park and watching boys and girls teams play.Playing for the fun of the game not coached doing the first thing what comes in to their head.I good thing what might come from the credit crunch is half empty stadiums and players released no contracts.
Complain about this comment
Has anyone mentioned Gary Johnson ? He goes to sign Mifsud , when Mifsud goes to sign he turns around and asks for more after the contract was drawn up ,thinking as most players probably do that he had the manager where he wanted (after GJ had said we've signed him ) instead GJ went public and signed someone else leaving egg on his face and trying to explain to Coventry fans that though he was quite happy to leave , that really he loves the club with all his heart lol.If more managers stuck to their guns the players wouldn't be so greedy.
Complain about this comment
"I would be absolutely staggered if there were no footballers in the Championship earning at least £20,000 per week "
ludicrous, ill-informed and completely out of touc. GET REAL!
Complain about this comment
i cant agree with you. footballers are the greatest entertainers in the world and they deserve that amount of money.
personally i think they should be paid more.
just compare epl footballers wage with an NBA or NFL players wage. The American sportsmen earn much more than epl players while the number of viewers of epl is at least 10 times greater than NBA or NFL
Complain about this comment
The situation in football is simple:
Players earnings are too great and the admission fee for supporters is too high.
Why should a player be paid £120,000 per week to sit on a bench when a supporter struggles to find the cash to pay to watch the team he has been supporting for years? Gone are the days when the average family can go to see their local team each week. Football toady belongs to corporate tarts wining and dining clients who have no interest in the game at all.
The problem has snowballed over a period of around 16 years starting with the introduction of the premier league in 1992.
Footballers themselves cannot be blamed as it is inevitable that they will choose the club offering the best financial package - just like any other occupation. The television and advertising companies also cannot be blamed - they are businesses who like any other business try to make as much money as possible, after all their cash has propelled English clubs to European domination. For me, the buck stops the Premier League and the F.A.
I would like to see the money in football managed better. A pay scale throughout the leagues would be a good start. Players should have contracts that are capped to a set figure. As a Premier league player, for example a maximum basic wage of up to £20,000 per week could be awarded to the best players. The Championship players could earn up to £10,000 per week, league 1 £5,000 per week League 2 up to £2,500 per week. Players would still be able to increase their weekly wages with appearance, win and goal bonuses etc. but at rates set by the league.
I believe this structure would be relatively simple to introduce. Players on existing contracts would in some cases take huge pay cuts, but the money saved could then be used to subsidise admission fees. A similar structure for ticket prices could be put in place.
The truth is that supporters don?t mind paying to see their team play - they just don?t want to feel ripped off. I genuinely think that clubs don?t want to charge the high admission prices but know they have to in order to pay the high wages of the players.
With a new approach the game, football could be saved. Players could still earn lots of money, fans would be able to afford to go to games and empty seats in grounds would disappear.
Mark, Doncaster Rovers supporter, Doncaster.
Complain about this comment
Its ridiculous to suggest that footballers have a short career. Nobody has a job for life these days. Just ask any London port docker, Yorkshire coal miner, Midlands car worker, Glasgow ship yard worker, middle England street corner grocer, or just about any call center employee. Even I had the misfortune after four years to find that my apprenticeship was over, and I had to find an alternate career as a journeyman out in the cruel world. I cant imagine anyone leaving school, and being told, "sorry son, your no good to me, you'll have to try and scrape a crust as a footballer."
The real blame must lie with the poor management skills of our entrepreneurial club chairmen and their advisors. Why dont they just employ the services of a qualified, and often relatively inexpensive team of conscientious management consultants, to investigate the possibilities of De skilling the game and introducing half term school children, east European farm laborers or robots onto the field of play. In the interim, may I also suggest terminating pension funds, extending the working week, and balancing hours to help alleviate the cash flow worries.
Why talk of capping a players wage at 100,000, when the average working man receives, something nearer 20,000 a year. If we are going to try to justify a level playing field, lets base it where we can all see it.
We live in a free economy world of supply and demand, when the clubs start to go bust, the wages will come down, its called boom and bust. Ring any bells.
Complain about this comment
I think the Reading chairman does have a point but if you are in the Premiership with all the money that goes with that then the players deserve to share in that wealth.
Pop stars. rock musicians, movie actors, footballers. They are all in the same business.
When Guilt signed for Chelsea he cost £1m. Within two weeks Chelsea had taken £900,000 in shirt sales.
The fans turn to watch the players not to help develop a business.
Complain about this comment
Although I should add it was a very bad idea when in the Prem they stopped giving the away side any share of the gate receipts.
If Fulham play at Man Utd they are providing entertainment so they should get paid for it.
The top clubs have rigged the game so that no one else can get in to challenge them.
Even if a small team was tip of the Prem they could make the same amount of money as Man Utd or Liverpool.
Complain about this comment
That should read:
Even if a small team was tpp of the Prem they could not make the same amount of money as Man Utd or Liverpool.
Complain about this comment
The words goldfish bowl comes to mind. How entertaining is a league where at the beginning of each year only Liverpool, Arsenal, Man Utd and Chelsea can win?
Having emigrated down under and grown to love AFL a lot more than soccer I had to ask why?
A salary cap and a draft system ensure that over time most teams have their day and no team can be stacked with stars to the detriment of thee sport.
If the argument is that that massive wages are because the EPL is the most entertaining league in the word I would have to object. I long for the days of Tottenham and Everton , Wimbledon climbing from non-league, Nottingham forrest wining the European Cup. Wishful thinking I know but definitely more entertaining than another year with yet another predictable outcome.
Complain about this comment
I agree and disagree, I disagree for the reason that football is a very short term career and not every player will ply his trade in the footballing world after their playing career. Therefore when an average championship player earns as much as they do, they of course will live a higher quality of life than most, but they still need the financial security for when they hang up their boots. A policeman for example will be able to do their profession at a standard wage until normal retirement age. Whereas a footballer will only be earning this high amount for a certain amount of time and then upon the age of 35 will be untrained in a proper working profession. Which in some cases if this happened and the player was earning a basic middle-class working salary, then at this point he would be in financial turmoil.
On the other hand I do feel that matchday tickets are way overpriced and I think the best way for this to be resolved would be for wages to be cut. This refers more to the premiership. I think a team like Chelsea's first rate players (Lampard, Terry, Ballack) could all get by perfectly well with 40% less than they are on now. The results of this would be in the best interest of football.
Complain about this comment
It's interesting to hear footballers, as are the pundits, using arguments that are self defeating, simply because they are out of date.
A footballer has a short career is so often used as a justification for paying them so much in such a short period. But this argument is one that quite simply no longer holds water.
Yes, they do indeed, and once upon a time in an age when people had 'jobs for life' it was a strong line. However, who has a 'job for life' now in the modern world? The industrial age has passed, the days of civil servants on fantastic contracts disappeared along with that industry in the 1980's, doctors and teachers are evaluated within an inch of their lives to justify their jobs, so why do we hang on to the idea that footballers should be given effectively 'compensation' when no has that luxury any more?
Add to that the fact that footballers are all (and I mean all) expected by the clubs to have qualifications for other avenues of employment, so that should they fail to make the grade they are no longer in limbo as it were, and another problem that once existed has also gone.
Once upon a time footballers at the lower levels had to work P/T to make up their earnings, but not now. Even at the lowest level they earn unreal sums of money, and to the average working man/woman who 'pays their wages'. the wages spiral increasingly, at any level, looks like a tasteless joke.
But even that is no longer true. Clubs have become adept at hiding this, but none now, at virtually any level, could survive on just revenue from the gates and merchandise alone. Without TV money the game would be in serious trouble, without sugar daddies, or major shareholders generosity the top clubs even more so.
This latter point is critically important. Why? Because time and again we hear the other line, 'that players are only paid what they are worth and the clubs can afford'. But this isn't true either. They are paid what the TV companies can afford, not what the club or the fans can.
Footballers wages are being sustained in ways that are increasingly unsustainable in themselves.
Mr Madejski is not only right, he is also giving a warning, one that football is ignoring at it's peril
Complain about this comment
He's certainly right. Consider the following example contrasting Frank Lampard and Chris Hoy. One of them has been paid £96,000 over the past 4 years for his sporting career, and has achieved 3 gold medals for his country. The other will earn £29.1 million over the next 4 years. At £32,000 a gold medal, if Chris Hoy was paid the same as Lampard over the next 4 years we could expect Hoy to win 910 golds in 2012. However with the current price of Gold Lampard could just take a weeks wages and buy enough gold to make 979 gold medals. It's outrageous that someone who puts in so little effort for his country and consistently performs badly gets more in a week than a four time British Olympic champion received in the last 4 years. Obviously with the coverage football gets Lampard will get paid more than someone like Hoy, but the magnitude of his wage (and others like him) is dispicable.
Complain about this comment
Excellent Article. Very even handed. I was interested to hear that Mr. Fletcher Senior no longer attends his team's matches. I stopped going to Hillsborough decades ago when the last ticket I paid for cost £12. I prefer to go to the movies. My rationale for this is as follows:
- The cost of the ticket itself is only a percentage of the overall cost of attending matches expecially long away games. The increased cost of petrol and motoring is now another inhibiting factor.
- The quality of the football I used to watch live (and now watch on TV) has not improved by the several hundred percent the ticket prices have increased by.
- The weather and atmosphere are not always conducive to a good time especially after all stadiums became seating only. I know lives are more important but I cannot watch football sitting down when it counts.
- It is pretty clear that most English footballers care more about the money than playing for England. They can say what they like about how important it is to them representing their country but I would only believe Terry and Gerrard. I would laugh in Ashley Coles's face if he said such a thing.
- Football is very hit and miss when it comes to quality and results. I do not expect my team to win every game but I do expect some effort! I remember Mick Lyons after his Everton career playing for The Owls as if his life depended on it. Does anyone care that much any more? I doubt it. Watching the Olympics pretty much proves the point as the more people get paid the more they will care about the money rather than the winning. When Mark Spitz won 7 Golds the media never made the point that he would become a multi-millionaire the way they have with Michael Phelps as it was not the important point in the 'good old days'.
So, compare the above to a cinema with heating in winter and AC in summer where it only costs a few quid to see international stars who are paid a fortune entertaining you with performances you pretty much know you will enjoy without having to travel miles to see them. If you don't drink the overpriced Coke and Nachos then you get excellent value for money especially if you take kids with you. I have not been to see a live football match and would not do so even if someone paid for me as I agree with John Madjeski - the salaries are obscene.
Regards, Joe Perriman.
Complain about this comment
My opinion: dead right, absolutely perverse, ethically and morally unjustifiable
But like a few posters, it's my opinion too, not the only disgraceful monies around the world. There's millions of others illegally and legally robbing the normal honest folk.
However: I can't do much about some of the money thrown at many a chairperson, CEO. I have to buy my food and water and clothes and pay my rentand taxes.
But I do not have to have a Sky subscription or a season ticket or a replica shirt.
Stopping the monies thrown at players and agents is actually a real consumer power possibility.
Cancel the Sky, the season ticket and just don't go. Support your local Sunday League Pub Team or your children's team or better still take up a sport yourself.
Without Sky , it's finished ( as then there will be no interest in advertising and sponsorship either ).
So don't complain, just do it.
Complain about this comment
DortmundOwl - how did you get a moniker like that?
I agree with you - actions do speak louder than words. I no longer attend matches and have never subscribed to Sky or any other pay to view channels. As for buying a replica shirt - I do not even buy clothes with brand names on them if I can help it. If they paid me to advertise their wares then fine and dandy.
You are right - people should get real and start supporting their LOCAL local teams as well as play sports themselves. I prefer to spend my money on joining a local gym rather than paying a lot more to watch football live. Anyone who has bought a subscription to Sky knows they can join a very decent fitness club for the same amount of money. The best money I have spent in my life has been on getting and staying fitter and not spending it on watching others doing it instead!
My only issue with your comments is the use of Nike's slogan! Even 'No Pain, No Gain' sounds so corny nowadays! Can anyone think of something else instead?
Cheers, Joe Perriman.
NB Should really call myself BaghdadOwl as I was born there and support Wednesday for my sins.
Complain about this comment
Wages are the price of labour so are determined entirely by supply and demand.
From any sensible perspective - except some arbitrary measure such as 'social justice' - it is nonsensicle to compare the salary of a professional footballer to a nurse or a teacher. One way to view it is nurses and teachers only provide a service, or add value if you like, to a relatively small number of people throughout their careers whereas Premiership footballers' value-added impacts millions of people. Also, the chances are Frank Lampard could retrain as a teacher or a nurse but not many teachers or nurses could retrain as professional footballers.
The validity of the argument that footballers are somehow not 'worthy' of the salaries they are paid exists solely inside the heads of the people who make it. The actions of millions of television viewers, the spectators who attend the matches and consumers who buy merchandise contradict this view and represent the only reality worth considering.
Complain about this comment
For many years I have had a season ticket and been to the majority of my teams Home and Away games but have recently found it increasingly difficult financially.
This year I have decided to cancel my Sky subscription, which has just been increasd again, so i will be able to attend some Away games.
This may be only one subscription to Sky but I think their control over football today is reaching a dangerous level and in no small part has been responsible for the astronomical level of players wages.
If more fans were to stop paying for all the add ons attached to football there may be some return to normality of players wages.
Unless the costs of going to matches can be maintained at a reasonable level in the coming years I and several of my friends will start supporting our local Park team .
Complain about this comment
English football is in a bit of a bubble. It sits along the rich leagues, not concerned about debt, splurging big money on on players and wages. Spain and Italy and to a lesser extent Germany are the only other leagues that can do this.
Your average decent Premiership player sells between clubs for £5-6million. These are players who are nothing special but go for this money now. Former Royals Sidwell and Kitson are good examples of big money for players who didn't have good years.
Other leagues like the Dutch and Scottish leagues have gone for living within the means, and can't compete anymore. Years ago if Rangers wanted to keep a player it could, and it could just about keep up with England. Same for Ajax. Now they have to sell when a Premier League club come in- it's ironic when Hull City and Derby County get more more money playing in the Premiership than Rangers and Celtic got last season for reaching latter stages of europe and challenging for a title, with attendances of 50,000+. At least Scottish clubs are getting on even balances, St Mirren, Falkirk, Hibernian, Inverness, Rangers and Celtic are working on reducing debts and indeed some operate with surplus and in the black. Sometimes keeping small, and spending what you can afford is right in the long term gain- football however is a short term view and fans want instant results.
It shows you that TV money now dominates the game and the English clubs have the money- when the Championship is a bigger league than major european leagues, it is bizarre.
The question is what happens if the bubble bursts? TV companies under pressure with falling advertising revenues and subscribers saving money and going to the pub to watch. Some clubs seem to think nothing of £100million of debt to the top end of the Premier League. To get into that level of debt to keep players is false economy IMHO.
Complain about this comment
I think the argument that football players have short careers is ridiculous. You know, when your career is finished, start a different career and carry on working. Wouldn't be great if I could go to my employers and say, in my position as IT Technician, by the age of 50 my eyes will not be as good as they were so I will need to end my career then, please increase my wages to make up for the 15 years I will miss out on!
Now, I am not actually one for criticising players. If I were one of them I would be milking it for all it is worth. However, fans have to think of themselves also. I love football, and I still love my team with a passion despite absolutely no trophies since 1925, but I do wonder if a game of football is worth more than £15. It simply is not. Most games are ordinary, some stand out and make you almost float on air as you are leaving the ground. But I would say £15 for Premiership football is fair, you are not guaranteed a good time, unlike going to watch your favourite band or comedian. At £20 to £25 a match I can't afford to watch my team week in week out yet players are making as much money in one year as I have in my lifetime, and I am over 40.
Yet, any action on players wages will need to be worldwide. Simply reducing wages in the UK will see all our best players moving to pastures new. But clearly, something has to be done, or the whole thing could collapse.
Complain about this comment
Supply and demand works both ways, if the price of milk in your local shop increases to a ridiculous level, supply and demand dictates that you go looking for another shop to buy your milk from.
However, football is not like any other commodity. The customer's heart rules his head and he will not move to another club. This puts the supplier at an advantage and they are grabbing it with both hands.
Football is no longer run by local benefactors who have the interests of the community at heart. The people who own the clubs are only interested in money and they have cottened on to the fact that the fans will just bend over and take whatever ridiculous prices are charged because they have supported the club all their lives.
The only way for this to stop is for the fans to take a stand, but how many are willing to do that?
I am making my own mini-stand by not getting Setanta. I'm exiled in Ireland so need to have Sky Sports as going to the pub to watch a match is not always feasible. GAA clashes with Sunday games - Premiership may be shown on one telly in the corner of the pub but now Reading are in the championship, I'd get laughed at if I asked the landlord to turn it on if it clashed with a big GAA match. For International matches it's even worse ans Ireland and England are often on at the same time.
Setanta have the next 2 England qualifiers and it is killing me to think that I won't be able to watch them but I simply refuse to pay out for a second subscription. If I pay Setanta, some other company will come along and buy up a few games and I will have to pay them as well. I don't see Sky offering me a discount because they only now offer me a percentage of the games I got last year.
I know it's only a small step, and I can't bring myself to get rid of Sky Sports (much as I would love to) but if more people said enough is enough and stopped paying subs or attending games, prices would eventually start dropping and I believe football in England would be all the better for it.
Complain about this comment
well its obvious that the huges sums are difficult to justify or comprehend to mere mortals like myself , but something similiar went on in north america that has similarities regarding the NHL ice hockey league and its wage structures that were put in place a few years ago that really sorted the sport out . they basically said there would be a salary cap for each team ,which would put each team on an equal pegging with one another so obviously the richer clubs would not dominate the transfer market with astronomical wages no longer offered to harvest the best world class talent ,maikng not only the league more entertaining and competitive but no doubt saved franchised clubs at the lower end of the wealth scale from being dogged by financial disparity that threatens their very survival ie most of the canadian clubs .i think now for sure most would say that the league is much more exciting and a lot less predictable and given the state of affairs in the premiership over the last 15 years ,one could see the obvious advantages that something similiar would bring to the all round appeal of the game here if that were to happen in the same way ,imagine the top 4 not being in a league of their own no longer and having to invest so much more in raw youth talent brought through the academies and not a team bought by wealthy individuals buyin their way to the top .............oooooooooo its just a dream i kno but a really sweet one and if it could be implemented by uefa throughout european football just think were we could go with it .................ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
Complain about this comment
I understand all the comments and many are valid to one degree or another. However, I have great difficulty understanding why footballers saleries should be the subject of such intense scrutiny, is this justified?
The way Mr Madejski made his money has never come under such scrutiny so why should his players? Mr Madejski and his players, and by definition all footballers past and present, seek only to earn as much money as possible for themselves and their family, just like you and me.
Throughout industry employees salaries are determined by supply and demand, ask Mr Madejski! Supply and demand could be equated to exploitation but that is another question.
In the case of football if you want your club to be sucessful you need the best players you can afford, including salaries, otherwise you go no where. Look at Sunderland, they have embraced the football industry and I suspect they will progress to greater things, Madejski would do well to follow their lead.
Sucess in football depends on why you get involved in footaball in the first place. In Mr Madejski's case I would suggest ego and profit are the prime motivators but not necessarily in the right order.
Complain about this comment
"so many other people in unquestionably important professions, people who save lives, or educate children or serve the public in so many other ways, earn a pittance in comparison"
The difference is that they are employed in the public sector and are paid by the taxpayer. Football is a private industry with vast amounts of money, and if the players were not paid the money then it would simply go into the pockets of the chairmen. people in other industries at the top of their profession often do earn comparable wages - how much does the bbc pay jonathan ross every year again?
Complain about this comment
If he feels so strongly about it, why doesn't he do something about it?
At Forest, Nigel Doughty has imposed a strict wage structure which has only been broken for special cases - Neil Lennon, Andy Cole, Robert Earnshaw (who looks like he'll be worth every penny).
The basic wages of Forest players are low and are bulked up by performance based bonuses.
If that doesn't inspire players to play for their wages, nothing will.
Not to mention, we have a very young squad who are honest lads who simply want to play football and win.
Long gone are the days of journeymen like John Curtis, Gary Holt etc just picking up their large pay packets whilst being completely mediocre.
Doughty, despite past mistakes, has atoned for his errors somewhat and has put our club back on track and given us a our PRIDE back.
Doughty's way is the way to go.
Complain about this comment
Madejski couldn't be more right about the players being more concerned with their wages. Do you remember a certain program where a nurse wanted the premier league players to give up a days wages for nurses. An honest cause right? Well of a certain 200+ players less than 40 players gave them up a lot of them Reading FC players so I assume Madejski had some influence. My point being it shows how greedy modern day players are.
Complain about this comment
I agree with davesol's first paragraph. Without the educators we would be know where. If there was any justice they would be the most highly paid people in the world.
Sadly they are frequently abused by those they educate, especially those at the top of government.
We live in an ungrateful world.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS