Domain Manage

Do footballers get paid too much?

Discussion in 'General Board' started by cm1975, Jan 20, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. cm1975 United Kingdom

    cm1975 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2007
    Posts:
    3,189
    Likes Received:
    13
  2. Domain Forum

    Acorn Domains Elite Member

    Joined:
    1999
    Messages:
    Many
    Likes Received:
    Lots
     
  3. edo

    edo Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2010
    Posts:
    441
    Likes Received:
    7
    Market forces say no, common sense says yes.

    Let's just hope UEFA's financial fair play rules actually make a difference.
     
  4. retired_member32

    retired_member32 Retired Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2007
    Posts:
    2,140
    Likes Received:
    21
    do bankers get paid too much ? do energy suppliers take the michael =giving out low estimated bills before the price rise so they can screw you later with a metered reading ? do's the government sit on there arse why Supermarkets screw for every last pound ? (Tesco £3b per year....every little helps) do you earn more sitting on your fat arse whilst people go to work on minimum wage ?

    ahh that feels better..
     
  5. TinkyWinky United Kingdom

    TinkyWinky Active Member Acorn Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 2006
    Posts:
    871
    Likes Received:
    8
    Sorry that is a daft question...IMHO.

    For the top two tiers in English and top tier in Scottish Football... of course they are!

    No one is worth £250,000 a week for playing a sport. Football and other sports are now all about money and it is an artificallly created bubble that feathers the pockets of agents and media moguls like Murdoch.

    Below the top two tiers, a lot of the footballers do not make anywhere near what people think (although still a good wage when compared to people who have proper jobs with real responsibilities).

    It's bloody ridiculous... it is also made worse by agents who earn large fees - look at the recent Rooney "leaving" rubbish served up.

    Sorry they do not serve a life saving function or run the country - they need to get real and in many ways have ruined football. I used to go weekly about 12 years ago and players actually had loyalties and appreciated fans for supporting them blah blah blah.

    I gave up going to football games about 6 years ago when watching 90 minutes of often average footballing skill and having a pie at half time cost £100.... and often more when 'premium' visiting teams turned up.

    It's all b0ll0cks...rant over.

    TW
     
  6. Frog

    Frog Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2010
    Posts:
    620
    Likes Received:
    18
    Players like Messi, Ronaldo, Rooney and so on generate more income than they are paid, so of course they are worth it... common sense should tell you that.

    It won't. For example if they say you can only spend 50% of your club income as wages, you will just have the rich owners skirting around the rules. One of Abramovic's companies could pay £200m a year to have a logo on their shirts, instantly letting Chelsea spend whatever they want again.
     
  7. cm1975 United Kingdom

    cm1975 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2007
    Posts:
    3,189
    Likes Received:
    13
    Do bankers move job and forget about the £98k Porsche they left at the station car park with the keys on the passenger seat?

    When asked about the car, do bankers deny all knowledge of it eventhough it quite clearly has their personalised plates on it?

    Don't get me wrong, I've parked my car and forgetten exactly where the car is, but I've never actually forgotten the car park it's in and the fact that the car actually exists.
     
  8. TinkyWinky United Kingdom

    TinkyWinky Active Member Acorn Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 2006
    Posts:
    871
    Likes Received:
    8
    Common sense is not relevant as we're clearly talking cross purposes matey.

    If it is a financial argument about how much a player generates and therefore a nominal value on how much to pay them in order to generate money, then everyone can then make a case for a big pay packet!

    I was talking about worth in a human sense - i.e. worth of an individual - an indiviudual that plays football, doesn't save lives or make sacrifices for others or contribute too much more to society other than to entertain people!

    So you may say I am splitting hairs, but actually I don't consider anyone alive to be 'worth' £250,000 a week... even if there is a financial argument for a valuation of that amount!

    TW
     
  9. wb United Kingdom

    wb Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2009
    Posts:
    2,072
    Likes Received:
    34
    Regardless of how much income they generate for the club, they are overpaid for what they do as individuals (I'm not a football fan and personally think there is far too much money in the sport).

    In a strictly non-financial sense, there are far more jobs in the world worthy of receiving higher pay in comparison :)
     
  10. newguy United Kingdom

    newguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2009
    Posts:
    2,436
    Likes Received:
    20
    They'r very lucky to have a skill that captivates the nation and brings in big bucks. From a buisness point of view, they're perfectly entitled to what they earn. I would hope as people though, that they appreciate how fortunate they are to be in that position.
     
  11. Blossom

    Blossom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2010
    Posts:
    1,395
    Likes Received:
    55
    That's the core point for me. It's easy enough to say that footballers generate more income, but more income wouldn't make any difference if there were no doctors or scientists or teachers.
     
  12. wb United Kingdom

    wb Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2009
    Posts:
    2,072
    Likes Received:
    34
    Funnily enough I had to do an exercise somewhere recently which involved placing a list jobs in order of importance (e.g. doctor, footballer, fireman, military, city trader etc) with the context you mention. The general result was that the less important the job was rated in terms of life, the higher the pay was.

    No doubt this will be open to debate :p
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page