Why? If you're already rich enough for several lifetimes is there any real need for more - surely other factors become equally important? I said recently I think it's more to do with fragile egos. As you mentioned, seeing someone else getting paid more appears to be saying they are better than you. Fools think there's an immutable, direct correlation between how much you're paid and how good you are - smart people know it's much more complex than that.
see when you have the house, and the car then you start thinking about the boat and then the helicopter and then the security and suddenly you need a bigger house, in a more exclusive area but also penthouse flat in the posh area of london etc. before you know it you are swanning round with a wag who wants 20 carat diamond necklaces and such. its a slippery slope. You are right though. there is no correlation between earnings and talent par se. theres so many that just fall into it like the lada driver or the neice of the sex tape worker.
Maybe we can make up the difference in what we want to pay and what he wants with a restructured bonus system.?
From a personal point if view I can see why salah would want parity with other players earnings. From his point of view its a two way relationship, his performances win trophies but also earn the club more money, should he not be rewarded? As for the legend vs money thing, as someone has already pointed out, if he had a career ending injury tomorrow or went ****e, we'd soon be looking for his replacement. Fans are just as fickle as the players.
We also look at it through very liverpool tinted glasses. We are all fans, we’d give anything to even trott out for a game at Anfield, let alone the dream of having a career there and possibly becoming remembered for years after career finishes. Salah, although I’m sure is a fan and will support the club when he finally retires, doesn’t have that same love for the club that most fans will have and to him it’s very much an employer. The money is what it is. To be fair we don’t know what he does with it. Maybe if he earned another 100k a year it would go towards building schools and hospitals in Egypt to help children etc? Now not saying he prob couldn’t afford it now but it’s easy to sit here and say, well we live off £ a year in our lives, he’s earning 200k a week what can’t you get for 200k then you can for 300k but when your career is short you do have to maximise your earnings. Hard to live a 200kna week lifestyle when your retires unless you’ve earned enough
Barcelona president Joan Laporta has confirmed two players have been signed for next season and while they have not been named - one is an out-of-contract Chelsea player
Do the rest of the world have to get another job when they retire? That’s the point t of retiring surely.
If you average Salah's "short" career to even just 10 years, 52 weeks and only 100k a week, that's 52million (before tax, granted). Add in image rights, bonuses, sponsorships, adverts, post-career pundit gigs and whatever else and if a player says they still need more money before they retire, I'd tell them to **** off. No player in the Pl should ever be using the argument of needing more money due to a short career. The pay-parity is a big one though. Why should Salah be earning the same as some scrub from City but then the answer is simply that City overpay. Because they can. Because they don't give two ****s about money. The rest of the world can't compare themselves to City, PSG and the others. It's a shame that the agents don't live in the real world either; they need to stop whispering in players' ears about pay increases just because they want their next pay day.
Two ways to look at that. 1) The average super yacht costs over £200mil. At 100k per week he will retire and still not be able to buy a super yacht! 2) if 100k pw earns £52mill over 10 years... Wouldn't you want to earn 100k more than you're earning too? If you earn a measly 300k you're missing out on £52 mill you would have got earning 400k. It's hard for people to scale up from what they're used to. For us mere mortals who earn less in a year than a footballer does in a week, it might seem like £100mill and £50mill both offer unlimited lifestyle you could never burn through... But bare in mind: Most lottery winners go bankrupt in three years because to them their winnings feel like more than they could ever go through... But when they get in a big spending mindset it quicky goes. An experiment in the US gave a homeless man $2,000 to see what he would do. To him 2k seemed enormous so he splurged. He lived in a hotel. Bought himself a bicycle, his friends bicycles... Ended up on the street again in less than a year. He thought with that 2k his troubles were over for good. £52mill seems more than we could ever go through as mere mortals. $2k seemed that way for a homeless man. Footballers used to spending millions a year probably see £52mill as insufficient to last them into old age, like we see $2k as a paltry amount to live off long term.
If you get a job that you're not capable of continuing after your mid-30's then yes, of course you do.
If you can earn £100 million as a footballer in ten years. Working for the rest of your life as a pundit and getting less than a million a year seems really inefficient and a waste of time. Of course they can get jobs after they "retire" but let's face it, those jobs pay peanuts compared to what they earn when top of their game (even though options available to them would dwarf what's available to us). You get a short term to milk the system for all you can. I earn more than a janitor. Doesn't mean I wouldn't leap at the chance to earn $30k more a year if given the chance.... Even though a janitor would probably think I'm already overpaid. (I'm not... But make more than someone on min wage does) Same token, I can't begrudge a footballer going after more money... Even though they are ridiculously overpaid.
Doesn’t that just prove the point. This is why you’d try and maximise your earnings so that you then don’t have to work after
A 30-40% increase in income for an ordinary person can have a significant effect on them and their family, but the more you have then the effect of yet more diminishes. In a sense I don't begrudge the players - the providers of the entertainment - the money rather than the hangers-on, but giving them their lifestyle comes at a social cost. The game, which was once the province of the ordinary people, now requires them to cough up a huge proportion of their disposable income just to follow their team. It has been lost to the money men, and although I have to accept that that's the way it is, I don't have to like it. And I certainly don't have to listen to people on a sizeable fortune whining about wanting more.
And as said earlier. I do think they're paid more than they need to be. £1 mill a year would still be an amazing salary that would put them earning well above the fans that watch them. It's not the players who are at fault looking for more money. It's the system who allows such absurd salaries.
