I'm trying hard to give up this thread and move on with the rest of my life but I can't. It is so fundamental to what I believe is wrong with football. When you say that, "that's really how much they are worth to their clubs" you are of course correct. However, that is only because the the salary bar is raised so high. If all clubs just knocked a few naughts of what they paid the players then it wouldn't be worth one club paying hundreds of thousands a week even if it is Messi. Its all relative.
I think what he means is, does a footballer or entertainer fundamentally add anything to the sustainability of the human race, as a farmer does, or a fisherman, or a miner, etc..? And the short answer is no. If all the farmers, fishermen, etc.., ie. workers that the world absolutely depends upon, stopped working, the human world would grind to a halt within days. If all the footballers and entertainers stopped working, the world would be a more boring place, but apart from that there would be little change. After a few days the average 1st/2nd world human might be a tad fitter though. yet farmers, fisherman and others in fundamental industries are some of the worst paid professions. It is a paradox that many of those industries that contribute the least in terms of direct sustainability are often the highest paid. No, entertainers as a lot, do not deserve anything like the money they are on. However, most of them are not on massive money. If people like Van Persie were in a sport where they were the only representative, one might be able to begin to make a case, but lose badly even then. But footballers are part of a team. They are instantly replaceable. That makes their individual value very poor indeed.
Well we're stuck with wages being that high now. So I'll say Messi and Ronaldo are really the only two players.
This is quite correct, but it would require all the clubs in the world to agree to one wage cap, or the best players would all go where the cap has not been implemented. Even the least civilised societies on the planet value entertainment extremely highly. You can have all the productivity you could ever wish for but without fun, what would be the point? And, aside from that anthropological bombshell, there's no way the top players are instantly replaceable. Who could Arsenal realistically buy right now who would score them 30 goals in the premier league next season?
Really PSF, get a wee bit of perspective. You writing suggests that you're looking no further than those that are guaranteed a full stomach. And players are instantly replaceable. It's called being substituted. You can't do that, mid event to a sprinter, a motor racer [unless the event allows for it] a snooker player, or even a darts player..! If those sports people become injured or off form, they can't just be replaced. A footballer gets the luxury of being off form or injured and the team can manage without him. Of course, it used to be the case that you couldn't replace the man in football either. But to get back to the main event - footballers are not essential. Therefore to put several of their number amongst the highest paid people in the world is, to put it bluntly, a bloody stupid way to run a world.
I meant everyone, without exception. Admittedly the entertainment 'industry' as we experience it isn't accessible to everyone, but every human society on the planet has its own brand of music, dancing, storytelling, art, etc. If I'm starving then sure, I value food higher than I value hearing a good story, but that's not a choice anyone really has to make. You're splitting hairs on the definition of replaceable, I'm sure you understood what I meant. Football isn't essential, but the market makes no judgement on what is essential, only what is desirable. If you understand that then it's not surprising there is so much money in football. And yes, it is a bloody stupid way to run the world, but here we are
No mate, I truly meant substitution. Because players CAN be substituted. I know what you mean about the irreplaceablility of certain players, but teams must be able to overcome that. To undermine the great Bill Shankly, it's not life or death. At least we can agree it's a bloody stupid way to run a world.
Ok fair enough, I don't understand the relevance of substitution to the debate about whether a team would be willing to dispense with one of its top players, but never mind!
no player is worth that money, how ever good they may be. city have tevez, dzeko and aguero.....why buy another striker that will just push just as good buy also established stikers at the club out?
