Is any footballer really worth £100,000,000?

It's being reported in various newspapers that Paul Pogba is about to join Manchester United for a fee in excess of £100m, with his agent perhaps collecting a fee amounting to a quarter of that.

Even allowing for the possibility that this sum is a guess, an estimate or an exaggeration, it seems an extraordinary figure and, aside from fuelling my growing dislike of what I read about the professional game, raises a couple of questions in my mind.

1. I'm not a financial expert, so I'm curious to know what those of you with more expertise than I have think about the sums now being paid for top players and how you think that money is actually recouped from a club's earnings. Is it a massive gamble or a safe investment?

2. Because football doesn't exist in a vacuum, what would you say to clubs considering spending £100m? Should they/ can they be encouraged to spend the money in a way that benefits more than an already rich player and a rich agent or do you think world class player = world class team = even more income = even more money to distribute where it matters?

I know we can't put the clock back, even if we wanted to, but I'm interested in how sustainable the current model of a few clubs awash with money is. It feels particularly relevant now, given the growing number of debates about social and regional inequality.

Interested to hear your thoughts, random or otherwise...

 

Yes, Troy Deeney

 

I'm a bit like you theo - having absolutely no idea how such a transfer fee can be affordable, not to mention justified. Add to that the reported after-tax weekly wage which will, if the contract runs for the full five years, add £57M to the cost and I am totally baffled.

My only hope is that he turns out to be a successful as Torres was for Chelsea when they forked out half that sum to Liverpool for him - in other words, I hope the transfer fails & brings a bit of commonsense into the game. But I'm not holding my breath.

 

No player can be worth these sums of money. For many reasons such acquisitions do not achieve the desired goal of actually improving the team - they are not prepared to spend time on the bench, and, in the end, you have agents picking the team and not the manager. I would like to go back to the footballing philosophies of someone like Brian Clough - where all first teamers got paid the same. The top premiership clubs must be so frustrated that they belong to the richest league in the World - yet can't get any teams beyond the quarter final stage of the champions league any longer. Their answer to that is to spend more and more, but to no avail. The top club's supporters almost expect a turnover of about 10 top class players every year - the result is lack of continuity. This is why there are some great players in the Prem. but there is no great team any longer.

 

The daft thing is they let him go for nothing!

Going to be big pressure on quite a young player who has the potential but is hardly a Messi or Ronaldo.

His main ability seems to be being very strong and powerful...which is good but hardly worth 100m.

 

Can't disagree with any of this, Cologne, except that as a business model spending more and more "to no avail" surely can't be sustainable, can it? Those who make the decisions at big clubs most have some sort of longer term plan in mind, I assume. I wonder whether the example of Leicester last season might make some think again about superstars. Maybe very wealthy players are more comfortable and less motivated than ones still with a reputation to make. I know I'd think twice before spending £100m on a single player...five talented up-and-coming ones might be better value. Hold on, isn't that how the Pozzos think?

 

How much money do you earn from getting to the Champions League? Juventus were reported to have earned 89 million Euros for being runners up in 2015. Add to that extra sponsorship money and other spin offs and it says there is a lot to be gained if you can qualify. Also assume your 100 million investment can be sold on at some future date for a percentage of that and the finances suddenly help explain why you might be tempted.

Having said that it is a gamble but even if you sold on 1 year later for 80 million if he was a flop you lose only 20 million which by today's Sly sponsored Premier League is not a lot.

Is anyone worth that sort of money - of course not but it is a crazy game

 

But the problem with that argument is that one 'hundred million pound' player would not do the job for you - football is not even a team game anymore, it's a squad game, and to be successful in Europe you need a squad of expensive players. Which simply increases the risk.

 

Just think of how much water that would provide in drought stricken areas of the world. Its sickening and an inexcusable amount in the name of so called sport.

 

So is £10 million for a player OK then? Although in principle I agree with you it is not as easy as saying this could pay for that. The people with the money are not going to spend it on water. So if they buy 10 £10 million pound players - is that alright?

 

Anything is worth what someone is prepared to pay for it. A footballer is worth nothing to me, unless he can help clean the house.

 

It's a question of what you think the acquisition of the player brings into the club. Results are only part of it.For the biggest and richest clubs, the income from world-wide 'brand' recognition is (potentially) huge, and so these 'top' clubs must stay 'top'. The expense is a sort of high risk insurance (what a peach of an oxymoron metaphor. Ok I should get out more). Anyway, it isn't just down to the riches of the TV deal at the EPL, as Higuain's transfer demonstrates, and bale to real madrid, etc.
What it certainly ISN'T is the player being able to earn back that money on his own on the pitch. Put John Eustace to nmark him every week and he would be shipped out on loan by January - unless he was still in hospital. No offence meant to JE.
Sadly, the ridiculous (because when all is analysed, they are ridiculous, in spite of the foregoing) sums trickle down so that mid table EPL clubs are shelling out £10m for good quality nearly internationals - viz our 'lil ol Watford'. at least our sums are manageable via the TV deal.
The ratio of clubs income to players salaries is so barmy that in ANY other industry, all members would be insolvent.
As someone said, long ago 'How do you make a small fortune out of football ? answer. Start with a large one'.
The other really sad thing is that the income from us the supporters, is virtually irrelevant. That is what worries me. Our role these days is to create atmosphere for the TV. In fact the clubs might as well pay us to watch. Now there's a thought.

 

It's more crazy in some countries than in others Leo. This summer the Premier League has given more than twice as much money out for players than any other European League. On second place is Serie A in Italy - yet the most successfull clubs in European football are from Spain and from Germany. Never before has the Premiership been so powerfull in financial terms, but so comparatively weak in footballing terms. At the end of the day a football club can only be measured by what happens on the pitch and there is no team in the premiership which I would bet on to succeed in European tournaments this coming year.

 

The straight answer is NO... but every one who buys into sky is paying for this.... i.e. me

 

No. And it is an obscene amount. Inexcusable.

 

I wonder how that compares to the net worth of all the clubs in League 2, and may be even League 1 as well.

 

I was only trying to explain the finances of it - not saying I agreed with it.
I also agree with Cologne - there are leagues that perform better (only very recently) than the Premier in Europe. However German clubs do not have to compete in the super rich atmosphere of the Premier league. If they did who is to say that without aping then the likes of Bayern Munich would qualify for the Champions league if a rival suddenlt had billions to spend - Man City came from the third tier. Spain is not a good example for your case Cologne as Barcelona and Real Madrid are as guilty as any club.
I dislike the Premier league. It is just a money league. I am glad Watford are doing well - but I preferred us as a club when we had stable managers, players and supporters. Now I can only say I support Watford - as a name. Where are the players from last year - and who will be here next. Give me the old first division days over the Premier League any time.
Football in my opinion like most things in life are worse than they were ten years or a generation ago. Polemon Go - really??????

 

Get yourself a Fire TV stick or an Android Cyclone then - loaded up with Kodi, they both give you access to Sky, BTSports, Fox Sports, Star Sports, Premier Sports - any sports you care to mention, all for the one-off cost of purchasing.

 

That would work wonders for the country's employment stats. You hire a footballer to clean your house for £100M - he uses that to sub contract a cook, a chambermaid, a butler, a chauffeur, a gardener...

Win:win all round - why haven't we all done this already?

 

Wouldn't they as low paid workers though have to come from abroad?