Interesting calculator on BBC today, no doubt will provoke outrage about player's wages. But for me it proves they are fairly paid, the stat for Ronaldo his annual salary is the equivalent of selling 196,226 shirts with Ronaldo on the back. He will sell more than that and then there are the football tourists who will go and see him play. It's just the same as a film star or singer if they bring in the money they get paid more simple. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-31110113
Agree with every word. Given that football makes so much money, I'd much rather see it go to the people who bring that money in, than into some despot owners back pocket.
I wouldve had to start working in the 1600s to have earned his annual salary by now. On the other points raised, I do agree but personally I would rather see ticket and replica shirt prices drop and players salaries drop by the same percentage ie admission prices drop by 50% and salaries drop by 50% so they still get the same ratio of money rather than it going to 'despot owners'.
The superstars are fairly paid in my opinion based on the revenue they generate, however lower calibre players are heavily over paid through a combination of market inflation, agents and egos.
That's a very fair point. There's some really, really **** players on, say 65k a week, and they dont offer 1/6th of what Ronaldo does.
All economics isn't it, if there's that much money in the game it's got to go somewhere, and given the players do the main work it should go to them. Ideally reduced ticket prices etc. would be great but no club in their right mind would sell tickets on the cheap out of the kindness of their hearts. Winds me up no end when people start complaining by comparing Ronaldo's salary for 'kicking a ball about' to the work doctors and nurses do........I always point out that there are thousands and thousands of doctors and nurses capable of doing those jobs in the UK alone, millions worldwide, but only one person in the world capabale of doing Ronaldo's job
Based on revenue earned, ie 'the market economy', then yes they are probably fairly paid, along with bankers, film stars, halfwits like Jeremy Clarkson, etc. However when so many folk in the world are living below the breadline is 'the market economy' something to be so proud of? I mean, really, £250k a week for kicking a ball about and £35 for the Villa game? Bit of a discrepancy, no?
I put it to you that if Ronaldo didn't exist no-one would notice, but they would if there were no doctors and nurses.
I put it to you that given the training and time Ronaldo could train to be a nurse or doctor, but 99.9% of doctors and nurses couldn't train to do his job to his standard
The analogy works both ways, there are surgeons who are the only people in the world capable of performing certain life saving operations but there are thousands and thousands of athletes that can play professional football.
Neither of these are the point are they? It's all about how much they earn for their respective organisations.
Agreed, and those surgeons will earn massive wages in comparison to normal surgeons and doctors. The point is that people moan and complain about how much someone like Ronaldo earns, the point i make is he earns the market rate for someone with his skill set, as do doctors, surgeons and nurses.
I completely agree, I suppose the issue people have morally is that the people saving lives are valued less than those that entertain. Although to tackle that issue you essentially have to de-construct modern capitalism.
I'm not disputing the mechanics of the market economy, it's the reality of it I sometimes, no often, feel uncomfortable about. Do you think its fair, morally right, whatever, that for example Mario Balotelli or Chris Evans or some of those TV reality nitwits will get paid more in 1 year than an NHS surgeon will earn in a lifetime, or more in 1 week than most people on earth will earn in a lifetime?
Yeah, I don't think it's morally correct that athletes can earn such mental wages, but it's a by product of us living in a capitalist society, just something that has to be accepted
What I think about morals has no relevance whatsoever but if you're asking then I dont think there is a need for anyone, anywhere in the world to earn tens of millions of pounds per year. The news last week that by next year 1% of the population will have the same wealth as the other 99% combined, or that 88 people own the same wealth as half of the world's population, is obscene. And rather than the doctors and nurses analogy I'd say isnt it stranger that someone gets paid more in 1 week for kicking a ball around than the most important man on the planet earns in a year?
