This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Why don't we just tax footballers and other sportsmen?

Most sportsmen don't earn very much. You're only looking at the top 12 Premiership clubs where salaries are in 6 figures. Think about the salaries at Championship, League One, League Two, Conference etc. and also foreign leagues (excluding La Liga and Serie A).

Also, pay isn't particularly high in many other sports which are not as well advertised (e.g. rugby, hockey, badminton). Only the top (and I mean really distinguished) sportspeople are making millions. Most aren't and most earn quite a bit less than the average consultant

Thus a very large gradated tax is needed so that the richest pay the most and the poorest the least.

Reply 81

KellyWellyWoo537

10

Original post by win5ton

Move along.

And another. If it wasn't for their stupidly inadequate skills you believe they need, we would be speaking ******* German right now.

Reply 82

34253

2

The reason footballers get paid more than soldiers, and traders get paid more than nurses, is scalability. If a footballer plays while 1 person watches then they will be paid a pittance, but it would be the same amount of effort for them to play for 1 million+. A soldier on the other hand is limited to a finite number of hours he can work in a day. A soldiers pay is relatively stable and safe, hence the reason there are few soldiers who don't earn enough to live. A footballers career entails a great amount of risk and comparatively few make it, and there are hundreds of thousands of footballers on the scrap heap the world over. Likewise a nurse can bandage a certain number of patients in a day, thus limiting their pay, but a trader would put just as much effort into trading £1000 as they would £1 bn. Again, for every successful trader you cry about there are hundreds if not thousands who have blown up their accounts trying to be top dog. These people took a substantially bigger risk, and they deserve the extra pay if they are one of the lucky few for whom it pays off for. Without these people the world would be boring, and nothing would be created.

Reply 83

34253

2

Original post by KellyWellyWoo537

And another. If it wasn't for their stupidly inadequate skills you believe they need, we would be speaking ******* German right now.

Most soldiers in WWI and II weren't specialists really, they were ordinary citizens drafted in to fight. Some of them probably were footballers LOL. Most people in the infantry (i.e. cannon fodder) are there because they were dicks at school and it beats the hell out of being on the dole.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 84

mkb230

2

Ever heard of the Robin Hood Tax.

Reply 85

Danny.

14

Original post by KellyWellyWoo537

And another. If it wasn't for their stupidly inadequate skills you believe they need, we would be speaking ******* German right now.

Logic fail lolol.

Reply 86

thetopnotch

16

Original post by Swayum

Seriously, some of them earn like, what, 100k a WEEK? Why not just tax the hell out of them? Most of them don't deserve it at all if you look at the way they play (I mean come on, they've been playing all their lives and yet a lot of their shots go way off target most of the times - some of it is SHOCKING).

Not just footballers, but other sportsmen to a lesser extent.

Yes, I know they are taxed, but I'm suggesting a massive tax.

*Edit*

FFS, people keep banging on about moving to other countries. I AM PROPOSING THAT EVERY COUNTRY DOES THIS. Or, if you'd prefer, imagine that we have just one country. Or, if you'd prefer, imagine a closed economy. Or, if you'd prefer, imagine a world tax.

*Edit 2*

Since some people are asking about numbers, I think it's fair to impose an [B]80% tax on footballers earning 100k/week

. Even then, they're earning 20k a WEEK. That's more than a lot of people earn in a year still. I definitely support an 80% tax on footballers who still make 20k a week more than I do raising the fees.

If you can't live off of 20k a week, you have issues.

All this would do is set a world wage cap of 100k/week.

And according to this it would be a tax on 25 players in the world: http://www.futebolfinance.com/en/os-50-maiores-salarios-de-jogadores-de-futebol-20092010/

Reply 87

TheRealDarthVader

14

Original post by Swayum

But that's the thing right - a businessman is selling stuff that people can use. Sure, he may be charging more than the manufacturing cost and other costs involved in production (such as an innovation cost), but it's nothing like a 100k a week salary!

What I'm really saying is the enjoyment that we get from a football match, which is the productivity a footballer adds, is not equal to the salary he gets. I would also agree that the productivity we get from the business man's good is less than the price we pay often, but it's a lot closer than in the case of the footballer's salary.

You're not thinking beyond paying the player money. Let's take Rooney as an example. Firstly, I agree that he is paid way too much, but I digress.

Rooney and his other famous footballer friends play for the global giant that is Manchester United. 70,000 people turn up to Old Trafford to watch Wayne and his friends. I think the cheapest seat will be around £40. To keep track of so many people, they need to employ the following:
Stewards
Ticket sales personnel
Police and security
Food and beverage purveyors
Hospitality staff - for the rich and important guests

Outside the ground you will also have men selling scarves and programmes

On the way to the ground the average fan will do one of the following:
Pay for a train ticket
Pay for parking
Pay for petrol
Pay for a bus
Buy a drink and snack at a convenience store
Buy a few drinks at the pub
Possibly visit a motorway service station if it is an away game

The above puts money into all these different areas, and also employs people to carry out those tasks.

After the game, whether it is good, bad or indifferent, kids will want their parents to buy them a shirt or a ball. This generates more money for the club, and means that people have to be employed to work the tills and stack the shelves.

Now we get onto where it becomes really big.

Aside from the 70,000 people at the ground, if the game is televised or broadcast on radio, millions of people around the country will be watching or listening. This creates jobs for camera men, commentators, technicians, presenters etc.

In the breaks of the programme, and before and after too, there will be many advertisements. This shows the name and service of a company to all the people who are watching and haven't gone to the toilet at half time. This in turns means that a group of people somewhere had to make the advert, creating jobs. With a heightened awareness of the product, more people are likely to use the services offered by this company, creating more money for them, and a need for more people to be employed.

On the shirts of the two teams playing will be a kit manufacturer, such as Nike or Adidas. People will associate the brand with sport, and will therefore try to emulate their heroes by wearing these products. This creates jobs for people selling them in JJB and other outlets, as well as jobs for people making them in Asia.

Also on the shirts will be a sponsor in the form of a very large company, often paying the club millions to have their name printed on there. For that season, every photo and video of the players in that team will have the company's name firmly placed in there. The many fans who wear these replica shirts will be displaying this company on their stomachs (good value for money in Newcastle), creating much more awareness of this company. For example, I had never before heard of Crown Paints, Autonomy, AIG, Aeon, Standard Chartered etc.

At the ground will be many hoardings and advertisement boards displaying products and company names. This will be seen by everyone at the game, everyone who watches the game on television, and everyone who sees the pictures in papers and magazines. You can see why this would be a good investment for the companies.

My own university has had hoardings at two England away games, one of them being Kazakhstan.

TV deals in this country are massive for Premier League and Champions League football. I believe Manchester United made over twenty million just from the Champions League alone last season, and they didn't even win it. Many people from all around the world watch football in this country, which is why we have seen many foreign companies sponsor our teams, such as Chang Beer at Everton.

To top it all off, the next three year TV deal agreed by foreign broadcasters to show the Premier League in their country has brought in £1,600,000,000 for the Premier League.

That is why footballers can earn so much money, and that is why people keep lapping it up.

Reply 88

TheRealDarthVader

14

Original post by KellyWellyWoo537

And another. If it wasn't for their stupidly inadequate skills you believe they need, we would be speaking ******* German right now.

As has been said, a lot of our soldiers back then were just ordinary people.

We all know just about any idiot can get into the army. The friends of mine who are in the forces have testified to the easyness of the tests and the lax in the regulations. Thus within six weeks, I could be a basic infantry soldier.

Throughout the many years I have been playing football, however, there is still so much I am unable to do. The truly exceptional talents of this world have to be admired, such as this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tFdTp_qanE

Skip to around one minute if you care to watch. In the meantime I will be awaiting your evidence to back up your theories.

Reply 89

TheRealDarthVader

14

Original post by win5ton

First part of your argument: They said it with the bankers and now they say it with the footballers...

Secound part; WTF.

1. The standard of footballers has been rising throughout the last century, so earlier in the century people killed themselves at an increased rate due to the low standard of football.
2. The better the footballers the less the suicide rate (according to you)
3. Therefore, countries who have better football leagues have a greater chance of having a low suicide rate!

NO.

For the first part, people don't pay to watch bankers crunch numbers and use calculators. Footballers are loved, adored and worshipped by the fans. This is something that they crave. Players currently move to the big leagues for the money. So many fantastic players come through France, but due to the wage cap they leave. French teams used to have much more economic power than they do now, looking back at Marseille, St. Etienne, and PSG in the 1990s. Even Lyon have dwindled lately, and their best players leave for bigger clubs who can pay them more, despite Lyon being one of the top eight teams in the world.

For the second part, the statistics come from cities on a montly basis. When there are large sporting events, there is a significant reduction in suicide rates. I said nothing in relation to the ability of the players, the leagues, or the country that league is in. It is a plain and simple fact that sporting events mean less suicides. This is most likely due to the cohesion amongst the fans. Being with other people supporting the same team as you makes an individual happy and secure. Even if your team loses, you are still with a group of friends that have an experience to talk about.

Reply 90

Arekkusu

16

Original post by Swayum

How is 40-50% high for someone earning 100k a week when that same tax is applied to someone earning 200k a year?

They add no real productivity to our world besides entertainment (compared with a doctor, let's say). I am proposing that sportsmen should earn less than doctors per year, not just in UK, but around the world.

Completely wrong; do you think anywhere near as many glory hunters would support Chelsea or Manchester United if they hadn't invested in the best players? Tickets, television, merchandise ... the industry generated by the top players in a single team is phenomenally large. This is what justifies their high salaries: it's entirely based on how much they can bring to the company rather than the objective worth of their job, as all salaries are. There isn't a big table of how much jobs are worth inscribed on a mystical stone tablet somewhere.

Such talent is also very exclusive which inflates the wages due to demand.

Reply 91

TheRustaman

9

Original post by Overmars

No-one despises footballer salaries more than I do. There is a (valid) argument to suggest that the top footballers will **** off to Spain if we take any more of their cash, but I don't give a ****. Those that remain are the ones that actually want to be at the club. I'd love nothing more than to see football back to the way it was -- more locals lads filling up teams and wearing the shirt actually meaning something. The pampered lifestyle they have now is ridiculous. The players are so out-of-touch with the fans and they just couldn't give a **** about the success of a club unless it directly affects them. And, we, like ****in' idiots keep paying silly ticket prices just to watch their half-arsed apathy. Tax the **** out of the scum -- let them **** off, and we'll get real football back.

I agree with this. True football has been lost in commercialism. :frown:

Reply 92

M_E_X

14

Original post by Swayum

I don't know who determines their salaries, the club manager? The efficient way of deciding how much someone earns is deciding how much marginal product they add and giving them exactly that. Footballers do not add a marginal product of 100k a week. This is therefore an inefficiency and socially unfair, which is what governments are there to fix in an economics context.

Football is a business. The teams with the best players make the most money. It is worth those companies paying a lot of money to attract the best staff. Almost all of the top clubs turn a healthy profit, which they wouldn't do it they offered lesser money and hired lesser players.

I can't see your point of view, it's a free market and that's a good thing (I think).

Reply 93

CyclopsRock

11

Taxation can never be justified solely on the grounds that one can afford to pay it. That's not how shop charge for goods - why should the charge for government services be any different?

Reply 94

win5ton

6

Original post by TheRealDarthVader

For the first part, people don't pay to watch bankers crunch numbers and use calculators. Footballers are loved, adored and worshipped by the fans. This is something that they crave. Players currently move to the big leagues for the money. So many fantastic players come through France, but due to the wage cap they leave. French teams used to have much more economic power than they do now, looking back at Marseille, St. Etienne, and PSG in the 1990s. Even Lyon have dwindled lately, and their best players leave for bigger clubs who can pay them more, despite Lyon being one of the top eight teams in the world.

For the second part, the statistics come from cities on a montly basis. When there are large sporting events, there is a significant reduction in suicide rates. I said nothing in relation to the ability of the players, the leagues, or the country that league is in. It is a plain and simple fact that sporting events mean less suicides. This is most likely due to the cohesion amongst the fans. Being with other people supporting the same team as you makes an individual happy and secure. Even if your team loses, you are still with a group of friends that have an experience to talk about.

1. You say that high ability footballers will leave.
2. You do not say that the ability of the league has an effect on suicide rates.
3. You say that footballers leaving may result in more suicides.
4. Massive contradiction.

BACK TO YOUR CAGE (unless you're still feeling pekish).

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 95

Linzikins

12

I think people are blind that think this idea is stupid or down to jealousy. Thousands of people across the UK are suffering in poor areas and being forced to live in homes that are no longer suitable because the government have stopped the re-building of run down houses. One footballer earns more money than a full family will in their lifetimes. The money generated by football could help so many run down cities across the UK.

Reply 96

SPMS

12

They would just be paid in other perks, a house given to them every week instead or something.

Reply 97

Sabertooth

20

Original post by Overmars

Market inefficiency shouldn't be the discussion. It's about social inefficiency, which all comes down to preferences -- I can assure you there is nothing 'right' or 'wrong' about it, so claiming that it is wrong makes you look a bit silly.

Yes you could argue it's a social inefficiency (I didn't say you couldn't) but, if you bothered to read the OP's posts and his responses to me (or indeed my posts to him) you'll see he stated several times about a market inefficiency, my query was over that statement.

So if anyone here is looking a bit silly it's 1) the OP for claiming several times it's a market inefficiency when clearly knowing zero about what that means and 2) you, for jumping in on the attack on me when I was highlighting the OP's error. :smile:

Reply 98

M_E_X

14

Original post by Linzikins

I think people are blind that think this idea is stupid or down to jealousy. Thousands of people across the UK are suffering in poor areas and being forced to live in homes that are no longer suitable because the government have stopped the re-building of run down houses. One footballer earns more money than a full family will in their lifetimes. The money generated by football could help so many run down cities across the UK.

The idea that different people earn different amounts of money, and that the amounts of money people earn are dictated by the laws of supply and demand and free marks, is central to the idea of capitalism and something which is very important to me.

Your idea is completely against that - the money earned by anyone above average wage could be used to help those earning below average wage...but that's not how capitalism works.

Reply 99

TheRealDarthVader

14

Original post by win5ton

1. You say that high ability footballers will leave.
2. You do not say that the ability of the league has an effect on suicide rates.
3. You say that footballers leaving may result in more suicides.
4. Massive contradiction.

BACK TO YOUR CAGE (unless you're still feeling pekish).

I was stating that football was important for many reasons, with one of them being just how much the social belonging side means to some people.

If the better players do leave then people may become disillusioned with the game, and perhaps will stop watching games with friends and being part of their social circle.

It is relative. If a medium or low standard league has dedicated fans and then ceases to exist, fans will feel terrible, just as they would if it was a high standard league. Thus it is not the standard that will affect people, but the reduction in standard of the product itself that is held so dear to people. With a mass migration of great players from our country, suddenly the top leagues and players in this team will be so much worse than they were previously, taking out a lot of the meaning and bond for some fans.

A lot of fans have their favourites, and if these players were to leave it would be a catastrophe for them.

Why don't we just tax footballers and other sportsmen?

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you