wage v salary for footballers

[Ken Tone]

With the current astonomical wages being quoted for some 'top' footballers, it strikes me how odd it is that the media still always say £x per week, not £y per year.

 

I realise that football has working class origins where weekly wages were the norm but nowadays it is multi-national, multi-million pound, business. And even in tradtionally working class jobs, more are now paid monthly rather than weekly. Do players really still get paid weekly? It seems highly unlikely.

 

I can think of no other area of such high finance where weekly wages would be quoted. We rightly find it horrific to hear that the boss of such and such a bank earns say a million a year. No one says he gets about £20k a week.

 

For me the weekly wage just helps cover up the absurdity of football finance.

 

What sounds worse to you, Barton on £80k a week, or Barton on some £4.2 million per year?

[Durleyfos]

I think it's because people can relate a bit more to 80k a week rather than 4.2 million a year.

 

80k a year is obtainable to some high flying business people. They think "Blimey, I work my arse off for 50-60 odd hours a week and get that in a year, while he takes that home in a week for a lot less hours."

[pap]

Well, it does depend on the sort of work you're doing. I'm an IT contractor - so my salary is quoted on an even more granular level ( per day, or per hour ).

 

I think you've hit the nail on the head though - it's there to mask the true price we're paying because people can't be arsed to do the maths. I know this, because I'm staggered that it costs £4.2 million per year to have Joey Barton in your team - and he's not even one of the highest earners ( isn't Tevez on something like a quarter mil a week? ).

 

Now I can understand the traditional reasons for the disparity in footballer income versus the rest of the world. Career is limited by age - so you compensate the footballer more because during the time he is playing for you, he is unlikely to be gaining other professional skills. It is an obscene amount of money now, though - pushed up by the massive Sky revenues and cross-financing from old money. It would be very interesting to see what the average Premiership salary would be if clubs had to live within their means. I know there are supposed financial fair play rules coming into force, but clubs are already getting around that ( 'loans' that will likely never be repaid, etc ).

[Ken Tone]

Well, it does depend on the sort of work you're doing. I'm an IT contractor - so my salary is quoted on an even more granular level ( per day, or per hour ).

 

I think you've hit the nail on the head though - it's there to mask the true price we're paying because people can't be arsed to do the maths. I know this, because I'm staggered that it costs £4.2 million per year to have Joey Barton in your team - and he's not even one of the highest earners ( isn't Tevez on something like a quarter mil a week? ).

 

Now I can understand the traditional reasons for the disparity in footballer income versus the rest of the world. Career is limited by age - so you compensate the footballer more because during the time he is playing for you, he is unlikely to be gaining other professional skills. It is an obscene amount of money now, though - pushed up by the massive Sky revenues and cross-financing from old money. It would be very interesting to see what the average Premiership salary would be if clubs had to live within their means. I know there are supposed financial fair play rules coming into force, but clubs are already getting around that ( 'loans' that will likely never be repaid, etc ).

 

Apparently E'to is on £350,000 a week in Russia, or rather around £18 million a year, and only pays 15% income tax! Footballers now really live in a different world to the rest of us. It must actually be quite difficult to spend £18 million year. How many houses and yachts etc can one person enjoy?

Edited 6 September, 2011 by Ken Tone
wrong by factor of 1000!

[Ken Tone]

I know this, because I'm staggered that it costs £4.2 million per year to have Joey Barton in your team - and he's not even one of the highest earners ( isn't Tevez on something like a quarter mil a week? ).

.

 

And of course it doesn't even cost as little as £4.2 million a year to have Barton. That's just his wage. By the time the employer has paid insurance, pension(?) and other 'on costs' and expenses etc it probably costs the club more like £5 million plus. Obscene, isn't it?

[Frank's cousin]

Now I can understand the traditional reasons for the disparity in footballer income versus the rest of the world. Career is limited by age - so you compensate the footballer more because during the time he is playing for you, he is unlikely to be gaining other professional skills. It is an obscene amount of money now, though - pushed up by the massive Sky revenues and cross-financing from old money. It would be very interesting to see what the average Premiership salary would be if clubs had to live within their means. I know there are supposed financial fair play rules coming into force, but clubs are already getting around that ( 'loans' that will likely never be repaid, etc ).

 

You see This is something that thjose in the game usually like to roll out everytime someone criticises their obscene income. Why should sports folk be any different from you and me? Many folk are forced or chose a career change at some point in their life and it often requires retraining and a salary drop... its part of life. Its not as if footballers turn 35 and CANT work anymore... afterall in days gone by most turned to new careers as their income from football had either been a) not enough to set them up for life, b) drunk or gambled away c) badly invested.... so justifying high salaries because they have 'short careers' is simply daft - afterall, most players in L1 and L2/conference, probably make no more that 40-100K a year and so will have to have an alternative career after they finish playing.

 

... the salaries have been in effect driven by supply and demand and the recognition by Agents and players alike that they can milk it given the revenues from TV far exceding the previous revenues that the biggest clubs had from their gate.

 

Although its not uncommon in most sports for the best to earn huge salaries, it has had such a major impact on the one thing that makes sport so facinating - competition, these salaries have erroded it and created top leagues in which only 2-4 teams will ever have a chance of winning... and created an environment in which many clubs in the top tiers are simply happy to be mediocre and avoid relegation - Fear of defeat dictating tactics, spending and risk avoidance.

 

Will the salary bubble burst? Only if TV punters switch off. Its possible that in the future the 'mercenary' approach will only get worse... it would not be surprizing if in 10-15 years time, there is some kind of football equivilant of the IPL, with global teams bidding for players for short term contracts... depends on what the TV punters especially in the new markets such as Asia demand.

[StDunko]

And to think we might be scrapping the 50% tax band. Do we really believe that people like footballers and others on similarly obscene salaries need more disposable income!!!!!

[stu0x]

And of course it doesn't even cost as little as £4.2 million a year to have Barton. That's just his wage. By the time the employer has paid insurance, pension(?) and other 'on costs' and expenses etc it probably costs the club more like £5 million plus. Obscene, isn't it?

 

It costs a *lot* more than that. What most people don't realise is that footballers' salaries are negotiated and publicised net, not gross. ie 4.5million *after tax*... so tack 50% income tax and 11(?)% national insurance on to that.

[Alanh]

Was in the US recently and they were talking on ESPN about a new contract that one of the top American Footballers had just signed for just over $100M. That was maximum potential earnings, all bonuses included, over about a six year period. About 40% was guaranteed with the rest dependant on achievements. So that's something like £215K per week maximum. $100M is a big headline number though.

[dronskisaint]

With the current astonomical wages being quoted for some 'top' footballers, it strikes me how odd it is that the media still always say £x per week, not £y per year.

 

I realise that football has working class origins where weekly wages were the norm but nowadays it is multi-national, multi-million pound, business. And even in tradtionally working class jobs, more are now paid monthly rather than weekly. Do players really still get paid weekly? It seems highly unlikely.

 

I can think of no other area of such high finance where weekly wages would be quoted. We rightly find it horrific to hear that the boss of such and such a bank earns say a million a year. No one says he gets about £20k a week.

 

For me the weekly wage just helps cover up the absurdity of football finance.

 

What sounds worse to you, Barton on £80k a week, or Barton on some £4.2 million per year?[/QUOTE]

 

Barton being employed at all...!