Of course, its different. No Banker charges 20pct of the transaction as his fee. They charge 2-3pct of a deal of this size with an army of people behind them. Maybe even lower.
The New Yorker article - Raiola was paid €49 million for Pogba's deal
- Thread starter Man of Leisure
- Start date
This.
Football is a worldwide entertainment spectacle whose popularity is growing in large countries with relatively high household incomes. Is it really a surprise there is more money across the board?
Scales of relativity. 100 million pound transfer is significant. 100 million pound investment in banking is a piss in the ocean. As the former head of Merril Lynch once told me, he stopped counting his transaction history when it reached the trillion mark.
Even a real estate broker selling a 50 million house doesnt charge 20pct. It's not a relative thing. Its because the agent has a personal relationship with the thing getting sold. Its preposterous
We shouldn't act like players wouldn't get done over if they didn't have these agents wrangling out the best possible deals for them.
The agent is a blessing for his clients and a stench for everyone else... which is how it should be, if you think about it in cold, hard terms.
Not sure why this is such a big news. Raiola and Pogba owned 25% of the transfer fee when they moved to Juventus on free transfer.
What exactly does registration rights means? Isn't he registered with the club he plays for?
And Why was He banned again?
25% of the transfer fee as per the agreement when he joined Juve on free transfer.
Exactly. Love him or hate him, he was actually entitled to this money.
Some agents are so good at their job that their client buys them an island
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-33756401
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-33756401
Ok, that makes sense.
I don’t see why so many people are upset about this, would you prefer to see Juve keeping all the money? What United paid is what concerns me, how it’s distributed doesn’t
I don’t see how it can be stamped out, instead of having a company hold the player registration, it really doesn’t cost much at all to buy/setup a tiny tiny club somewhere to do it.
Hate it when I see this. Maybe not from your sofa it isn't mate. There are quite a few of us on here that go to the games.
When you think about what he does its basically boils down to being nothing more than a secretary who answers the phone because the player cant be bothered.
He doesnt do anything for that money except talk to people. Its only got the weight it has because the player has said hes got the right to represent him, but in terms of actually doing anything? Jesus...just phone calls and playing one club off against another.
The easiest way around this is for all the clubs to get together and set an Agent Cap. Doesnt matter who the agent or player, they will only pay a max of £2m to any agent. Thats it.
He doesnt do anything for that money except talk to people. Its only got the weight it has because the player has said hes got the right to represent him, but in terms of actually doing anything? Jesus...just phone calls and playing one club off against another.
The easiest way around this is for all the clubs to get together and set an Agent Cap. Doesnt matter who the agent or player, they will only pay a max of £2m to any agent. Thats it.
Probably because they are linked.. if Juve were 'keeping all the money', maybe we wouldn't have paid half as much.
Money well spent!
And if we didn't pay half as much, Pogba wouldn't have seen the color of the money he was owed by Juventus. From a fan perspective I get your point but you are somehow advocating for a system where players get shafted by clubs.
Remember the photo of the two of them laughing beside a swimming pool? How does anyone expect him to give a fiddlers about football? Posing is his day job, footie a lucrative sideline.Surely Pogba must have seen some on the back end of that deal, I can’t believe any agent is worth that
It's still not your money that goes to whoever, players/agents/managers/etc. You pay to see United, you get to see them.
Actually it is, most of the money in football come from the sofa not from the stadium. TV channels don't pay billions for you to not be comfortably sat in front of a screen while they show you the dozens of ads that they sold to betting companies and manufacturers.
Football is nothing without match going fans. End of discussion.
Surely both of you are right. Matchday and broadcast revenue contribute well over half most clubs' revenue -- I don't see how you can disassociate this revenue from the payment of player wages.
Even as a City fan, my TV subscription is helping to pay Pogba's wages ffs
Which has nothing to do with the point made and you are not doing anyone a favour by going to games, thousands of other people will take your place if you decide not to. The point is that match going fans aren't the main source of income, the main source of income is fans that watch games on TV, follow football online and gamble.
Doesn't ticket money go to players etc?
I don't dissociate it, he decided to dismiss the main source of revenue by having a pop at people watching games on TV, which is daft.
Agreed we all pay, albeit slightly differently. Clubs can afford to pay obscene wages to players because we're all being fleeced.
May as well get De ligt 5 on your shirts lads.
It's not just the broadcast revenue. The shirt sponsorship deals etc earn the club so much money because TV allows them a far bigger audience than than the 76000 that turn up at OT.
Match going fans also have TV's mate. I don't go away for example.
This all started from a comment from a fan that clearly doesn't go to games who says not my money why should I care. Plenty do care. I don't like the fact that we are paying someone 400k a week who can't pass a football for example.
It's part of the business. I don't like the fact that we're paying our ex manager 17m in compensation for sacking him, despite his best attempts to sabotage us.
Yea good point, fully agree. I always think it's stupid when people take the piss out of City's fanbase and use that as an angle to question the value of our Etihad and new Puma shirt sponsorship. They may or may not be overvalued, but it's not just about how many people buy the shirt, it's also about how many people see it on TV etc.
Well it's perfectly possible to watch United from your sofa and not a put a penny in if you're watching streams I suppose, but I doubt he was getting at that. I almost do that.
Got BT Sport as it's 'free' with my cable package so watch the games on there, stream the others. Now it's not really free as Virgin Media are sending cash to BT but if BT wasn't on my cable package I'd still buy the same package and stream all the games instead.Still, suppose the original point was that it's not our money , and that's false whether you have a sports subscription, go to games or buy merch. While it's true that the collective revenue from broadcasting revenue is greater than ticket revenue an individual who goes to games regularly would be putting much more into their club than anyone with a sports channel sub who doesn't. A season ticket costs more than a tv sub, the tv station pays for other content out of that, and like you said, you're paying for Pogba because it's split between all the clubs. Then people who go to games can also have the tv packages as well.
It's not though. You pay a fee for a service - the service being able to watch home games at Old Trafford or watch sports on TV. I would get it if you we're investing the money into the club - and it's the businesses duty to do good by their shareholders. But you actually get something for the money you pay - admittedly in recent years it's not great value for money.Well it's perfectly possible to watch United from your sofa and not a put a penny in if you're watching streams I suppose, but I doubt he was getting at that. I almost do that.
Still, suppose the original point was that it's not our money , and that's false whether you have a sports subscription, go to games or buy merch. While it's true that the collective revenue from broadcasting revenue is greater than ticket revenue an individual who goes to games regularly would be putting much more into their club than anyone with a sports channel sub who doesn't. A season ticket costs more than a tv sub, the tv station pays for other content out of that, and like you said, you're paying for Pogba because it's split between all the clubs. Then people who go to games can also have the tv packages as well.
Yes it does, what a moronic statement. How do you think the club pays these fees? Higher gate prices, higher merchandise prices, higher TV revenue from raised TV subscriptions. It’s all getting paid by the end consumer - i.e the fans.
And people need to stop telling other people what to do.
Well yes, you get something out of it too, but without that money going in where would the money come from to pay players/agents? They're obviously getting a cut of what fans put in.
Edit: And some people think that agents are creaming off more than they're worth, that appears to be the main contention.
Last edited:
When I buy hand lotion from one of United sponsors, I'm directly financing Lingard. And he disappoints me daily!Doesn't ticket money go to players etc?
You are free to not like it that's your prerogative but it has nothing to do with being a match going fans. You are worth more money as a TV viewer than you are as a match going fan, the thing is you don't actually see all the revenue that you create through TV, most of it isn't even visible through the TV deals because at the end it serves the likes of Adidas, Samsung, Betfair, Gazprom and hundreds of other companies, they use TV broadcasts to create and solidify their customer base that's where the money come from and where it mainly goes.
That's why I don't have an issue with players' wage because in reality, they only get a very small part of the actual worth of their image and the same could be said for clubs, these giant manufacturers and service providers make an incredible amount of money while paying very little for it, the competent agents know that and made millions for their clients and themselves which is only fair, the alternative would be that the aforementioned companies pay less and gain more while exploiting the exact same customer market.