“Footballers are overpaid!” – Hatred for the Beautiful Game is Bias and Unjustified

“Footballers are overpaid!” – Hatred for the Beautiful Game is Bias and Unjustified

How many times have you heard the following statement?
“I Hate Football, Footballers are so overpaid, Nurses and Soldiers should be paid more.”
Now, before I go on, I want to make it clear, at no point do I underestimate or under appreciate the work for our country that armed and emergency services do. I wish I had the kind of commitment that they show on a daily basis.

However the comparison between footballers, and the armed and emergency services, is frustratingly flawed. The career paths aren’t remotely related. Football is a Private Sector industry. Footballers work for profit making organisations, and are paid a portion of a fee that people pay to see them. If I’m honest, I think the prices of football tickets are too high, and could send fair weather punters to other sports, or lower league clubs in search of alternative entertainment if the prices continue to increase. But the fact that the top clubs still retain high average attendances, means the increase in prices is an irrelevancy, if people still pay the prices put in front of them week in week out, and the people who they pay to see are paid a share of it, what’s the issue? The Services are government funded. So yes, if you want Nurses and Soldiers to be earning the same amount as footballers, you’ll see a dramatic increase in taxes.
Now again, I’ll re-iterate, I’m not saying Soldiers and Nurses shouldn’t be paid more, but how many people, who preach their hatred of football, will be will have the same few on the services when higher taxes mean that it’s hard to afford to get by? How many people would want the NHS to become fully privatised? And be paying through the nose for healthcare? The idea of comparing these two drastically different worlds and industries, would imply that the same person is paying footballers, nurses and soldiers and that some higher power is responsible.

I can’t stress enough that I’m not under some deluded view that football is more important than the Army and NHS. But aside from the fact different people pay the wages of soldiers and nurses and footballers, why does this justify a hatred for the game. Football isn’t entirely professional; it is a game first and an industry second, so why hate the entire sport because a proportion of its players are paid astronomical wages.

I’m interested to know if these people that hate Football outright, hate all Music, because bands, rappers, X factor winners earn a pocket, or whether they refuse to watch films or television, because actors and television companies make a fortune? Do they refuse to eat at a chain restaurant or shop at a supermarket; because Tesco or Jamie’s Italian earn more than Nurses?

I can fully appreciate that not everyone loves the beautiful game, but what I would appreciate a lot more, is that if someone wants to preach to me how football is travesty, they could back up their view with something that wasn’t clichéd. That would be refreshing

Excellent read mate.

Its something that has always bugged me. I agree with you on ticket prices they are a bit to steep but most stadiums in the Premier league where the players earn the big money are nearly full every week so the prices can't be that high.

Players get paid the high wages because that is the sort of money football generates at the top level. I would much rather see the players get it than the guys in the boardroom.

The top players in the World are an inspiration to young kids do you think kids care how much money Lionel Messi earns. I have a 7 year old son and he certainly doesn't. He just wants to go get a ball and pretend he's his favourite player whoever that may be on any chosen day.

I agree, and to be honest the board make a great deal out what people pay to see the footballers, and the managers who are deemed responsible for a clubs problems, are paid a poor share

You made your point in a quick and succint way. Good read and point well made. I think you could have compared it with other sports too, American sports in particular, have very high wages.


Seeing as you seem interested in the topic, you might find it interesting which guys get the top salary in each country and what sport they play. I'm surprised Hamilton warns that much! http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=6391145

Footballers are undoubtedly overpaid, at least those at the top of the game, but then so are stars in many sports and in the entertainment industry, as Thomond's list shows. Comparisons with people in the real world are a bit pointless - our office doesn't get millions from the Champions League and Sky TV or from people paying to watch us sit at our desk all day...

For me though, the biggest issue in this regard is the influence of agents and how they agitate for players getting ever-improving contracts.

The argument that football is a private business and the clubs can pay what they choose is only a half-truth. Look at the financial problems that have beset all sorts of clubs over the last decade or so (Leeds, Portsmouth, Rangers) when they have attempted to live beyond their means. Now it is only the clubs with the mega-rich benefactors (Chelsea, Man City) who can be in the market for the biggest transfers and the highest-earning players. Hopefully in the next few years there will be some changes that make the Arsenal model of financing much more the norm, which will hopefully rebalance the game a bit and make it more competetive.

For me, its not the fact that the footballers earn so much that i have an issue with. I agree with what the OP says. It’s the players attitudes that p. iss me off.

They have such a privileged – albeit relatively short – career, but what winds me up is when they moan about new contract offers “not respecting” them, or how they deserve to be paid the most at their club. How so many of them aren’t happy to earn £100,000 per week is beyond me (The example of Ashley Cole “only” being offered £55k a week by Arsenal a few years ago springs to mind).

They don’t do themselves any favours with the public who are generally going through a tough time financially, when they sit and demand an extra £50k a week because they’ve played well for 3 weeks in a row.

Looking at the list Thomond linked to, it looks like Modric is paid something like £60000 per week - good money if you can get it, but then he is a good player. Quite a few of the others in the list are getting around the same sort of money (between about £40k and £70K). Definitely generous wages, but if these were the amounts all the top players were on there'd not be anything like the same amount of controversy as long as the clubs can afford it.

However, look at the salaries that Man City pay to the likes of Tevez, Yaya Toure etc - more like £300k per week. And then Tevez refuses to play...

OK, Manny Pacquaio and A-Rod make about twice as much, and the F1 drivers are earning in a similar ball-park.

Footballers in the EPL should take a bit of a step back and consider how lucky they are that Murdoch chose football as the Trojan Horse to get Sky TV into most homes, and so was willing to pay grossly inflated rights fees to ensure exclusivity on live games for many years. Without this, they'd be getting only a small fraction of their current mega-bucks.

I do not watch much football at all, usually during the world cup I will pick a team and support them throught the world cup. So as far as an opinion on whether players get paid too much my opinion is largely personal and in relation to the real world.

Compared to other industries such as entertainment, golf, baseball, basketball and American football these are in a league of their own.

Compare it to top specialists in the medical field, or engineers etc it seems excessive.

Compare it to Joe Blogs in the street it is frankly ridiculous.

But then that is the world of capitalism isn't it.

The brightest spark doesn't necessarily earn the biggest cheque, life has to do with luck.

You start a little internet based program and before you know it, you are a billionaire, you start playing sport and become a mulitmillionaire, you are a genius and solves the biigest riddle in the universe and ...well you make some decent money.

It is all about the market of your chosen profession, it is just the way it works.

I just want to add, I think a lot of people see how much money these sport stars earn and think "What a waste of excessiveness"

dummy_half wrote:Footballers are undoubtedly overpaid, at least those at the top of the game, but then so are stars in many sports and in the entertainment industry, as Thomond's list shows. Comparisons with people in the real world are a bit pointless - our office doesn't get millions from the Champions League and Sky TV or from people paying to watch us sit at our desk all day...

But what is 'overpaid'?

It's all relative. They earn a lot more than teachers, doctors, engineers etc but a lot less than actors and musicians despite having much smaller career windows.

Take the conveniently timed Sunday Times Rich List, Dan Radcliffe (a one-trick pony who ability-wise is probably acting's answer to Dirk Kuyt) is worth £54m whilst that vampire prat Rob Pattinson (more like acting's Jamie O'Hara) is with £40m! Details are listed below and note this only consider actors/musicians under 30, therefore equivalent to the footballers the OP refers to.

The top 10 richest UK musicians aged 30 and under are as follows:

1. Adele - £20m

2. =Cheryl Cole - £12m

2. =Leona Lewis - £12m

2. =Katie Melua - £12m

5. Joss Stone - £10m

6. =Charlotte Church - £8m

6. =Craig David - £8m

6. =Paolo Nutini - £8m

9. Florence Welch - £7m

10. =Lily Allen - £6m

10. =Natasha Bedingfield - £6m

10. =Duffy - £6m

The top 10 richest UK actors aged 30 and under are as follows:

1. Daniel Radcliffe - £54m

2. Robert Pattinson - £40m

3. Keira Knightley - £30m

4. Kiera Chaplin - £28m

5. Emma Watson - £26m

6. Rupert Grint - £24m

7. Lily Cole - £8m

8. =Sarah Harding - £5m

8. =Rosie Huntington-Whiteley - £5m

8. =Kimberley Walsh - £5m

The Sunday Times Rich List 2012 will be published in full on 29 April.

Not everyone's brainy, not everyone's beautiful, not everyone has a talent (art/music/acting) but we do all have the freedom to make choices and decisions in life that will reflect the position we stand in today, tomorrow or 20 years time. As long as your not doing it illegally or harming others I don't really begrudge someone earning what they/their paymaster thinks they're worth.

A further question that this discussion opens up is 'what is the commercial value of a top footballer?'

Obviously, the answer depends on a number of things, including the age of the player, the success or otherwise of the team they are playing for, and on their marketability off the field.

Taking Cristiano Ronaldo as an example (in part because he is the highest paid footballer on Thomond's list, and in part because of the contrast in commercial terms between the two halves of his career):

Signed to Man U as a teenager for 12 million quid, and presumably for the first couple of years on a moderate salary. Improved as a player and got progressively better contracts as a result.
On the field was instrumental in Man U winning a number of domestic trophies and ultimately the Champions League
Off the field, became increasingly more marketable, so improving both his own income through promotional work and the club's income from merchandise.
Sold on to Real Madrid at a huge fee (£80 million).
Overall then, he was an enormous commercial success for Man U, even if he was earning big bucks in the later part of his United career.

Now onto his Real career, and for the purpose of this I'm assuming he's on roughly a 5 or 6 year contract and that any sell-on fee after this will be fairly minimal.
If he sees out his contract at RM, he will have cost the club somewhere in the region of $200 million (about £130 million). Clearly he retains high appeal with regard to merchandise, as he is probably the second best player in the world, but it's pretty difficult to figure out the value of a single player on merchandising for a team that has a global reputation.
The question is, what has to happen on the field for RM to get value from this outlay?
Attendances at the ground are unlikely to be affected, because their home games are generally sell-outs anyway.
Winning La Liga is unlikely to bring huge financial rewards in and of itself, as it's always just a case of who out of Madrid and Barca win in any given year.
I believe TV rights in Spain are operated on a club by club basis, so his presence may allow some renegotiation of Real's TV contract, which I guess might add a few million a season, but not sufficient to cover the costs of the player (especially given the state of the Spanish economy).
The big earnings will only come with Champions League victories, and I suspect the break-even point is more than one CL win within the duration of the contract.

Is Ronaldo a good enough player to make the difference, especially when Real are competing against such a good Barca side? Maybe - only time will tell. My suspicion though is that he'll turn out not to be a great buy in the commercial sense.

TopHat

I don't really disagree about it being relative - the amount successful people across the spectrum of the entertainment industry (in which I include sports) are all overpaid by comparison with those of us in the real world, but that's what their industries value them at. Just to clarify though, top sportsmen are worth very similar amounts to the actors and musicians on your list - Tevez would take 18 months to be paid as much as Adele is worth.

The interesting thing with your rich list is that talent seems to be largely an optional extra, and it's more a case of having the good luck to be in the right place at the right time - hence the presence of the three main Harry Potter actors in that list, none of who would really be considered hugely talented (if Dan Ratcliffe is the Dirk Kuyt of the big screen, what does that make Rupert Grint? ). Alternatively, for several of the women on the list (Keira Knightley, Cheryl Cole), being blessed with good looks can take you a long way even in the absence of any outstanding ability.

I certainly don't begrudge the likes of Adele, Joss Stone or Florence their success and financial security - they've got to where they are largely through their own ability as singers and song-writers. No-one would buy their music if they weren't good, as their reputation has been built solely on what they have produced, not hugely aided and abetted by high profile TV shows ramming them down our throats.

I would though draw something of a distinction between entertainment and football - studios and music companies have to operate at a profit or they go out of business (which a number of them have in recent years, in part because of failing to adjust to new technology), football clubs just try to find some Sheik or Russian oligarch with deep pockets to bail them out when they over-spend.

Shirt sales, apparently, Beckham paid off his transfer fee to Real Madrid within the first year from shirt sales only.

Crimey
I can just about believe that in Beckham's case - probably the most marketable (and marketted) player in history.

The only point I would make is that shirt sales peak very early after a player is signed, so that's a declining revenue stream even if the club introduces a new shirt every season.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

dummy_half wrote:



Take the conveniently timed Sunday Times Rich List, Dan Radcliffe (a one-trick pony who ability-wise is probably acting's answer to Dirk Kuyt) is worth £54m

like that comparison mate!

It's not how much someone is paid, it's whether they do enough to deserve such pay, team sports are very weird in this regard, you have the top players RIGHTFULLY earning vast sums of cash because the generate the revenue, but then you also have good players who barely ever get time on the field, but moved to 'big' clubs just for the payday.
Winston Bogarde is the prime example of this, payed £40k per week yet played 9 games in 4 years for Chelsea and I've no doubt that there are well over 100 people none of us know about; unless we support the team they're at; who are in similar situations, they'd rather be earning big bucks for doing nowt at a big club than trying their hardest for less money at a smaller club, these are the ones rightly despised by most people.

I am sure that most people that think footballers are over paid do not exculsively hate football.

I realises thet many rugby fans do feel that way however.

personally i dont see any reason to hate anyone. if i was offered 10 mill a year doing something i loved i would take it in a heartbeart, as would all the haters an all. Its jealousy and hypocrsy. end of story

its not that everyone who thinks footballers are over paid, hate the game. but a lot of people that i come across at least, hate football, and cite the above as their justification

yep i get ya, however i am sure deep down its just that they want to hate football - if the players got paid peanuts- or there sportsman in there repective sports got paid on the same level they would just use another excuse like there are chavs or whatever..

with you there, i guess in a way then ive achieved my purpose in exposing the lack of rationale behind their hatred :P?

JRW11Evea wrote:with you there, i guess in a way then ive achieved my purpose in exposing the lack of rationale behind their hatred :P?

What are you 10?

Football is my 1st sport, I love watching a good open game of football which is hard to call ect, but I still resent most of them, (not all of them) not because of what they earn but because of their behaviour thinking they can do what the hell they want, when they want and in most cases they get away with it because sponsors and teams don't want to upset their star player. And that simply isn't right.

If I got double the salery I'm on now I could afford most things and be greatful of a good life and thats only 0.0000001% on what they get, so a little compassion or being hamble wouldn't go a miss.

i am sure you earn significantly more than 5p a year bret lol

mystiroakey wrote:i am sure you earn significantly more than 5p a year bret lol

you know what I mean

A lack of humility is bad but so is jealousy. People should just get on with their own lives rather than bleeting on about others.

bretmeharty wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:i am sure you earn significantly more than 5p a year bret lol

you know what I mean

if i times 5mill by your % i get 5p.

what is your job?

I think you are being overworked dude!

yes tophat.. the problem with the players, isnt the players themselves its the media that represent them- we all have bad days and say silly things. Posters that have a pop at a lack of humility are no worse than psyco gf's that dont let you forget something you once said!

TopHat24/7 wrote:A lack of humility is bad but so is jealousy. People should just get on with their own lives rather than bleeting on about others.

It's only natural as a human being to be jealous of the massive fortunes that can get you anywhere and anything in life, (Im also not denying hard work got them to that point before anyone says that I am by the way) but Id like to think that if I was in that very lucky position I would show respect for everything and to everyone.

its not natural at all dude.

Bret i think miss understand how footballers have got to there position. they are no different from any other successfull person.

you have to work hard to acheive and take the odd risk along the way- you can still make money outside of football- its about having what it takes to acheive not just luck!!

I can understand resentment of people that are rich/wealthy without any work or effort, e.g. women that divorce rich husbands or kids living off inheritance (like Made in Chelsea) but dislike of those who've earned their position (whether you personally think they're overpaid or not) is just petty and childish.

Jealousy is fairly natural, but it's just a feeling, when you let it colour your thinking and decision making it becomes a weak and pathetic trait.

TopHat24/7 wrote:I can understand resentment of people that are rich/wealthy without any work or effort, e.g. women that divorce rich husbands or kids living off inheritance (like Made in Chelsea) but dislike of those who've earned their position (whether you personally think they're overpaid or not) is just petty and childish.

Jealousy is fairly natural, but it's just a feeling, when you let it colour your thinking and decision making it becomes a weak and pathetic trait.

I haven't said for one second they haven't earned it or even the fact they earn that much money bothers me per sae, (envious but who wouldn't be) the problem most people have is the attitude and dreadful behaviour they show as if they cant help themselfs then they play the hard done by card.

Jealousy is fairly natural, but it's just a feeling, when you let it colour your thinking and decision making it becomes a weak and pathetic trait.

Footballers do not deserve 50k+ per week surely. Fans are being priced out of going to games and buying shirts, away fans don't even bother anymore which leaves a large empty space behind one of the goals.

Not the footballers fault though is it.

I wouldn't say no to £50k per week.

They usually behave like chvas when a referee's deicision goes aggainst them. But of course most people who turn up to watch it behave like chavs so its normal the players pick it up.

That's because traditionally the fans and the players come from the same (relatively) impoverished communities, which is why the players are idiolised so much.

That's because traditionally the fans and the players come from the same (relatively) impoverished communities, which is why the players are idiolised so much.

They should've attended school. My parents were poor too but I still always went to school and didn't grow up acting like most these fans and players are.

PS. Sorry for late reply.