Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

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

    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    The other day my other halfs brother was telling me how in German proffessional football they have a wage cap and it works quite well there, I don't see why we shouldn't have a wage cap for players in this country, as well a cap on how much a club should spend.

    I think some of the wages are very OTT.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Roo Bix)
    When I saw the thread title, obviously, it's just un-ethical to tax footballers more. But when you think about how much the taxpayer is taxed, that is un-ethical.

    When thinking about this, it's interesting:

    Take a team like Tottenham Hotspur for example. They have 27 registered players in their first team squad, with each player earning (give or take) £7,000,000. That's a player net salary of £189,000,000.

    This is just one club. There are 44 teams in the Premier League. Of course, each team earns different and has different salaries for each player. But let's take the example and multiply it by 44:

    £8,316,000,000.

    Let's just say, 10% of that could help bring the country out of deficit.

    It just makes you think about teams in other leagues, in other countries. World Poverty eradicated, anyone?
    Erm....WOW. Just wow. Here are some facts about football:

    1. The Premier League has 20 TEAMS. That reduces your "estimate" by over half.
    2. No team could really afford £189,000,000 in wages. Maybe Man City.
    3. Most players DO NOT earn £7 million a year. Literally under 1% of professional players in the world earn that amount. The following eight players earn more than seven million pounds a year.

    Futebol Finance's 50 highest paid players in world football
    1 Cristiano Ronaldo (Real Madrid, £11.3million)
    2 Zlatan Ibrahimovic (Barcelona, £10.4million)
    3 Lionel Messi (Barcelona, £9.1million)
    4 Samuel Eto'o (Internazionale, £9.1million)
    5 Kaka (Real Madrid, £8.7million)
    6 Emmanuel Adebayor (Manchester City, £7.4million)
    7 Karim Benzema (Real Madrid, £7.4million)
    8 Carlos Tevez (Manchester City, £7million)


    Of these, only two play in England. So maybe you should read up on football before making a wholly incorrect post.

    For the record, the overall wage bill is £1.3 billion-seven billion less than your "estimate."
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KellyWellyWoo537)

    :facepalm:
    "When I have no intelligent conjecture I will simply resort to using smilies". Learn the meaning of supply and demand you braindead mug. Footballers, like them or not, are performing a service which very, very people can do hence the obscene wages. Last time I checked soldiers fall under the MOD a public service which is paid for via tax. Footballers are paid by private enterprises, they alone decide the amount they want to pay with the tax payer having little say in what this amount is. Respect for armed forces or otherswise the barrier of entry is way lower than that of a premiership footballer and hence they are not in high demand therefore they cannot charge exorbitant amounts for their services.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Suicide regardless its amusing people are stupid and narrow minded enough not to see the massive benefit the EPL brings in terms of revenue and investment especially considering the UK along with most of western europe loses its economic competitive edge. In case you didnt know the EPL has million of viewers around the world, merchandise is sold across the globe and huge salaries also means huge tax revenues. If tax rises any more that means the best players, which heavily feature in the EPL, leave to destinations where they arent taxed through the nose. With less top players, there is less interest, with less interest less revenue which only works in the UKs detriment. To think these are the same people pulling the same argument I am when it came to the governments view on tuition fees. Christ people are ignorant and stupid.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (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 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.
    First of all I would like to say that I do think football players' wages are obscene at present. As an Arsenal fan, I feel very similarly to Overmars (The poster) that is upset with players who do not give their all for their club and become increasingly out of touch with the fans they're playing for.


    That said, taxing all football players to hell, even if it was an internationally agreed policy is a bad idea for many reasons.
    We are a capitalist economy, we believe in free markets, that demand and supply should be the chief determinant of who gets paid what. We don't believe that the state should plan people's salaries as such power tends to lead to corruption/ prejudices ect. This is the first point.

    As a capitalist economy, those who get paid most/ profit most are those who's talents/expertise is of the most value to the most people. This is the key.
    Dr Smith is incredibly valuable to our economy. He saves on average 30 people's lives every week. Without him those people would die. However, Dr Smith lives in Newcastle, to a person in London, Dr Smith adds no value to them. John, Jack and Jill living in london do not benefit from Dr Smith's services. They've never even met him.

    However, Steven Gerrard is a Liverpool football player. Who plays well and scores goals. He entertains people. In London there are liverpool fans, who buy his shirt. In Newcastle are Liverpool fans who watch liverpool play on tv just because of Gerrard. In Southampton, fans pay for coach rides all the way to livepool just to watch Gerrard play at Anfield.

    The collective demand for Steven Gerrard is therefore far greater than that for Dr Smith. Yes Dr Smith does an amazing job, far more important in terms of personal value than Steven Gerrard. But the fact remains, people in london don't benefit from Dr Smith, they don't demand his services, neither do they benefit from them. They do not go out of their way to give money to Dr Smith, for they don't even know him. For Steven Gerrard, they know him, and pay money to him so he can entertain them. Thus the collective demand, for Steven Gerrard is greater than that of Dr Smith, thus Steven Gerrard is paid more than Dr Smith.

    That's how our system works, we believe that capitalism is the most appropriate system of economy, and despite it's weaknesses (which there are many) it still has more benefits than having a few people in power deciding who gets what as in a planned economy.

    So reiterate, I do not think that football players should be getting the obscene amounts that they do, but until us, the fans, stop paying for them to entertain us, our system dictates that they benefit from our demand.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    It's about capitalism, demand and supply basically.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oh my Ms. Coffey)
    PPE at Oxford, Checkmate.
    1. I severely doubt that you had done ten thousand hours for PPE by the age of thirteen.
    2. I doubt that you travelled distances during cold, wet, too hot, too cold, whatever weather conditions there were, during November, December, January, etc to train for your PPE degree.
    3. I doubt that, at university, you train for three or four hours a day, or work for three or four hours a day for your degree, including weekends.

    However, I'm not devaluing your degree, especially considering I got rejected from Oxford. I'm just a bit fed up with people saying "All footballers do is kick a ball around." It's untrue and it devalues the astounding amount of talent that a lot of them have.

    I haven't even begun to mention the money that footballers BRING IN to the economy through football-related incidia, merchandise, shirts, people buying FIFA, Sky Sports, etc. Although I'm extremely impressed that you're studying at Oxford, and are studying a difficult subject, your degree will never bring in the money to the economy that one year of David Beckham's shirt sales have, much less the money he indirectly brought into the economy when he sent England to the World Cup.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    you do know alot people in the second world war were conscripted right?



    seriously, with each post your sentiments become more retarded
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingMessi)
    1. I severely doubt that you had done ten thousand hours for PPE by the age of thirteen.
    2. I doubt that you travelled distances during cold, wet, too hot, too cold, whatever weather conditions there were, during November, December, January, etc to train for your PPE degree.
    3. I doubt that, at university, you train for three or four hours a day, or work for three or four hours a day for your degree, including weekends.

    However, I'm not devaluing your degree, especially considering I got rejected from Oxford. I'm just a bit fed up with people saying "All footballers do is kick a ball around." It's untrue and it devalues the astounding amount of talent that a lot of them have.

    I haven't even begun to mention the money that footballers BRING IN to the economy through football-related incidia, merchandise, shirts, people buying FIFA, Sky Sports, etc. Although I'm extremely impressed that you're studying at Oxford, and are studying a difficult subject, your degree will never bring in the money to the economy that one year of David Beckham's shirt sales have, much less the money he indirectly brought into the economy when he sent England to the World Cup.
    but dwayne roony spends that money of hookers when his ***** is preggers
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Yeah because the FA decides how tax revenue is distributed.


    :facepalm:


    Lord help me, the stupidity in this "student forum" is mind numbing
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    i think we should just tax Swayum instead :deal:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oh my Ms. Coffey)
    but dwayne roony spends that money of hookers when his ***** is preggers
    thats right all £90k goes towards hookers. TBH you sound like another sheep who has spent too much time in the midst of tabloid sensationalism, and you're meant to be an oxford intellectual. I want some proof of that please, regardless of how inept he may be at least rooney justifies the amount he is paid. Last time I checked the rooney's lived in the UK, paid tax here, paid a mortgage here and used services here.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Justin Hammer)
    thats right all £90k goes towards hookers. TBH you sound like another sheep who has spent too much time in the midst of tabloid sensationalism, and you're meant to be an oxford intellectual. I want some proof of that please, regardless of how inept he may be at least rooney justifies the amount he is paid. Last time I checked the rooney's lived in the UK, paid tax here, paid a mortgage here and used services here.
    I didnt apply to oxford, dont know why the guy above thought that.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    It's not just footballers, we should tax all of the super rich more.
    It's never going to happen though, the rich have very clever accountants who can make sure that they pay almost nothing.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Justin Hammer)
    Suicide regardless its amusing people are stupid and narrow minded enough not to see the massive benefit the EPL brings in terms of revenue and investment especially considering the UK along with most of western europe loses its economic competitive edge. In case you didnt know the EPL has million of viewers around the world, merchandise is sold across the globe and huge salaries also means huge tax revenues. If tax rises any more that means the best players, which heavily feature in the EPL, leave to destinations where they arent taxed through the nose. With less top players, there is less interest, with less interest less revenue which only works in the UKs detriment. To think these are the same people pulling the same argument I am when it came to the governments view on tuition fees. Christ people are ignorant and stupid.
    At least I have the common curtsy to not pre judge peoples opinions when I have not even met them. In case you are unaware, the quote function is designed for people to respond to a previous point. You didn't respond to my point. Stop being such a keyboard warrior and please learn some manners. Insulting language just shows that you have a very weak point.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by win5ton)
    At least I have the common curtsy to not pre judge peoples opinions when I have not even met them. In case you are unaware, the quote function is designed for people to respond to a previous point. You didn't respond to my point. Stop being such a keyboard warrior and please learn some manners. Insulting language just shows that you have a very weak point.
    No insulting language means I am insulting you, not addressing my point is a sign of a weak argument. You are doing a wonderful job right now. LOL how can you accuse me of "per judging peoples opinions". Never in my life have I heard a more idiotic expression. You have provided an argument and I have nullified and insulted it. You opinion is of no pedigree as you have merely spat back the whims of the knee jerk toolbags who have no grasp of capitalism, supply and demand or even basic economics and domino effects. Go learn something about the financial state of the society you live in before you return with another set of bull "footballers earn too much lol herp derp!!!11!" comments
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Justin Hammer)
    No insulting language means I am insulting you, not addressing my point is a sign of a weak argument. You are doing a wonderful job right now. LOL how can you accuse me of "per judging peoples opinions". Never in my life have I heard a more idiotic expression. You have provided an argument and I have nullified and insulted it. You opinion is of no pedigree as you have merely spat back the whims of the knee jerk toolbags who have no grasp of capitalism, supply and demand or even basic economics and domino effects. Go learn something about the financial state of the society you live in before you return with another set of bull "footballers earn too much lol herp derp!!!11!" comments
    "LOL how can you accuse me of "per judging peoples opinions"" (it's pre, not per)

    "To think these are the same people pulling the same argument I am when it came to the governments view on tuition fees"
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by damos92)
    It should be a 'If they play ****, they pay up' kind of thing. So, at the end of the footballing year, if Ashley Young for instance has done nothing, he isn't taking home what is essentially the poorer man's wages and spending thousands on nights out.
    Oh I am sorry, I didn't realise the state was paying Ashley Young's wages and had the right to set out the T&Cs of his contract with Aston Villa. I bet you'd love it if the state told your employer they had to fire you if you didn't meet a certain criteria the state, not your employer, deemed necessary. It is bitter socialist nonsense like this that makes me wonder what education exactly "students" are being subsidized for.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Roo Bix)
    When I saw the thread title, obviously, it's just un-ethical to tax footballers more. But when you think about how much the taxpayer is taxed, that is un-ethical.

    When thinking about this, it's interesting:

    Take a team like Tottenham Hotspur for example. They have 27 registered players in their first team squad, with each player earning (give or take) £7,000,000. That's a player net salary of £189,000,000.

    This is just one club. There are 44 teams in the Premier League. Of course, each team earns different and has different salaries for each player. But let's take the example and multiply it by 44:

    £8,316,000,000.

    Let's just say, 10% of that could help bring the country out of deficit.

    It just makes you think about teams in other leagues, in other countries. World Poverty eradicated, anyone?
    You are a clueless idiot. There are 20 clubs in the Premier League, many teams in which are not reflective of the average English club. Apart from the very top clubs(like Spurs), no one has 27 registered players all on 7m. Heck, lower end premier league and championship clubs struggle to make it to the top precisely because of the issue of squad depth. And we don't live in a country where the state suddenly taxes people to death and destroys any incentive for success, driving talent abroad (to Spain) and cutting off a major revenue stream for the state.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.