Do footballers earn too much money?

[nugent]

I've just finished reading fergies book (it was bought for me for my birthday before anyone starts) in it, he says footballers are underpaid in his opinion.
He says that they are in the entertainment business and when you compare their wages to that of a movie star for example they should deserve more.

And when Rooney had a pay rise the glazers asked him how he felt, they and he agreed no player should earn more than the manager and a new contract was done for fergie.

What do you all think?

[TH63]

I've just finished reading fergies book (it was bought for me for my birthday before anyone starts) in it, he says footballers are underpaid in his opinion.
He says that they are in the entertainment business and when you compare their wages to that of a movie star for example they should deserve more.

And when Rooney had a pay rise the glazers asked him how he felt, they and he agreed no player should earn more than the manager and a new contract was done for fergie.

What do you all think?

"It was bought for me"

[Penarth Blues]

[QUOTE=TH63;4637044]"It was bought for me" ]

I'd be very surprised if the whole board wasn't thinking that

[Llanedeyrnblue]

Yes they do and it's all Jimmy Hill's fault get them back on £12 a week

[whofan]

I think football players are paid what they can get. If the business they are in is an "entertainment" business, then they are entitled both economically and morally to seek the best money they can get for the entertainment value they give. It's not fr us - or governments - or cartels of businesses - to dictate what they are paid, to quote some dopy politicians, it's what the market will bear that dictates their pay levels.

If you - or I - or any individual thinks that a well paid footballer doesn't give value for money then at some point those who pay them will realise this and in an ideal economic world, reduce his pay to what he is worth.

This is what happens in other branches of the "entertainment" business, notably music and films/tv.

However, football and the money paid to its players is skewed badly by 3 factors, the obvious one being SKY, who simply throw money at football in order to secure the rights to show it.

The other factors are cupidity by businessmen who own clubs, who somehow believe football is a business like others they may run, when we all know it isn't, and who also gleefully take the SKY (and others') money and siphon it out of the business.

And the third factor is fans, whose allegiance to "their club" means they will take any crap thrown at them, be it strip changes, raised ticket prices, ridiculous kick off times and days, and generally pay for it without complaint. (there are of course honourable exceptions to this)

Of course, these are generalisations, though I'd be intrigued to see if any one could point out a club whose owners aren't doing what say oyston, the Glazers, the ones who owned Liverpool (2 Americans), were or are doing and aren't asset stripping the club and its SKY/BT/Setanta money.

In conclusion, returning to the actual question, no, it's my opinion that footballers aren't paid too much money - but that is predicated on football being an "entertainment" business.

[Dr Lecter]

Surely it depends on the footballer.

In the case of Payet, Bale, Ozil, Aguero etc. then they deserve the high wages as people pay to watch these players showcase amazing talent that gets you up off your seat.

In the case of Raheem Sterling the fact that he gets paid at all is a travesty.

[chris]

a bang average footballer is on 30 - 50 grand a week

it is definately not a working class sport anymore , players years ago had to find another occupation after they had finished playing even at the top level , nowadays by the time many players have hung up their boots they are multi millionaires

[NYCBlue]

"It was bought for me"

Of course it was, it's the perfect gift for a Man U fan.

[NYCBlue]

They make too much money. More money should be invested in the sport at all levels. It's a classic case of the top 1% keeping everything for themselves.

[MacAdder]

I've just finished reading fergies book (it was bought for me for my birthday before anyone starts) in it, he says footballers are underpaid in his opinion.
He says that they are in the entertainment business and when you compare their wages to that of a movie star for example they should deserve more.

And when Rooney had a pay rise the glazers asked him how he felt, they and he agreed no player should earn more than the manager and a new contract was done for fergie.

What do you all think?

I had his first Autobiography bought for me too and this was before he won the treble in 1999 (honest )

Although I admire Fergie as a manager (decent player too) he has since struck me as a 'money grabber'. This became obvious after he won the treble where his spin doctors did a fine job having everyone believe he would quit at the very top after an unprecedented season (we all know the rest)

Everyone involved in football these days, players, advisors stroke agents, pundits, presenters, journos, bloggers, sports reporters (not an exhaustive list) are paid well.
Mass interest generates big money.
Supply and demand!

We are all suckers but we love it!!

[Mrs Steve R]

"It was bought for me"

I can confirm that it was bought for him because we nearly got
him the same one.

[az city]

I think football players are paid what they can get. If the business they are in is an "entertainment" business, then they are entitled both economically and morally to seek the best money they can get for the entertainment value they give. It's not fr us - or governments - or cartels of businesses - to dictate what they are paid, to quote some dopy politicians, it's what the market will bear that dictates their pay levels.

If you - or I - or any individual thinks that a well paid footballer doesn't give value for money then at some point those who pay them will realise this and in an ideal economic world, reduce his pay to what he is worth.

This is what happens in other branches of the "entertainment" business, notably music and films/tv.

However, football and the money paid to its players is skewed badly by 3 factors, the obvious one being SKY, who simply throw money at football in order to secure the rights to show it.

The other factors are cupidity by businessmen who own clubs, who somehow believe football is a business like others they may run, when we all know it isn't, and who also gleefully take the SKY (and others') money and siphon it out of the business.

And the third factor is fans, whose allegiance to "their club" means they will take any crap thrown at them, be it strip changes, raised ticket prices, ridiculous kick off times and days, and generally pay for it without complaint. (there are of course honourable exceptions to this)

Of course, these are generalisations, though I'd be intrigued to see if any one could point out a club whose owners aren't doing what say oyston, the Glazers, the ones who owned Liverpool (2 Americans), were or are doing and aren't asset stripping the club and its SKY/BT/Setanta money.

In conclusion, returning to the actual question, no, it's my opinion that footballers aren't paid too much money - but that is predicated on football being an "entertainment" business.

If everyone were paid what the "market will bear" as you say, then fast food workers and cleaners would be on 2-3 quid an hour. You're surely not suggesting that's a fair valuation of the work they do? Why does "the market" have to be the determinant of wages? What makes you think it gives fair valuations?

[lardy]

Fergie earns more than any player.

Fergie thinks players should earn more.

These two statements are completely unrelated.