Premier League Wages top 1 billion

[chris]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6705251.stm

The article shows the PL is way ahead of the other big European leagues. I didn't know it was that much higher.
Also shows a much bigger amount from matchday revenue in England.

[Verbal]

We're due a bust soon. Hopefully will mean a revision of wages. Though I'm not really for wage capping, this has gone too far...

[walkingdownthemannyroad]

Radio five have just said that several top prem players earned 6 million last year,and that 1 million will soon be the average!!!

Players agent Sky Andrews said that with increased revenue from T.V. it is only right that players get more money.....

'Don't know about you, but I find this disgusting, makes me think twice about renewing.........

[communistworkethic]

of course the agents think players should get more - they want their 20%

Forget the huge debts clubs have, the falling attendances, poor facilities at many grounds, spiralling fan costs, make the rich players much richer. Fecking genius business model.

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

a main part of the problem is that very mediocre players are earning big money as well as the 'superstars'. Abroad I suspect there is a bigger gap between the average players and the superstars.

Commonsense will prevail once the tv money goes down...as it will

[bobby5]

And most of those on stupid wages are the chavs like those at West Ham. Far too much money in football, but I suppose we've known this for quite a while now.

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

simple solution is for everyone to stop paying Sky (and Setanta next season). That will reduce the value of the next tv deal and then the clubs will either have to reduce wages or go bust

[CrazyHorse]

simple solution is for everyone to stop paying Sky (and Setanta next season). That will reduce the value of the next tv deal and then the clubs will either have to reduce wages or go bust

Great idea on paper. No one will ever do it though.

The only real solution is the one started by BWFC (albeit half-heartedly) this season - and that's to pass the increased tv money onto the fans in the form of reduced ticket prices.

Don't forget that this money ultimately comes from the fans pockets one way or the other. From season ticket holders to the people who buy the PlayStation games advertised on the telly at half time.

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

simple solution is for everyone to stop paying Sky (and Setanta next season). That will reduce the value of the next tv deal and then the clubs will either have to reduce wages or go bust

Great idea on paper. No one will ever do it though.

The only real solution is the one started by BWFC (albeit half-heartedly) this season - and that's to pass the increased tv money onto the fans in the form of reduced ticket prices.

Don't forget that this money ultimately comes from the fans pockets one way or the other. From season ticket holders to the people who buy the PlayStation games advertised on the telly at half time.

i agree it wont happen, at least not in a big bang. People may slowly drift away from paying for Sky Sports - I did 3 years ago. Sky will pay less if the product isn't selling as well as it is now. The question is, will the people stopping going to the matches pay for the telly version? I suspect so.

So, I guess it comes back to filling the grounds again..which as you say means passing the money on to fans, not the players

[Montreal Wanderer]

We're due a bust soon. Hopefully will mean a revision of wages. Though I'm not really for wage capping, this has gone too far...

Salary caps per team (and individual) seem to work quite well over here. It levels the playing field to some extent for all teams, so for example we don't have a 'big four' in hockey and neither of the two remaining teams playing for the championship have ever won before. They prevent billionaire owners like Abramovich buying championships (at least quite so easily). However, in our sports, there is no relegation and there is an annual draft for all new talent coming into the leagues based largely on reverse order of finish (weighted lottery at the bottom to prevent a team from deliberately losing to get the best draft pick). I'm not sure how the North American approach could work in the football league situation.

[communistworkethic]

as ever the 606 mongalongs can't think too hard...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/606/A23278124

let's analyse some of their points in support of these wages...

The Tony Blair analogy - they'll bring in more than they cost - Wrong. There are about 5 teams who make a profit in England. Players wage costs make up the greatest part of turnover - there's not really many other operations work on such a basis anywhere in business.

Short career - yes true, but they know that when they go in to it. They can work after the finish, all the lower division players have to, it's not like they retire and are then forced to play golf everyday and not do another job. If they have 50 years to live after they retire, how much do they need, really to live on? £100k should give most people a very comfy life. So £5million set aside roughly, so less that a years salary for some. Perhaps if some invested their money instead of spunking it away on £25k watches and £100k cars, they'd not have to worry about their salaries and pensions so much.

Supply and demand - that old chestnut. Maybe it has been such, but the fans a leaving and if they go the money stops. The high slaries will ultimately kill stream of money in the game and then they'll get nothing like what they are now.If a capping limit was in place then they the market forces would change dramatically.

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

well said Commie

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

as ever the 606 mongalongs can't think too hard...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/606/A23278124

let's analyse some of their points in support of these wages...

The Tony Blair analogy - they'll bring in more than they cost - Wrong. There are about 5 teams who make a profit in England. Players wage costs make up the greatest part of turnover - there's not really many other operations work on such a basis anywhere in business.

Short career - yes true, but they know that when they go in to it. They can work after the finish, all the lower division players have to, it's not like they retire and are then forced to play golf everyday and not do another job. If they have 50 years to live after they retire, how much do they need, really to live on? £100k should give most people a very comfy life. So £5million set aside roughly, so less that a years salary for some. Perhaps if some invested their money instead of spunking it away on £25k watches and £100k cars, they'd not have to worry about their salaries and pensions so much.

Supply and demand - that old chestnut. Maybe it has been such, but the fans a leaving and if they go the money stops. The high slaries will ultimately kill stream of money in the game and then they'll get nothing like what they are now.If a capping limit was in place then they the market forces would change dramatically.

All as well-thought out as ever, Commie. But I would raise this point in response to the bolded bit: there's a school of thought which says it doesn't matter how few come through the door as long as there's a TV audience and thus a TV revenue stream. It's balls, of course, but it exists.

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

as ever the 606 mongalongs can't think too hard...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/606/A23278124

let's analyse some of their points in support of these wages...

The Tony Blair analogy - they'll bring in more than they cost - Wrong. There are about 5 teams who make a profit in England. Players wage costs make up the greatest part of turnover - there's not really many other operations work on such a basis anywhere in business.

Short career - yes true, but they know that when they go in to it. They can work after the finish, all the lower division players have to, it's not like they retire and are then forced to play golf everyday and not do another job. If they have 50 years to live after they retire, how much do they need, really to live on? £100k should give most people a very comfy life. So £5million set aside roughly, so less that a years salary for some. Perhaps if some invested their money instead of spunking it away on £25k watches and £100k cars, they'd not have to worry about their salaries and pensions so much.

Supply and demand - that old chestnut. Maybe it has been such, but the fans a leaving and if they go the money stops. The high slaries will ultimately kill stream of money in the game and then they'll get nothing like what they are now.If a capping limit was in place then they the market forces would change dramatically.

All as well-thought out as ever, Commie. But I would raise this point in response to the bolded bit: there's a school of thought which says it doesn't matter how few come through the door as long as there's a TV audience and thus a TV revenue stream. It's balls, of course, but it exists.

DSB, I'd say that if the stadia became half full it may lessen the package for Sky and in particular for abroad may become less attractive. If the foreigners buying into the Premiership is the best see half empty stadia every game their view of whats on offer may change. Afterall, its a fashion thing to many. If its seen as no longer popular to the game going fans then its no longer fashionable to watch on tv for them. They'd likely switch to another league or something completely different.

Don't think that will happen anytime soon, but typically anything over hyped comes tumbling down eventually

[CrazyHorse]

DSB, I'd say that if the stadia became half full it may lessen the package for Sky and in particular for abroad may become less attractive. If the foreigners buying into the Premiership is the best see half empty stadia every game their view of whats on offer may change. Afterall, its a fashion thing to many. If its seen as no longer popular to the game going fans then its no longer fashionable to watch on tv for them. They'd likely switch to another league or something completely different.

Don't think that will happen anytime soon, but typically anything over hyped comes tumbling down eventually

An excellent point but you're glossing over the 'big four' factor here.
They're the main pull to tv audiences both home and abroad and they also could fill their home grounds twice over so I doubt we'll ever really see half empty grounds on telly. Sure, if say 'Boro vs Derby next season is on Sky we will see loads of empty seats, but let's face it; no one in this country is going to watch that game on tv let alone around the world.

[communistworkethic]

My point was wider than turnstiles- people are pissed off with the game as a whole, they're droppin the sky subscriptions too.

take away viewers you lose sky money, lose sky and you lose sponsors, lose sponsors you lose more money

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

DSB, I'd say that if the stadia became half full it may lessen the package for Sky and in particular for abroad may become less attractive. If the foreigners buying into the Premiership is the best see half empty stadia every game their view of whats on offer may change. Afterall, its a fashion thing to many. If its seen as no longer popular to the game going fans then its no longer fashionable to watch on tv for them. They'd likely switch to another league or something completely different.

Don't think that will happen anytime soon, but typically anything over hyped comes tumbling down eventually

An excellent point but you're glossing over the 'big four' factor here.
They're the main pull to tv audiences both home and abroad and they also could fill their home grounds twice over so I doubt we'll ever really see half empty grounds on telly. Sure, if say 'Boro vs Derby next season is on Sky we will see loads of empty seats, but let's face it; no one in this country is going to watch that game on tv let alone around the world.

very true. But take away the interesting derby matches, the top 4 and maybe Spurs as the 'attractive games' and it leave an awful lot of unattractive matches.

Will be interesting to see what happens but the sooner things get back to near common sense on the financial side the better. I'd hate to see clubs going out of business even if it were Trashmere

[Leyther_Matt]

My point was wider than turnstiles- people are pissed off with the game as a whole, they're droppin the sky subscriptions too.

take away viewers you lose sky money, lose sky and you lose sponsors, lose sponsors you lose more money

But sadly it's a very drawn out process - the earliest time for change would be at the end of the next TV contract (or at least the end of the negotiations)

[Verbal]

We're due a bust soon. Hopefully will mean a revision of wages. Though I'm not really for wage capping, this has gone too far...

Salary caps per team (and individual) seem to work quite well over here. It levels the playing field to some extent for all teams, so for example we don't have a 'big four' in hockey and neither of the two remaining teams playing for the championship have ever won before. They prevent billionaire owners like Abramovich buying championships (at least quite so easily). However, in our sports, there is no relegation and there is an annual draft for all new talent coming into the leagues based largely on reverse order of finish (weighted lottery at the bottom to prevent a team from deliberately losing to get the best draft pick). I'm not sure how the North American approach could work in the football league situation.

Clubs wouldn't accept it IMO.

Bigger clubs like in the premiership want to maintain a status quo, which is completely understandable. Enforcing a wage cap on such a pivotal footballing league could have dire consequences.

But like I said, a revision in wages is necessary, or soon will become unavoidable.

[The Benevolent One]

Does anybody have any idea what happened to the Italian wages in 2001/02? It seems that they pretty much matched those over here until that point before tailing off rather sharply - was this a deliberate move (a wage cap or similar?) or simply the side effect of general chaos in Italian football at the moment?