overpaid footballers a disgrace!

What about that was nasty?

Condescending perhaps, but I don't feel it was nasty.

Sorry but the 'Get over it.' made it sound like you didn't care, it's hard to understand other peoples views via text unless you type a 1000 page essay every post! :biggrin:

It's just a topic I'm passionate about.

Reply 21

Komakino

14

The argument against of course is that if people are willing to pay to watch/for merchandise/etc. then there's really no ethical argument against.
I find it outrageous, but I think the ethical argument is hard to push given that no public funds are DIRECTLY involved.
I think people that spend so much of their wages on football and merchandise are pretty duped, but it's their choice at the end of the day.

A more pressing ethical concern is the amount of footballers and football agents, and even managers, chairman's, CEO's etc. that avoid paying the taxes they should. Various legal specialists actively seek clients for the purpose of saving them taxes by storing 'savings' in offshore accounts.
So, this does affect the public as we would have millions if not billions more in public funds if these people paid the correct amount of taxes.
An irony being that the people that pay the money week in week out which allows these people to earn so much money do by and large pay the correct taxes, and they are being hit with a double whammy.
So, although the DIRECT argument does not really stand, the INDIRECT argument - that they are cheating the state out of taxes - does work.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 22

username129099

15

Original post by sicarius1992

You've missed his point. Footballers are overpaid with regards to benefits to society. Whilst the finer details of some jobs aer subjective in terms of benefits I guess you can surely see how wrong it is that footballers and paid more than scientists for example?

The point he was making was overpaid, is a term used to describe where someone is being paid far more than they are worth. People go to see football, watch it on tv, buy shirts out of choice, if people were not willing to do those things the money wouldn't be there. That's how much people are willing to pay these people to be entertained. The market determines their worth.

They are not overpaid at all. Nurse, Armed Forces, Scientists may well be underpaid, but that because no one want to part with their cash to pay them anymore.

Reply 23

username453132

11

Original post by Bax-man

Who decides the benefits to society? You talk about it as there being a means by which you can measure "benefit" and then make meaningful comparisons. You can't. You can only decide which benefits you the most, not other people. Besides, is it not evident footballers provide many individuals with a benefit they value highly - they believe that top flight footballers are worth the amount they are paid, and finance that through attendance at matches and merchandise so as well as not being able to make comparisons of benefit, you can't claim that footballers don't provide benefit - they clearly do, to millions of people around the world.

Also, I don't believe it's "wrong" to allow private property owners to decide how to allocate their property (that is, spend their money) how they wish, including on paying the salaries of expensive footballers.

I stated before that when taking every occupation into account the idea of benefits to society and the levels within that are subjective. I never said that footballers don't provide benefits, but anyone can clearly see that some people deserve to be rewarded more than others. I use scientists as a very clear example.

Original post by yoyo462001

Does the real world make you hippies sad :console:

I'm asking for scientists to be paid more than footballers and that makes me a hippy who can accept the real world? What a warped mind you have.

Original post by doggyfizzel

The point he was making was overpaid, is a term used to describe where someone is being paid far more than they are worth. People go to see football, watch it on tv, buy shirts out of choice, if people were not willing to do those things the money wouldn't be there. That's how much people are willing to pay these people to be entertained. The market determines their worth.

They are not overpaid at all. Nurse, Armed Forces, Scientists may well be underpaid, but that because no one want to part with their cash to pay them anymore.

You and a few others have clearly misunderstood me. But that last section at least had a point that makes some sense.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 24

Rzc

12

Original post by berryboysh

We had this discussion in one of our college classes recently about overpaid footballers and many people had different views. My personal view is that they (footballers) get the joy of playing the game of football (which they'd play anyway regardless or not if they get payed) as well as being paid an absolute fortune, of a monthly salary of average £150,000 to £250,000 a week, £1,000,000 a month and £12,000,000 a year!! for kicking a damn ball around a pitch!!

Many people go to work (and don't enjoy it) and work 8,10, and 12hr shifts on some really hard tough jobs and are getting weekly wages of about £250-£300 a month.

I don't like football, I don't support no damn team but What is so interesting to watch about a group of grown men kicking a ball around a field and getting grossly overpaid?

It's the entertainment industry; those with skill excel.

I don't like it anymore than you do..however, what really annoys me is when they complain about having it tough. Such as Rooney, when fans were booing him he got in a mood about it!

Reply 25

yoyo462001

16

Original post by sicarius1992

I'm asking for scientists to be paid more than footballers and that makes me a hippy who can accept the real world? What a warped mind you have.

They don't deserve to get paid more. It doesn't make any sense unless they 'bring in' revenue that makes it profitable to make them get paid more. I'm sorry but it's utter stupidity to want someone who isn't revenue generating to be paid a lot. Start a business and pay people massive salaries regardless of their revenue generation lets see how far that business survives, and who the heck would be paying them :facepalm2:

Reply 26

LadyRowena

9

Most football clubs get their money from merchandise and ticket sales, as well as the players earning extra from sponsorship deals etc.

They're not getting any of your money unless you give it to them. If the taxpayer was subsidising them then I could understand the ire but tbh it's a popular game and the fans are willing to give their money to their clubs.

Reply 27

username453132

11

Original post by yoyo462001

They don't deserve to get paid more. It doesn't make any sense unless they 'bring in' revenue that makes it profitable to make them get paid more. I'm sorry but it's utter stupidity to want someone who isn't revenue generating to be paid a lot. Start a business and pay people massive salaries regardless of their revenue generation lets see how far that business survives, and who the heck would be paying them :facepalm2:

You still haven't understood me, of course I know when you're talking about things in a strict capitalist and totally economic viewpoint that scientists don't deserve to be paid anything when comparing them with footballers. Stop assuming I'm a moron.

Anyway I'm done with this thread since I'm just going to draw in more people who have no scope of reality beyond what they learned in an economics class.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 28

xoxAngel_Kxox

21

I agree that the wages are shockingly high (but then again I don't like football haha) but my cousin plays football semi-pro, and the hours he has to put in are horrendous- not just playing but also training, community fundraising and much more that you wouldn't expect.. so it is a lot more than just "kicking a ball around the pitch"..

Reply 29

yoyo462001

16

Original post by sicarius1992

You still haven't understood me, of course I know when you're talking about things in a strict capitalist and totally economic viewpoint that scientists don't deserve to be paid anything when comparing them with footballers. Stop assuming I'm a moron.

You sound like one. What's the point in saying those things then. It's like me saying everyone should be a billionaire, it's obviously not feasible so why would I say it.

Reply 30

gingerrama

14

Original post by sicarius1992

You still haven't understood me, of course I know when you're talking about things in a strict capitalist and totally economic viewpoint that scientists don't deserve to be paid anything when comparing them with footballers. Stop assuming I'm a moron.

What kind of viewpoint are you talking about things from then?

I want a wage cap.

Original post by sicarius1992

I stated before that when taking every occupation into account the idea of benefits to society and the levels within that are subjective. I never said that footballers don't provide benefits, but anyone can clearly see that some people deserve to be rewarded more than others. I use scientists as a very clear example.

I'm asking for scientists to be paid more than footballers and that makes me a hippy who can accept the real world? What a warped mind you have.

You and a few others have clearly misunderstood me. But that last section at least had a point that makes some sense.

In terms of value then most certainly- doctors, nurses, policeman, scientists all deserve to be made much more. But unfortunately that's not the type of society we have. Perhaps if they had adverts 24/7 and a place on skynews, and several talk-radio shows, then people would want to pay more to them.
Unfortunately the institutions don't have the same kind of money as corrupt, tax avoiding, multi-millionaires whom finance professional football clubs.

Reply 33

gingerrama

14

Original post by T.I.

I want a wage cap.

So that people like Roman Abramovich have more money to keep for themselves?

Reply 34

chrislpp

15

Original post by berryboysh

We had this discussion in one of our college classes recently about overpaid footballers and many people had different views. My personal view is that they (footballers) get the joy of playing the game of football (which they'd play anyway regardless or not if they get payed) as well as being paid an absolute fortune, of a monthly salary of average £150,000 to £250,000 a week, £1,000,000 a month and £12,000,000 a year!! for kicking a damn ball around a pitch!!

Many people go to work (and don't enjoy it) and work 8,10, and 12hr shifts on some really hard tough jobs and are getting weekly wages of about £250-£300 a month.

I don't like football, I don't support no damn team but What is so interesting to watch about a group of grown men kicking a ball around a field and getting grossly overpaid?

They bring more money to the economy from kicking a football for a week than you will working 9-5 for a decade.

Argue with that fact hunny.

Reply 35

tazarooni89

20

Would you rather the owners of the football club just kept that money to themselves? :s-smilie:

I have no issue with the best players being paid high sums, but when you have players like Wayne Bridge on £90,000 per week thats when it starts to get silly!

Unless you're someone like Cashley Cole the players are often just taking what is being offered to them. Seth Johnson is a classic example. When discussing a transfer to Leeds he and his agent were prepared to settle for £20k per week, but the club offered him double that. Nobody in his position would turn the money down, yet he still got abused for years as Leeds went into financial ruin.

The problem is not with the players, but with the people running the club.

Original post by 09042850

Stop going to the football matches everyweek and see how much their wages decrease.
Love how people complain about footballers and still go to see the matches! :biggrin:

Makes no difference if you have a rich owner subsidising the team. My local team Colchester is a good example of this, last season they had one of the biggest wage bills in League One with an average attendance of 5,000. The clubs we were competing with (Leeds, Norwich, Millwall, Charlton etc) had 3-4 times that. It wouldn't have made a blind bit of difference if half our fans stopped turning up. You can apply this to Man City too.. their players will still get their wages if 40k or 40 fans turn up.

Reply 37

M_E_X

14

Original post by tazarooni89

Would you rather the owners of the football club just kept that money to themselves? :s-smilie:

This is always the question I ask when people whine to me about footballers being overpaid. Then they say "no...they should just make ticket prices cheaper!"

So I say "oh, good idea! And maybe Microsoft could make their software cheaper and BP could make their oil cheaper and pay their staff less, too, wouldn't that be nice?"

For some reason, people forget that every single football club is a business. The main asset of many clubs is their playing staff: they pay high wages to attract and retain them.

Reply 38

jklmn

10

Original post by berryboysh

We had this discussion in one of our college classes recently about overpaid footballers and many people had different views. My personal view is that they (footballers) get the joy of playing the game of football (which they'd play anyway regardless or not if they get payed) as well as being paid an absolute fortune, of a monthly salary of average £150,000 to £250,000 a week, £1,000,000 a month and £12,000,000 a year!! for kicking a damn ball around a pitch!!

Many people go to work (and don't enjoy it) and work 8,10, and 12hr shifts on some really hard tough jobs and are getting weekly wages of about £250-£300 a month.

I don't like football, I don't support no damn team but What is so interesting to watch about a group of grown men kicking a ball around a field and getting grossly overpaid?

Supply and demand :angry:

, FOOL...

You really are a clever one, a particular highlight for me was:
'a monthly salary of average £150,000 to £250,000 a week, £1,000,000 a month'.
WTF LMAO :thumbsup: