20 highest-paid players in the Premier League

Utopia Parkway

Shanotheslayer wrote: »

Pretty sure Cam Newton in NFL made the dab a thing. But I could be wrong.

No you're right.

Beefy78

inforfun wrote: »

Fans not complaining about those salaries but at the same time are forced to share 1 season ticket with 3 friends otherwise they cant afford to see a match in the stadium.

If players earned less tickets wouldn't be cheaper. Price is driven by demand and not necessity - since the last TV deal all clubs in the Premier League have been able to afford to offer free tickets should they desire.

I'm far happier that the billions that football generates goes to the people that it should go to (the players whose talent generates those billions) that were it go into the pockets of the owners.

garra

RoboKlopp wrote: »

Had to Google dab. Apparently it's a dance.

Hope it's just not me that never heard of it until now!!

Thankfully I remain oblivious to Pogba's dab, I had to google that white female rapper yoke on X factor recently as it was mentioned in here... and I wont be making the same mistake with Pogba's dab.

Dirty Dingus McGee

Beefy78 wrote: »

If players earned less tickets wouldn't be cheaper. Price is driven by demand and not necessity - since the last TV deal all clubs in the Premier League have been able to afford to offer free tickets should they desire.

I'm far happier that the billions that football generates goes to the people that it should go to (the players whose talent generates those billions) that were it go into the pockets of the owners.

You could argue that without the owners the player wouldn't have the platform to generate the income.Without the owners the game wouldn't be able to generate such money as they are the ones who are looking to make money out of the game and push the product onto consumers.They're the ones that started the premier league and kick started the massive amount of money the game could generate.

Beefy78

Good point.

Point is the money is going to go somewhere. And that somewhere won't be the fans.

eagle eye

eagle eye wrote: »

................

The ordinary man on the street really needs to cop on and stop paying for the likes of Sky and BT Sports....................

That's well under way to be fair.

The adds are on the cough coughs anyway so advertisers still happy to pay Sky and BT Sport.

rob316

jive wrote: »

£185k is some coin for a goalkeeper

As far as I'm concerned he should be the highest paid player at that club, he has saved them 20 points a season at least over the last few years. Outstanding goalkeeper, worth every penny.

Pogba on 340k is everything wrong with football.

Footballers are overpaid nothing new there but I wouldn't begrudge the likes of Messi, Ronaldo, Suarez, Neymar, Aguero - they deliver constantly and are an absolute joy to watch for the most part.

One things for sure, the Manchester clubs especially the red side are not getting value for money.

LuckyLloyd

Arghus wrote: »

I must be in the minority that doesn't mind at all how much the players are paid.

Surely it's just a reflection of how popular the game is? And it is entertainment at the end of the day. I never hear anyone begrudging a movie star earning millions, if anything they tend to get admired for it.

Don't have any problem with how much players are getting paid tbh - think that is an uninteresting aspect of things. What is far more interesting is the relative valuations of the players and the massive inefficiency in the market.

I mean, Utd have the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 8th, 13th and 14th highest paid players in the league. No wonder they're strongly contending for the title...oh wait.

inforfun

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

.

I mean, Utd have the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 8th, 13th and 14th highest paid players in the league. No wonder they're strongly contending for the title...oh wait.

But at the same time, in 7 of the 8 CL groups the 2 teams with the biggest budgets ended 1/2

In a league with a lot of big spenders you can have the "surprise" of th biggest budget in 7th place.
In the CL not anymore.
And that is why the CL is **** till the knock outs

LuckyLloyd

inforfun wrote: »

But at the same time, in 7 of the 8 CL groups the 2 teams with the biggest budgets ended 1/2

In a league with a lot of big spenders you can have the "surprise" of th biggest budget in 7th place.
In the CL not anymore.
And that is why the CL is **** till the knock outs

And the team that bucked the trend was Spurs. There is clearly a big inefficiency endemic in the Premiership.

Bounty Hunter

I'd imagine that from summer on ozil and Sanchez will be higher up that list anyway.

KaiserGunner

Bounty Hunter wrote: »

I'd imagine that from summer on ozil and Sanchez will be higher up that list anyway.

Yeah Ozil is on a contract signed in 2013 and Sanchez 2014, so by next year they should be on much higher wages. Hopefully that's with Arsenal, but I'm not too confident about that in this moment in time.

Dirty Dingus McGee

Contracts should be more incentive based.

I saw Ozil and Sanchez are looking for €450K per week each for their next contract.Surely if they can't lead arsenal to the title this year after ****ing up last year they should be told to **** off with their wage demands.

Keep them on something close to their current wage level and if Arsenal end up winning the league or champions league then they would be entitled to a big bonus but players who aren't good enough to lead a team to a league title should not be entitled to demand that sort of money.

GLaDOS

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

Contracts should be more incentive based.

I saw Ozil and Sanchez are looking for €450K per week each for their next contract.Surely if they can't lead arsenal to the title this year after ****ing up last year they should be told to **** off with their wage demands.

Keep them on something close to their current wage level and if Arsenal end up winning the league or champions league then they would be entitled to a big bonus but players who aren't good enough to lead a team to a league title should not be entitled to demand that sort of money.

LOI teams actually do something like that to help keep budgets in line with performances. Dundalk would have paid out a good bit of bonuses after the season they had.

In the bigger leagues though the reality is some other team will just offer a higher base salary.

fullstop

TimeToShine wrote: »

Pogba is a world superstar in fairness. We as old farts probably don't realise it but all the youngsters love him, that dab thing is absolutely everywhere.

You say that as if he invented the dab? Cam Newton made it popular as a celebration

fullstop

fullstop wrote: »

You say that as if he invented the dab? Cam Newton made it popular as a celebration

Pogba will be wearing turtlenecks in 2 years time so...

mansize

The return from football and the money is huge, why shouldn't the players get a bigger cut?

Mushy

fullstop wrote: »

TimeToShine wrote: »

Pogba is a world superstar in fairness. We as old farts probably don't realise it but all the youngsters love him, that dab thing is absolutely everywhere.

You say that as if he invented the dab? Cam Newton made it popular as a celebration

Doesn't matter who invented it does it? Kids this side of the pond will have a lot more access to Pogba and football in general. These kids will think they're following pogba without knowing/caring about Newton, it's why he's the big seller/earner.

Dirty Dingus McGee

mansize wrote: »

The return from football and the money is huge, why shouldn't the players get a bigger cut?

It's not due to them though.

They didn't really play much of a conscious role in turning the game into what it is today they just happened to be along for the ride.

Of the 4 major stakeholders (Owners,Broadcaster,Fans and players) in the game they have had the smallest part to play in turning the game into the financial powerhouse it is today.The owners wanted to make more money out of the game so came up with a way of doing it (creating the premier league), the broadcasters have paid to broadcast it and prop up the clubs by doing so and the fans are forced to shell out for increased ticket prices and TV subscription fees.The new premier league deal was almost twice as big as the previous one despite the standard of the premier league not being as a high as it was 5 or 6 years ago.Players are getting more than there fair share when you look at the wages they are being paid relative to how good the players are, players aren't 2 and 3 times as good as they were in the past and yet wages are probably 2 or 3 times bigger than they were 10 or 15 years ago.

mansize

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

It's not due to them though.

They didn't really play much of a conscious role in turning the game into what it is today they just happened to be along for the ride.

Of the 4 major stakeholders (Owners,Broadcaster,Fans and players) in the game they have had the smallest part to play in turning the game into the financial powerhouse it is today.The owners wanted to make more money out of the game so came up with a way of doing it (creating the premier league), the broadcasters have paid to broadcast it and prop up the clubs by doing so and the fans are forced to shell out for increased ticket prices and TV subscription fees.The new premier league deal was almost twice as big as the previous one despite the standard of the premier league not being as a high as it was 5 or 6 years ago.Players are getting more than there fair share when you look at the wages they are being paid relative to how good the players are, players aren't 2 and 3 times as good as they were in the past and yet wages are probably 2 or 3 times bigger than they were 10 or 15 years ago.

Without the players, the others are redundant

Dirty Dingus McGee

mansize wrote: »

Without the players, the others are redundant

Without the clubs existing in the first place there would be no game.Without the fans there would be no money in the game, without the broadcasters the money would be much smaller.I'd argue the fans have the biggest role as the sport exists as entertainment and without fans it wouldn't exists as a form of entertainment.

They all need each other.

mansize

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

Without the clubs existing in the first place there would be no game.

They both need each other.

They could form clubs. The players are the reason supporters go watch, the people pay subs

Dirty Dingus McGee

mansize wrote: »

They could form clubs. The players are the reason supporters go watch, the people pay subs

But not these particular players.They go to watch the clubs, Man Utd are making more money now than they ever were despite them currently being ****e.

mansize

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

But not these particular players.They go to watch the clubs, Man Utd are making more money now than they ever were despite them currently being ****e.

Clubs that attract the best players become more popular and successful

Without players, clubs are just a brand

Dirty Dingus McGee

mansize wrote: »

Clubs that attack the best players become more popular and successful

Man Utd is a great club therefore they can get whatever players they want there will always be players better than the others so the best players play with the best clubs and the fans go to watch.Without Man Utd being such a big business the best players wouldn't play for them in the first place.

The players have retired over and over again and yet people still turn up to watch, it's the club that people go to watch and most clubs have enough of a fan base that any group of players coming and going makes no difference to the attendances they get.

mansize

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

Man Utd is a great club therefore they can get whatever players they want there will always be players better than the others so the best players play with the best clubs and the fans go to watch.Without Man Utd being such a big business the best players wouldn't play for them in the first place.

The players have retired over and over again and yet people still turn up to watch, it's the club that people go to watch and most clubs have enough of a fan base that any group of players coming and going makes no difference to the attendances they get.

thats one club. They are still relatively successful and bought the biggest name this season.

Dirty Dingus McGee

mansize wrote: »

thats one club. They are still relatively successful and bought the biggest name this season.

Everton's average attendance now is about 25% higher than it was in the 2 seasons in the 80's when they won the league.The same similarly applies to Liverpool.

mansize

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

Everton's average attendance now is about 25% higher than it was in the 2 seasons in the 80's when they won the league.The same similarly applies to Liverpool.

They have international players playing for them.

I'd like to see the data on that all the same. I find it difficult to accept.

Dirty Dingus McGee

mansize wrote: »

They have international players playing for them.

I'd like to see the data on that all the same. I find it difficult to accept.

http://www.european-football-statistics.co.uk/attnclub/ever.htm

Red Kev

Beefy78 wrote: »

If players earned less tickets wouldn't be cheaper. Price is driven by demand and not necessity - since the last TV deal all clubs in the Premier League have been able to afford to offer free tickets should they desire.

I'm far happier that the billions that football generates goes to the people that it should go to (the players whose talent generates those billions) that were it go into the pockets of the owners.

The biggest slice ends out in Rupert Murdoch's back pocket. Always has.

mansize wrote: »

Without the players, the others are redundant

Nope. The most important link there are the fans. No fans; the rest doesn't exist.

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

Everton's average attendance now is about 25% higher than it was in the 2 seasons in the 80's when they won the league.The same similarly applies to Liverpool.

You can't compare the 80's with today. A lot of people stayed away from the game back then because of the violence inside and outside the stadiums. Even the journeys there and back were a gamble. There's no doubt that the marketing has helped, but the game is no longer working class; it's a middle class game that is also followed by the working class.

bucketybuck

Red Kev wrote: »

Nope. The most important link there are the fans. No fans; the rest doesn't exist.

You think there aren't thousands of people playing football right this minute with not a single fan watching?

Football is the players, everything else is ancillary.

Dirty Dingus McGee

bucketybuck wrote: »

You think there aren't thousands of people playing football right this minute with not a single fan watching?

Football is the players, everything else is ancillary.

The fans are more important.

When you charge money for people to gain access to something the consumer becomes the most important factor.

The players don't earn a penny without fans paying to attend and watch on TV.

The guts playing football without anyone watching aren't being paid for their efforts and they aren't putting in the same commitment as the professional players.

garra

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

http://www.european-football-statistics.co.uk/attnclub/ever.htm

You should work for the Journals Fact-check team

Crimson King

~Rebel~ wrote: »

John O'Shea could be a dark horse though...probably got a good deal when he signed with Sunderland from United, and was their captain and a fairly key player for them when he signed his last extension with them a few years ago..

I believe it's why Fergie sold O'shea. He was looking to sign a double his money contract to £120k a week. That's a starter player wages, not a utility player and he was sold in his final year of contract.

bucketybuck

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

The fans are more important.

When you charge money for people to gain access to something the consumer becomes the most important factor.

The players don't earn a penny without fans paying to attend and watch on TV.

The guts playing football without anyone watching aren't being paid for their efforts and they aren't putting in the same commitment as the professional players.

Good luck selling anything without players.

Football can exist without fans, it cannot exist without players, accordingly it is very obvious which is more important.

Dirty Dingus McGee

bucketybuck wrote: »

Good luck selling anything without players.

Football can exist without fans, it cannot exist without players, accordingly it is very obvious which is more important.

Sure football can exists without fans.

But football where the players are paid millions (or any money at all) cannot exist without the fans.

Fans are the much more important factor in professional sport because without fans to go and watch professional sport cannot exist.This thread isn't about the sport as a whole it's about the sport at professional level.

mansize

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

http://www.european-football-statistics.co.uk/attnclub/ever.htm

liverpool i meant

Dirty Dingus McGee

mansize wrote: »

liverpool i meant

http://www.worldfootball.net/attendance/eng-premier-league-1983-1984/1/

Didn't have an average attendance above 40k in the 80's

thebaz

no player is worth 340 grand a week , not Messi , never mind Pogba or Rooney - when most people I know including myself are just barely making ends meet - I grew up and played when Football was a game of the people - and if anything players were underpaid - what Leicester achieved last year was brilliant defying the excessive financial odds - for me the Championship is nearly as exciting but my interest in the top clubs in Europe has wayned - the game at the top has been taken from the people and controlled by Billionaires - enjoying the rugby , where players earn a relatively normal wage and bust a gut doing so.

sabat

You could argue that they're underpaid given the amount of people around the world who follow the premier league and the abstract "monetarised entertainment value" (my words, I don't know if there's a real economics term for this) of what they do. Suppose Rooney gets a 90th minute winner tomorrow-would that not give at least 300 million people at least 0.1p worth of enjoyment? If the fans could pay for that level of entertainment they would be on a lot more.

FatherTed

D0NNELLY wrote: »

Sebastian Vettel (Ferrari) £33.4m 640k a week
Fernando Alonso (McLaren) £32m 615k a week
Lewis Hamilton (Mercedez) £31m 596k a week

US:
LeBron James Cleveland Cavaliers NBA $31m/year
Andrew Luck Indianapolis Colts NFL $30m/year
Sidney Crosby Pittsburgh Penguins NHL $12m/year
Kaka Orlando City MLS $7m

inforfun

All what is wrong with "modern" football




http://www.whoateallthepies.tv/miscellaneous/248059/modern-football-is-rubbish-benfica-players-exit-pitch-through-emirates-check-in-desk-ahead-of-lisbon-derby-video.html

Would have posted this in the humor thread but i dont think it is funny at all.