http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...City-players-10-best-paid-Premier-League.html 1. Wayne Rooney (Man Utd) £260,000-a-week 2. Sergio Aguero (Man City) £240k 3. Yaya Toure (Man City) £240k 4. Eden Hazard (Chelsea) £220k 5. David Silva (Man City) £200k 6. Mesut Ozil (Arsenal) £190k 7. Raheem Sterling (Man City) £180k 8. Cesc Fabregas (Chelsea) £170k 9. Kevin De Bruyne (Man City) £170k 10. John Terry (Chelsea) £160k Dominated by Chavs and ££££
True but United have the most expensively paid player in the league. Plus United first team squad is larger than chelseas by 1/5
Custard, if you edited your OP, you are going to suffer the ignominy of PIXIE coming down on you like a ton of bricks!
On a more serious note, is anyone really surprised by this list? If you looked at the next 10, you'd see the rest of United's and Chelsea's players coming into the frame; and if you looked at nos. 21 to 30, you'd see most of Arsenal's players making a showing; and so on, down the line. All that lists, like this, demonstrate is the very clear relationship between the amount that clubs pay their players and their ability to secure the services of the best players, in order to fund their hunt for glory. Winning the Prem title is exactly like getting elected as President of the USA - you ain't gonna get any where without a lot of money!
Isn't that just the nature of the beast though? The same way that Spurs' and Liverpool's wage Bills enables them to finish top 6 most seasons ahead of teams like West Ham and Southampton for instance. Someone has to be the richest or spend the most. In the 90's when United were winning everything, probably most of the top 10 would have been their players.
Yes, I do think it is the nature of the beast, 100, and I'm not saying it's either a good or bad thing. The new TV money is, actually, looking like it's going to level the playing field out quite a bit, especially in terms of the wages that even the smallest of Prem clubs will be able to offer, and that ought to mean that it's less likely that the younger talent will want to go an sit on £ity or Chelsea's benches, when they can stay at their own club, on the same wages, and play football. I've said it before, that I am not adverse to the idea of Spurs being bought out by a sugar-daddy, provided that the new owner is going to spend along £ity/Chelsea lines, rather than take the piss along Fulham/Hull lines.
I'd largely agree with this, but the difference is quite enormous in some cases. Arsenal's wage bill is typically higher than Spurs and Everton, which isn't surprising, but it's higher than both combined. The press then bang on about them not spending much, for some bizarre reason. The last reported bills had Man Utd at the top and they were paying more than Southampton, Swansea and Everton put together. They finished below one of them and one place above another in that season.
Come on, we all know that's because of the fantastic salary they pay the tea ladies, which is included.
