i was talking about the fact that it seems 75% of people agree that footballers are overpaid, judged by the poll.
but i can't say i understand what you mean when you say 'market forces' XD
Are footballers overpaid?
- Thread starter csa99
- Start date
- Replies 175
- Views 14K
i was talking about the fact that it seems 75% of people agree that footballers are overpaid, judged by the poll.
but i can't say i understand what you mean when you say 'market forces' XD
Sure, it's much easier to become a factory worker, but it's the base of the economy right now. But if you feel they're not important, replace factory worker with doctor, for instance. A guy kicking a ball earning several times what a man saving lives earns? Another example, firefighters. They're volunteers here (Don't know how it works in the islands), and they risk their lives for people they may not even know. Sometimes they risk it for animals or trees, why exactly should earn a footballer more than a fireman? You'll probably bring your supply/demand argument again, which is not wrong, I'm not questioning your reasoning. But the poll is basically asking us if we think they're overpaid, and I think, and apparently many more do, that they indeed are. Maybe not in the strictly economical sense, but in the moral, logical and practical sense, in my opinion, they are.
I don't wan't to argue about the war in Iraq, I was just pointing out how ridiculous that comment was.
Im in two minds over this, on one hand i say yes because no one should earn £30m a year to play football when there are people doing alot more dangerous, worthwile jobs on less than 20k a year. On the other hand i say no because you have to give up your life pretty much, for 11 months of the year you are training and doing PR work. You can rarely go out with friends and truly switch off and enjoy yourself. Plus you put yourself into the public domain, 1 slip up or mistake and you can have tens of thousands of people judging you. Couple this with the fact at any moment you can face a career ending injury with little other skills to keep yourself in work.
rooney gets paid 180k, becuase on the pitch he is deemed that important to the clubs success, and off the pitch his shirts sale will make the club money. he demands 180k becasue he knows that the club can afford it and because there are very few players in the world who can supply what he can
its like a diamond. if they were as common as a stone, they would be worthless.
At the moment? Its very very hard to get any sort of work!!
Deovoultcha
Member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2010
- Messages
- 871
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Why does ANYBODY give two *****?
Football is a corporate sport at the elite level, clubs are businesses, they make profit, they'll pay the employees that get results, which coverts to media attention, and exposure, and attendances, and T.V. views, and global monetary increase in income. End of.
Football is a corporate sport at the elite level, clubs are businesses, they make profit, they'll pay the employees that get results, which coverts to media attention, and exposure, and attendances, and T.V. views, and global monetary increase in income. End of.
Player wages are fine. Yes, they are absurd to the average joe but you have to think about it from a different perspective. These are highly "specialized" jobs that only very few can do and if you think about it that way then you can think about any other profession in the real world where highly specialized folks make insane amounts of money. It's no different in soccer. It's all a business.
A lot of footballers used to transfer salaries offshore to mitigate tax but these schemes have thankfully been stopped now hence a lot of players asking for wage increases to cover the 50pc tax rate.
I am not against the wages they earn but a higher proportion should be performance or results related!
Watching Malouda and Mikel earn £60k per week for strolling about this season is not value for money!!
I am not against the wages they earn but a higher proportion should be performance or results related!
Watching Malouda and Mikel earn £60k per week for strolling about this season is not value for money!!
there are two issues here:
are they overpaid?
do they (morally or ethically) deserve it?
in the first case they are not overpaid.
in the second case you could put case that they dont "deserve" it in the way doctors soldiers nurses do. but they are two separate issues that shouldnt get muddied together, this could be said of elite positions in a lot of jobs though
are they overpaid?
do they (morally or ethically) deserve it?
in the first case they are not overpaid.
in the second case you could put case that they dont "deserve" it in the way doctors soldiers nurses do. but they are two separate issues that shouldnt get muddied together, this could be said of elite positions in a lot of jobs though
yeah i'll agree with that..
they don't deserve it, but you can't blame them for having/requesting that much money.
Economics doesn't take into account morals unfortunately, that's going towards Marxism. If the money is there to be earnt and they take it, then I couldn't care less, it's how business works.
Your argument is dumb. a) The banks are far, far more important to our economy than factories, not that I'd like to see factories go, but banks are more important. And why would a doctor become a factory worker? I don't see what you're getting at with that. The market demands your skill set, if you have better skills you get paid more, if you have the best skills in a small market, you get paid ridiculous amounts. It's not just footballer's, the best businessmen, the best bankers etc. all get paid ridiculous sums. You keep going back to the fact they're "just" kicking a ball around. Why don't we examine the actual numbers that have their ability?
Taking 25 men squads, from 20 teams in the top four leagues in the world. 20*25*4 = 2000 players. Of course I'm ignoring other starlets from other leagues etc. but it's a good baseline figure. So 2000 players with the capability to play at the top. The majority of these are your average PL footballer, if they demand more wages, the club will refuse because they can easily replace them, so they earn a "low" premier league wage. Now, say you're Lionel Messi. You're a 1/2000 player in a highly lucrative industry. You demand more wages from Barcelona. Are they going to say no? Not really, since there's no way they can replace him.
Irish Scouse
Bob Kelso. ❥
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2009
- Messages
- 4,986
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
No.
They provide entertainment, they do not effect day to day lives, being good at a sport shouldn't earn you millions upon millions per annum.
They provide entertainment, they do not effect day to day lives, being good at a sport shouldn't earn you millions upon millions per annum.
Why do you have to affect day to day lives to warrant increased wages? Do you think Microsoft impact on day to day life, but their CEO's earn a fortune. If you've ever even watched a game on Sky, then you're contributing to the reason wages are like this. It's a billion pound industry, it's only natural the employee's in that industry take a large slice of that money. It's also trickle down economics, if you want the rich businesses etc. to earn the same as your police man and doctor, then you're essentially worsening society, even you may think it's for the better. Like Mike. said, Rooney pays £90k a week in tax. He alone is paying for an extra three police man to be on our street each week. So you are indirectly benefiting from him earning so much, and directly benefiting from enjoying football. Socialism doesn't work, you just have to accept that the world will always be morally imperfect.
This thread makes me realise why economics really should be a compulsory subject at schools.
Irish Scouse
Bob Kelso. ❥
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2009
- Messages
- 4,986
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
On top of what they earn they get millions from sponsorships. Whatever someone tells me, they are not deserving of millions per year. Very very few jobs would warrant millions, the money could be better spent elsewhere.
Wow you missed my point by a lot. A doctor wouldn't become a factory worker, I was merely reproducing my argument about factory workers with the very same argument, but using a doctor as an example. And yes, they're just kicking a ball around. Regardless of their skill, it is what they're doing. You may tell me that the best doctors get a lot of money, but they're better at saving lives. The best footballers are better at kicking a ball around. Yes, they may be only a few, but one doctor, in my opinion, is worth a thousand footballers. A simple nurse is worth the whole **** Premier League, if you ask me, as long as they can help save a single life. Now, take a single footballer, not even one of the very best, and according to his bank account, he's worth a "Premier League" of doctors. He's probably worth a "Football League" of teachers, too. And to close my argument (And I don't intend to post again here
), although I agree with you about this being the way the market works, when 14% of the world population (Give or take, it's from Wikipedia...) is affected by malnutrition, and a guy kicking a ball around is earning 15 million a year, well, forgive me for my morality, for being "Marxist", but yes, I do think they're overpaid, and the market can lick my ******** .PS. I'm not trying to offend anyone, if there's an economist or a (very) staunch capitalist around and takes offense, well, I most sincerely apologise. And if you feel like discussing this further feel free to PM me, I just don't wanna spam the thread anymore
PPS. Forgive me for my use of "
", I guess I've been using MSN too much lately, I despise these thingies.The money they are earning is being re-distributed to those areas where it "could be better spent". You miss the point that if we regulate the industry, then it becomes far less productive, and we receive less taxable product, and less money flows round the economy, so we end up with less to spend on areas where we need to spend. Socialism sounds great on paper, it's severely flawed in practice.
Wow you missed my point by a lot. A doctor wouldn't become a factory worker, I was merely reproducing my argument about factory workers with the very same argument, but using a doctor as an example. And yes, they're just kicking a ball around. Regardless of their skill, it is what they're doing. You may tell me that the best doctors get a lot of money, but they're better at saving lives. The best footballers are better at kicking a ball around. Yes, they may be only a few, but one doctor, in my opinion, is worth a thousand footballers. A simple nurse is worth the whole **** Premier League, if you ask me, as long as they can help save a single life. Now, take a single footballer, not even one of the very best, and according to his bank account, he's worth a "Premier League" of doctors. He's probably worth a "Football League" of teachers, too. And to close my argument (And I don't intend to post again here
PS. I'm not trying to offend anyone, if there's an economist or a (very) staunch capitalist around and takes offense, well, I most sincerely apologise. And if you feel like discussing this further feel free to PM me, I just don't wanna spam the thread anymore
PPS. Forgive me for my use of "
There are far more people with the ability to be Doctor's than there are premier league footballer's. If there were only 2000 people with the capability to produce medical care, imagine how much they'd be paid? The same principle applies. You say a nurse is worth a thousand footballer's? Wayne Rooney's tax money alone pays for 234 nurses a year. Remind me, why is that a bad thing?