Why aren't we more angry about players' wages?

[Hitchez]

Everyone is greedy to an extent. If i go into a job interview tomorrow I'm going to try my level best to squeeze out every last penny out of my employer. If I'm good enough I get the money I ask for. It's exactly the same with football.

The footballers are good at what they do and deserve the money they get. If they weren't the clubs would tell them to feck off.

 

[finneh]

It's a socialists dream... The people who produce the product get more than the managers and executives. I can't see how or why anyone would be angry.

 

[Minimalist]

I don't believe people are greedy. Not most people.

People simply want to be paid what they think they deserve (and that's always up for debate). Certainly don't think it's driving factor people think it is - not for most people in the world (including the rich).

 

[Brwned]

players make a lot of money because they generate a lot of money.

i'd rather the money is in their pockets, you know, considering they are the ones people tune in to watch, they are also the ones performing and at times risking serious bodily harm, than the money in some american, russian or arab middle aged owner's bank account

You present that as if it is a binary choice when it quite clearly isn't. There are many places it could go beyond those two.

 

[sullydnl]

Well the club's get paid a ton, so why shouldn't the players be the ones who get a good chunk of that

Why should anyone be angry? Most of the money should go to the players, it's them who we go to watch.

Exactly. If football makes an obscene amount of money then it makes sense that footballers make an obscene amount of money too. Nobody else involved deserves it more than they do.

 

[TsuWave]

You present that as if it is a binary choice when it quite clearly isn't. There are many places it could go beyond those two.

i didn't think i needed to put an exclaimer or waffle on about something that's understood. obviously it's not a binary choice between the two options i spoke on, yet they are real options and the ones i chose to highlight.

my point was, i don't have that big a grievance with players earning a lot.

 

[Halds]

We, the fans, are the ones paying the players through expensive TV packages, inflated ticket prices, football shirts, kits and all the other stuff we give our children from the clubs they follow. And we are paying more for goods from the clubs and players sponsors, as they will rise prices to retain the money they spend on sponsorships.

So if we are angry, we should do something about it. As long as we keep paying up, the TV stations, the clubs, the players, the agents, will continue to maximize their earnings on our behalf.

 

[Brwned]

Meh. Distribution of wealth, oligopolies, etc, are problems with a far wider scope than football.

I am not angry with it in the way it pertains to football specifically. I dislike it globally.

Of course. There are many more objectively important things in the world than sports finance. Ultimately the question is directed to people that do care about money in football. There are a lot of people on here that care about the cost of following football in one way or another. My question was essentially asking why all the ire is directed at the clubs and none of the players, when the explicit motivations from the players are selfishness and greed and they have so much influence on it all.

If you don't care about money in football then you obviously wouldn't care about this, for all sorts of good reasons.

Although there has been a suggestion that there is a historical link between entertainers being paid obscene amounts and the decline of major civilizations. E.g. when the Roman athletes were at the peak of their earnings cycle, the cracks in the civilization were beginning to appear. Apparently that repeated itself across many great civilisations. Not because of a poor distribution of the wealth that was used, but because of the values it reflected - greed and ignorance. I'm not sure it's actually true but I'm keen to look into it properly at some stage.

 

[2mufc0]

Not angry about the amounts they are paid it’s the way the capitalist market works, however I’m more angry about the amount we spend in wages and the level of performance we get on the pitch.

 

[Brwned]

Exactly. If football makes an obscene amount of money then it makes sense that footballers make an obscene amount of money too. Nobody else involved deserves it more than they do.

If they were paid less then they would still be paid an obscene amount of money. No-one is saying they should be on a living wage while the clubs pocket all of the money. They can get paid an obscene amount while some of the other stuff is reinvested in better places, for the benefit of everyeone, and no one would be worse off in any substantial way.

 

[Ish]

Simple economics. Demand and supply, unfortunately. They get paid what their deemed worth is to an employer.

The only way we can impact it, is if we all start boycotting matches/subscriptions etc. But I have a hunch that, that won’t happen.

So sit back and enjoy.

 

[MackRobinson]

It's crazy to me that fans get upset at player wages, but don't care about how much money the directors and shareholders of clubs are raking in. Clear and unfortunate double standard.

 

[Raoul]

Supply and Demand. Getting angry wouldn't change anything.

 

[gibers]

Why stop att footballers? Why aren't we protesting actors and their salaries? What about American footballers? What about basketball players?

This is what happens in the entertainment industry. They ultimately make this much money because of YOU. If you don't like it stop putting money and energy in it or go out and protest.

 

[Akshay]

I've got no problem with anyone making money as long as it's not done by harming others. There are a lot more wicked ways to get rich in the world than entertaining millions of fans around the world.

 

[villain]

Because it’s the simplest rule of economics- supply and demand.

I’d be surprised if 16 year olds doing Business Studies for GCSE doesn’t understand this principle.

 

[Brwned]

Supply and Demand. Getting angry wouldn't change anything.

Do you think sporting federations have no ability to control wages? Or fans have no influence on sporting federations? I've worked with a few of the major ones and I don't agree with either.

 

[sullydnl]

If they were paid less then they would still be paid an obscene amount of money. No-one is saying they should be on a living wage while the clubs pocket all of the money. They can get paid an obscene amount while some of the other stuff is reinvested in better places, for the benefit of everyeone, and no one would be worse off in any substantial way.

It's one thing to suggest that some of the money in football should be directed elsewhere. It's another to put the focus on the "greedy" players when in reality they're earning no more than they deserve given the industry they work in and are simply maximising their income in the way most people look to do. Why put the focus/blame on the players when clubs they play for also earn an obscene amount of money?

Of all the people who get ludicrously rich from football, footballers are the ones who most deserve it. If we're redirecting money within football then why target them first?

 

[Pexbo]

Footballers have to play a lot of games for their money. Movie stars can earn the same for one movie

Isn’t a movie more comparable to a season? Multiple locations for multiple scenes over the course of a year?

 

[shaky]

It's not about them getting some huge number and me thinking it is unjust. I couldn't give a feck about that. I care about football. And them getting paid that much doesn't improve their performances, isn't something they require for their livelihood and happiness, and it does prevent the money generated from being put to what is quite evidently better use.

You seem to be implying that high player salaries are the reason more money isn't spent on grassroots football, as if clubs would be lining up to invest more money, but they just can't afford it due to the wage bill. You know that's not true though. Clubs invest what they need for their own benefits, they are run as businesses, and the future of the overall game isn't their concern. Why be angry at the players when your anger at a perceived lack of grassroots investment should be more directed at the clubs and the FA?

 

[The Hacker]

Why aren't we angry about actors, F1 drivers etc wages?
Why is the obsession just with footballers?

Exactly. And why do the clubs or agents feel the need to share with everyone what each player is on?! That’s such a personal & confidential piece of information, unless you’re a shareholder of the club itself, I don’t see why that information needs to be shared with everyone in the world.

If could earn that, I would.

 

[Raoul]

Do you think sporting federations have no ability to control wages? Or fans have no influence on sporting federations? I've worked with a few of the major ones and I don't agree with either.

Wages imo, are merely a subcomponent of the proliferation of money into sport over the past decade or so, that definitely needs to be reigned in. Clubs like City shouldn't just be able to be plucked out of mid table obscurity by ultra high net worth individuals who want to assuage their boredom by buying their way to football trophies. There also needs to be better distribution of money to lower league sides. Agents also shouldn't be able to hold deals hostage over their own rising "fees". Players shouldn't be expected to perform at a standard that is commensurate with their transfer fees (since they have feck all to do with what the fee is). Player wages could be viewed as one of many issues like the aforementioned that are quickly spiraling out of control. FIFA and UEFA haven't done enough to create a single standard in this regard.

 

[Schneckerl]

Why arent you angry about how much the owners earn? Or agents?

 

[Gareth williams]

If they were paid less then they would still be paid an obscene amount of money. No-one is saying they should be on a living wage while the clubs pocket all of the money. They can get paid an obscene amount while some of the other stuff is reinvested in better places, for the benefit of everyeone, and no one would be worse off in any substantial way.

Alternatively you could pay more for your tickets and sky tv and they could reinvest that instead. Always find it a little odd when people tell others they should give their earnings away while not willing to do the same

 

[redIndianDevil]

Of course. There are many more objectively important things in the world than sports finance. Ultimately the question is directed to people that do care about money in football. There are a lot of people on here that care about the cost of following football in one way or another. My question was essentially asking why all the ire is directed at the clubs and none of the players, when the explicit motivations from the players are selfishness and greed and they have so much influence on it all.

If you don't care about money in football then you obviously wouldn't care about this, for all sorts of good reasons.

Although there has been a suggestion that there is a historical link between entertainers being paid obscene amounts and the decline of major civilizations. E.g. when the Roman athletes were at the peak of their earnings cycle, the cracks in the civilization were beginning to appear. Apparently that repeated itself across many great civilisations. Not because of a poor distribution of the wealth that was used, but because of the values it reflected - greed and ignorance. I'm not sure it's actually true but I'm keen to look into it properly at some stage.

You really think the human civilization is going to decline just because Sanchez earns 350K per week at Manchester United? There is a huge amount of money in football. All those things you mentioned grassroots development, better fan experience at the stadiums etc can be done very easily without taking a penny from the players, so why are you getting angry about young men who have toiled hard ever since they were 5-6 years old and faced a multitude of physical injuries and a huge competition to reach the top and in a sport where the earning stops once you are 35 yrs old(if one is lucky)? I'd rather direct your anger at fat cats and executives who line their pockets with our money by just pushing papers.

The only reason football is this popular and rich is because of the hardwork of the players and the passion of the fans, they are the ones who should be rewarded not the owners, shareholders and agents. Currently these are the one who are taking the most of the money.

Oh and importantly the football players pay a huge amount of tax and actually SPEND their hard earned money lavishly thereby spreading the wealth unlike the owners like Glazers, Mike Ashley etc who take the money and put it safely in tax havens.

 

[Brwned]

It's one thing to suggest that some of the money in football should be directed elsewhere. It's another to put the focus on the "greedy" players when in reality they're earning no more than they deserve given the industry they work in and are simply maximising their income in the way most people look to do. Why put the focus/blame on the players when clubs they play for also earn an obscene amount of money?

Of all the people who get ludicrously rich from football, footballers are the ones who most deserve it. If we're redirecting money within football then why target them first?

They aren't being targeted first. Clubs have been boycotted, agents have been vilified, sporting federations have been ridiculed. The question is why are players not included at all, rather than why are they included first.

 

[Ronaldo's ego]

The guys who get paid these ridiculous amounts are at the elite level of their profession...probably the top 1% earners of pro footballers worldwide. In any profession, if you’re at the very top there’s big money. Just imagine the salaries of the top 1% earning doctors, lawyers, surgeons, engineers, accountants. The point is, if you’re one of the best in your field you’ll make enough money

 

[Gareth williams]

They aren't being targeted first. Clubs have been boycotted, agents have been vilified, sporting federations have been ridiculed. The question is why are players not included at all, rather than why are they included first.

Because they are the talent. The stars. They are what we are all paying for. The rest aren't

 

[Mr. MUJAC]

Everyone seems to be offended by something.

Now we should be angry.

I choose neither...

 

[SirAF]

Because it’s the simplest rule of economics- supply and demand.

I’d be surprised if 16 year olds doing Business Studies for GCSE doesn’t understand this principle.

This.

 

[DOTA]

Because in the grand scheme of capitalism football players' wages aren't one of the biggest atrocities.

 

[kouroux]

Why should we even care ?

 

[Untied]

Market forces.

It’s not market forces

It’s the result of monopolistic TV licensing.

Why is the TV deal so lucrative? Because there is no competition. Games are licensed exclusively, to a single provider, who can in turn squeeze fans for more money (Sky’s prices have risen well above inflation through the PL era - that’s where the money is coming from). Regulators asleep at the wheel as usual.

If the licenses were more aggressively regulated (e.g what I would do and not permit exclusive licenses) you could have proper competition. For example BT and Sky showing the same matches, but competing on price and quality of coverage to the consumer.*

I’m not an advocate for the free market, but if you are, it should be obvious that sport TV licensing is not a properly functioning market.

* The PL and TV companies would probably argue that the consumer does have a choice because they could choose to watch a different game or a different sport or some other form of entertainment. We all know this is ridiculous given the emotional engagement and attachment that football fans have to their sport and the games of their chosen club.

 

[Smithy_123]

However no-one seems to care. We just shrug our shoulders at individuals demanding obscene amounts of money that, directly and indirectly, we fund.

Well there you have it. It's the free market at work. If we refuse to pay so much the market will adjust accordingly.

Impressed we've got this far in the thread without mention of teachers or nurses.

 

[Josep Dowling]

We, the fans, are the ones paying the players through expensive TV packages, inflated ticket prices, football shirts, kits and all the other stuff we give our children from the clubs they follow. And we are paying more for goods from the clubs and players sponsors, as they will rise prices to retain the money they spend on sponsorships.

So if we are angry, we should do something about it. As long as we keep paying up, the TV stations, the clubs, the players, the agents, will continue to maximize their earnings on our behalf.

Well this is precisely the problem. There doesn’t appear to be an issue by the fans. Stadium are still very full, including the Championship which has higher attendance than even Serie A. People are still paying the subscriptions for TV. The only way it will change is when fans stop paying for it all. Can’t see it happening for a good few years yet.

 

[Manny]

It is a joke.

I think people would be more pissed if you put more emphasise on the possibility of cheaper ticket prices, subscription fees, more grass roots footie, reinvesting in the communitities. As it currently stands, fans think they aren't losing out.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

If they were paid less then they would still be paid an obscene amount of money. No-one is saying they should be on a living wage while the clubs pocket all of the money. They can get paid an obscene amount while some of the other stuff is reinvested in better places, for the benefit of everyeone, and no one would be worse off in any substantial way.

If they were getting paid less, the Glazers, Abramovich’s and club shareholders would get more. Yup, seems fair @Brwned.

You’re living in dreamland if you think the people above would just decide ”ah feck it, let’s give that extra 100m quid to good causes rather than lining our own pockets.” Wake up.

 

[ivaldo]

I don't agree. Ultimately an employee is worth what they bring to it's employer. Footballers earn ridiculous money because they are essential assets for any club to function, to be successful and to be profitable.

We employ less than 1000 members of staff and yet we've posted financial figures topping half a billion in revenue for a second consecutive year. They earn that money, whether we like it or not.

 

[walkinhop]

We are in the 0.1% of the biggest, baddest, richest, most powerful, sport organizations in the World. The players get the appropriate piece. The issue should be when they don't perform and still get it.

 

[Cait Sith]

Because people have been and are getting brainwashed that it is totally normal that people singing songs, chasing a ball or playing games on Twitch and YouTube as well as CEOs getting paid millions of dollars while policemen, surgeons, nurses, engineers, firefighters make a living for somewhere between 1,000 and 4,000 dollars. Because people elect political systems against their own self-interests.

 

[Snow]

Makes perfect sense for the players to get the money and it benefits society more if they get it rather than the club gets richer because they will buy clothes and food etc.

If your anger is at the greed then I think you should rather be asking why more players aren't joining Mata's initiative or doing something similar.