Why are football players paid so much? Why not give it to charity?

Watch
This discussion is closed.
AnharM
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#1
So I've had this debate with my sister just a minute ago, where she argued that football players get paid too much money, and I responded by saying that the football clubs receive a lot of money through TV revenues, ticket sales on match days etc. due to the supply and demand of football worldwide. Therefore, the clubs have to share that vast amount of money they receive with the players because the owners and the chief executives can't be earning huge amounts of money, that will be unfair. I also argued the fact that their career ends at the age of around 33, so they won't be able to provide for themselves and their family after retiring from football, so that's why players receive a lot of money. Plus, taking into account that football players are normally taxed at 45% (http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/n...-salaries.html) in most countries, players who earn £200,000 pw before tax, actually receive around £5m a year (before taking into consideration sponsorship money, which is still a LOT).

So I asked her, if the money shouldn't go directly to the players, where should it go? And she responded by saying that a large portion of the money they receive through TV revenues etc. should be given to charity. She says that players shouldn't be earning millions a year, instead, each player should receive a total of £2m maximum, after tax. She says this is because a rough 15 year career in which each player earns £20m+ is enough to take care of the player's life time. She argues that 40% or even 50% of the money every club receives per year should be given to charity. Now we're talking about hundred of millions here given to charity, and I agree with my sister. Her reasoning is good.

Now, this model SHOULD be used for every business in fact, top CEO's, actors, boxers etc. should have a proportion of their money taken away and be given to the poor, not just football players. So while we stay on this topic of the supply and demand industry, why aren't companies, football clubs etc. giving money to the poor? Are humans too greedy? I'll be happy with £100,000 a year before tax, but some of these players like Rooney for example, demand £300,000 per week before tax.

Go to this website, and just look at the proportion of poor people there are, compared to the likes of people like us, who have a roof over our head. Football can provide a huge amount of money to the poor, why aren't they?

http://www.globalissues.org/article/...acts-and-stats

  1. Source
0
Entangled
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#2
Report 6 years ago
#2
Why can't they just print more money so everyone can have more money?
3
tengentoppa
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#3
Report 6 years ago
#3
Well firstly, football clubs and rich companies are part of the private sector, so it's absolutely none of your business how much they get paid. Their only obligation is to their shareholders, not to society as a whole.

Secondly, giving that money takes away potential tax revenue which funds universal healthcare, education and public services. That would be detrimental to this country.

Thirdly, a hate-tax like that would drive all the rich businesses out of the UK, thereby leading to fewer jobs and less tax revenue.

Fourthly, what sort of charities would we donate to? Funnily enough, some of the CEOs of charities such as Oxfam earn loads of money, and the money we donate often goes towards bureaucracy and not aid. Besides, aid leads to dependency. What the poor need is investment and job creation. Charity is a policy of failure.

Fifthly, you are essentially advocating theft.

So no, I completely disagree with you and your sister, and I hope you never get close to political power.
5
username917703
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#4
Report 6 years ago
#4
lol, really stupid thread (and arguments).

I can't even be bothered to counter it as someone else will. Going to bed now.
0
Gillybop
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#5
Report 6 years ago
#5
(Original post by tengentoppa)
Well firstly, football clubs and rich companies are part of the private sector, so it's absolutely none of your business how much they get paid. Their only obligation is to their shareholders, not to society as a whole.

Secondly, giving that money takes away potential tax revenue which funds universal healthcare, education and public services. That would be detrimental to this country.

Thirdly, a hate-tax like that would drive all the rich businesses out of the UK, thereby leading to fewer jobs and less tax revenue.

Fourthly, what sort of charities would we donate to? Funnily enough, some of the CEOs of charities such as Oxfam earn loads of money, and the money we donate often goes towards bureaucracy and not aid. Besides, aid leads to dependency. What the poor need is investment and job creation. Charity is a policy of failure.

Fifthly, you are essentially advocating theft.

So no, I completely disagree with you and your sister, and I hope you never get close to political power.

I wouldnt be be concerning yourself mate, I've a funny feeling that won't happen.
0
Autistic Merit
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#6
Report 6 years ago
#6
(Original post by tengentoppa)
Charity is a policy of failure.
Would you say the same thing about cancer charities (Cancer Research, Macmillan, Teenage Cancer Trust etc.)?
0
Asciant
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#7
Report 6 years ago
#7
Why the hell would football clubs pay players if the money was going to go to charity? If this was implemented no money would go to charity, instead all football players would be paid less. It is the most ridiculous thing ever. If this was applied to business etc. there would be a mass exodus of anyone with any money at all. Basically, OP, this would not work at all in the slightest ever, unless you closed the borders.
0
tengentoppa
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#8
Report 6 years ago
#8
(Original post by Autistic Merit)
Would you say the same thing about cancer charities (Cancer Research, Macmillan, Teenage Cancer Trust etc.)?
I wouldn't really call them charities. I see that more as an investment into research that will benefit humanity. But if you insist on calling it charity, then I suppose that no, not all charity is a policy of failure. I'm sure people get what I meant though.
0
NathanW18
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#9
Report 6 years ago
#9
Supply and demand. Most probably do give some to charity.
1
KongShou
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#10
Report 6 years ago
#10
You lot are so naive...

Print more money. Haha
0
MidnightDream
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#11
Report 6 years ago
#11
tl;dr

supply and demand :yep:
0
CRW1996
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#12
Report 6 years ago
#12
A lot of the players do give to charity. Although it's irrelevant as it's their money and they can do what they want with it. They have worked incredibly hard to get where they are so why shouldn't they get paid a lot of money? If club owners are willing to pay huge wages then why would they say no?
0
NDGAARONDI
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#13
Report 6 years ago
#13
(Original post by Entangled)
Why can't they just print more money so everyone can have more money?
Oh you mean like Zimbabwe with hyperinflation?
1
CRW1996
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#14
Report 6 years ago
#14
(Original post by Entangled)
Why can't they just print more money so everyone can have more money?
How has no one else thought of this? You are a genius.
0
LightBlueSoldier
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#15
Report 6 years ago
#15
(Original post by AnharM)
So I've had this debate with my sister just a minute ago, where she argued that football players get paid too much money, and I responded by saying that the football clubs receive a lot of money through TV revenues, ticket sales on match days etc. due to the supply and demand of football worldwide. Therefore, the clubs have to share that vast amount of money they receive with the players because the owners and the chief executives can't be earning huge amounts of money, that will be unfair. I also argued the fact that their career ends at the age of around 33, so they won't be able to provide for themselves and their family after retiring from football, so that's why players receive a lot of money. Plus, taking into account that football players are normally taxed at 45% (http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/n...-salaries.html) in most countries, players who earn £200,000 pw before tax, actually receive around £5m a year (before taking into consideration sponsorship money, which is still a LOT).

So I asked her, if the money shouldn't go directly to the players, where should it go? And she responded by saying that a large portion of the money they receive through TV revenues etc. should be given to charity. She says that players shouldn't be earning millions a year, instead, each player should receive a total of £2m maximum, after tax. She says this is because a rough 15 year career in which each player earns £20m+ is enough to take care of the player's life time. She argues that 40% or even 50% of the money every club receives per year should be given to charity. Now we're talking about hundred of millions here given to charity, and I agree with my sister. Her reasoning is good.

Now, this model SHOULD be used for every business in fact, top CEO's, actors, boxers etc. should have a proportion of their money taken away and be given to the poor, not just football players. So while we stay on this topic of the supply and demand industry, why aren't companies, football clubs etc. giving money to the poor? Are humans too greedy? I'll be happy with £100,000 a year before tax, but some of these players like Rooney for example, demand £300,000 per week before tax.

Go to this website, and just look at the proportion of poor people there are, compared to the likes of people like us, who have a roof over our head. Football can provide a huge amount of money to the poor, why aren't they?

http://www.globalissues.org/article/...acts-and-stats

  1. Source
Because then clubs would officially pay players the minimum and unofficially pay them a lot more, while no money would go to charity. And also there's the little matter than you have no right to dictate to provate companies.


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
tawaz1997
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#16
Report 6 years ago
#16
Too much BS

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
little_tom
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#17
Report 6 years ago
#17
Football is a business, not a charity. They might not deserve the money they get but this is how globalization operates. Your argument is more concerned with how we should redistribute wealth in society, not "why are football players paid so much?" which is an entirely different discussion
0
AnharM
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#18
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#18
(Original post by tengentoppa)
Well firstly, football clubs and rich companies are part of the private sector, so it's absolutely none of your business how much they get paid. Their only obligation is to their shareholders, not to society as a whole.

Secondly, giving that money takes away potential tax revenue which funds universal healthcare, education and public services. That would be detrimental to this country.

Thirdly, a hate-tax like that would drive all the rich businesses out of the UK, thereby leading to fewer jobs and less tax revenue.

Fourthly, what sort of charities would we donate to? Funnily enough, some of the CEOs of charities such as Oxfam earn loads of money, and the money we donate often goes towards bureaucracy and not aid. Besides, aid leads to dependency. What the poor need is investment and job creation. Charity is a policy of failure.

Fifthly, you are essentially advocating theft.
Private sector or not, shouldn't every person help towards the poor? Giving money to the poor should be a duty, like tax, rather than a choice.

I didn't take everything into calculation, so bear with me on this. But, I said that each player should receive £2m after tax. That is enough for a person.

Your third point, like I said, if EVERY country uses these laws, if every country states that each company must provide a certain amount of their profits to the poor, then why would the rich businesses leave? They won't leave to other countries to avoid giving charity, because every country will have the same principles.

The fourth point, that's the only one I understand. Isn't there a way of checking how much money is given to the CEO of charities? Surely there must be. They also SHOULD do their part in helping the poor.

Fifth point, I don't understand. How?

Take into account that I don't read newspapers a lot, I'm not interested in politics, and I don't have much knowledge of how the economy works, but I obviously know how the supply and demand works. Just take me through slowly and teach me, instead of killing me. Thanks.
0
zippity.doodah
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#19
Report 6 years ago
#19
how much are you suggesting they give? why should they give a larger percent than anybody else?
0
Entangled
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#20
Report 6 years ago
#20
(Original post by NDGAARONDI)
Oh you mean like Zimbabwe with hyperinflation?
I knew what I was getting myself into, but I was indeed joking.

(Original post by CRW1996)
How has no one else thought of this? You are a genius.
I'm a pioneer.
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

Current uni students - are you thinking of dropping out of university?

Yes, I'm seriously considering dropping out (37)
15.42%
I'm not sure (8)
3.33%
No, I'm going to stick it out for now (90)
37.5%
I have already dropped out (4)
1.67%
I'm not a current university student (101)
42.08%

Watched Threads

View All