Footballers aren't overpaid

No. They're not benefiting anyone. By the way, I'm not forgetting about all the billions of pounds and dollars that the world football industry generates. I'm referring to the actually activity itself in its most basic, bare form. If you look at what they're doing - i.e. kicking a ball around a grass pitch - it doesn't take a genius to realise it's a completely useless activity. It's not like they're growing food, or manufacturing goods, or providing a service to people.

Here is a good quote from Michael Owen on the subject:

‘If you have a skill, which people are prepared to part with their hard-earned cash in order to watch, those with the skill will always command high salaries.
‘Nobody complains if pop stars sell out a stadium and rake in millions from a tour. Nobody complains about the reported weekly salaries, according to Forbes, of sportsmen such as Kobe Bryant (£700k), Roger Federer (£800k), Phil Mickelson (£480k) and Usain Bolt (£290k).
‘What is so different to a footballer earning similar amounts for being at the top of their own particular sport?’

What are your thoughts on the matter?

You're not charged through the roof to watch golf to help subsidise players' wages unlike football. For two or three matches you got yourself a decent starting bag of clubs you can use for the rest of your life. And many golf courses can be played on for a reasonable fee, even TPC Sawgrass does good offers as does St Andrews. That is why the film star argument falls, though Michael Owen did not mention this one. You pay £12 to watch a film or so. It costs £50 or so to watch a football match.

At least Phil Mickelson is a decent guy though.

Only a select few teams charge fans extortionate prices anyway and even when the clubs do, it's never to subsidise wages - it's the greed of the owners, not for the players. Match day revenue only constitutes a tiny proportion of income for the big clubs. Anyway, going by your argument, surely can buy a football for a fiver and join a local team for life too? Only costs 10 quid or so a week to play for a local team - and that's assuming you aren't getting paid and it's just park level.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Are you saying there is no trickle down effect between players' wages and ticket prices? I would say a bit more than a select few charge a fair amount for tickets, basically being most of the Premier League. I stopped going when the cost was too much. Unfortunately fans go to matches and protest about the prices with banners and posters like Arsenal, Liverpool and Man City fans but you won't see me do that. While I appreciate most of the TV money pays their wages, the supporters should not be discarded. Germany has a limit on ticket prices from what I have seen. Would the Premier League be so marketable as a brand with empty stadiums?

Are you saying there is no trickle down effect between players' wages and ticket prices? I would say a bit more than a select few charge a fair amount for tickets, basically being most of the Premier League. I stopped going when the cost was too much. Unfortunately fans go to matches and protest about the prices with banners and posters like Arsenal, Liverpool and Man City fans but you won't see me do that. While I appreciate most of the TV money pays their wages, the supporters should not be discarded. Germany has a limit on ticket prices from what I have seen. Would the Premier League be so marketable as a brand with empty stadiums?

I agree on the issue of ticket prices being out of hand - I am an Arsenal fan but I am fortunate enough to be able to go to matches fairly cheaply. However, I do not think that all of the Premier League charges too much - last year, 12/20 Premier league clubs charged under £500 for a season ticket which I think is quite reasonable at £25 a game. I disagree about ticket prices being affected by wages. Bayern Munich, for example, have a hefty wage bill yet season ticket prices are cheaper than all of the Premier League clubs - wages don't have to play a part. TV deals form a massive part of income and, as I said, match day revenue is quite small in comparison.

But there isn't empty stadiums - people are still going at the current price, so the current price isn't too high.

On the contrary, people like you are what is wrong with this country. This country, the government, does not owe you anything. If you want something, go out and earn it. That's what pro sportspeople have done, they have earned it, so they deserve it.

I definitely agree that footballers have earned their money and worked hard etc. But what I don't agree with is the sheer amount they earn. They don't deserve 300k a WEEK just for being good and working hard. Plenty of people out there work harder and are more influential to society and don't earn anywhere near that much money.

Posted from TSR Mobile

True, but Bayern Munich are run by "football people" and they even subsidised their fans' tickets against Arsenal and I believe one of their administrators stated categorically that football fans are not to be treated as mugs. I guess £25 a match would be reasonable considering how weak the currency was/is but ther are clubs who know fans put 'loyalty' ahead of finances so we have the ticket issue with Man Utd. I support Chelsea and I am used to the banter of having rubbish attendance at match day but, clubs that don't have such a strong support, are probably less able to seek aggressive returns in matchday revenue.

No. They're not benefiting anyone. By the way, I'm not forgetting about all the billions of pounds and dollars that the world football industry generates. I'm referring to the actually activity itself in its most basic, bare form. If you look at what they're doing - i.e. kicking a ball around a grass pitch - it doesn't take a genius to realise it's a completely useless activity. It's not like they're growing food, or manufacturing goods, or providing a service to people.

The fact that football generates such a huge revenue and the fact that it's such an enormous industry is not evidence of its usefulness, humanity doesn't rely on a bunch of people kicking a ball around for its survival or sustenance. Just because people like to throw their money at something useless, doesn't mean that the people getting paid deserve that money.

I edited it to say 5% because I realised I was focusing too much on the absolute highest-paid players.

Why should ridiculously-paid people take a pay cut when their company is making a deficit in excess of £40m every year? Yeah, I guess I don't know. Same applies to executives mind,

Executives are responsible for the companies revenue, footballers aren't


Posted from TSR Mobile

I definitely agree that footballers have earned their money and worked hard etc. But what I don't agree with is the sheer amount they earn. They don't deserve 300k a WEEK just for being good and working hard. Plenty of people out there work harder and are more influential to society and don't earn anywhere near that much money.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Especially when you take into account how much people in the teaching, social work, youth work, care and nursing professions are paid and the hours they have to work (often unpaid). I could argue these jobs are waaaaaaaaaaay more stressful than football and waaaaaaaaay more important too.

We can do without footballers in society, but we can't have a society without teachers, social workers, youth workers, carers and nurses.

I disagree with you. It often helps to bridge certain problems such as international relations, anti racism and anti homophobia campaigns. It also gives many people jobs (hospitality, groundsmen, physiotherapists etc) so in your words 'it is providing a service to people' -employment, let alone entertainment. And it gives young people a role model- its far better kids are inspired by footballers so they go out and get exercise and learn teamwork and communication instead of sitting inside all day on the xbox becoming fat and lazy and unsociable (I know not everyone does this but for the sake of comparison).

I think anyone who thinks footballers aren't overpaid are crazy, that's my opinion. There is no argument to be had. You can just look at their wages and you see the obvious answer.


Yes they are talented and deserve to be paid a bit... but do they really need to be paid THAT much? Anybody who thinks no either loves football too much or is in denial.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Does a doctor NEED to be paid 100k? No, you can live comfortably on far less than that. The only difference between 100k and 10 million is the one earning 10 million can buy more needless luxuries.