Rather than per annum?

Just an idle thought looking as Oscar’s move to China this morning.

Is it a cultural thing with football still considered a working class sport and so many working class jobs paying weekly? It makes no sense; every other highly paid profession the media want to sensationalise the pay of in quoted per annum. Even other top earning sports people’s salaries are quoted per annum.

to make them sound less obscene so their fans can still relate to them?

To fit on the page?

It’s to simultaneously excite and disgust the guy reading the Sun in the back of a van who’s wrecking his body to earn £300 a week.

They can vary in the way they are paid. As you get past to the 5th level in the pyramid it becomes a lot more common for players to get paid weekly only through the playing season, not for 52 weeks a year.

having said that the silly big numbers in the upper tiers is just mind bogglingly stupid whether you say weekly, monthly or annual. All way more than us ‘normal’ people earn!

Quoting Yearly Salaries would be obscene when we live in a world of Food Banks and Poverty for the Old and Infirm.

But you knew that.

And dontt forget the quoted figure is pre bonuses fr putting on shirt, tying laces and caring enough to eek out a no score draw.

They should probably quote per hour.

I’ve also never been clear if quoted footballer weekly salaries are paid 52 weeks a year or just for the season (and pre season).

Quoting Yearly Salaries would be obscene when we live in a world of Food Banks and Poverty for the Old and Infirm.

But you knew that.

Oscar’s quoted salary of £400K pw – does that sound more or less obscene as £20.8M pa? I’m not sure (so I didn’t know that sarky; hence the question!). But then again I’m numerate and can translate between pw and pa relatively easily.

And is the quoted weekly figure net of tax ? I have a vague recollection of someone telling me it was, harking back to the days of an actual paypacket containing cash being handed out at the end of the week and the employer deals with the tax.

I’m glad to see all the other anti-football posters have already got the boot in, but as much as I’d like to join in… It’s a ‘tradition’ thing, they’ve been quoting footballers salaries in weeks since their wages became noteworthy – back then most people were paid weekly so it made sense to quote them weekly.

It’s only the press who do it.

Quoting Yearly Salaries would be obscene when we live in a world of Food Banks and Poverty for the Old and Infirm.

Best put pressure on the fans and stop them from going to matches or subscribing to SKY or even buying kits then, hadn’t we?
Could do the same for cycling too.
That’ll have the two desired effects of leaving money that we can be told how to spend and give us the time to give to others.

It would lose all meaning if quoted per annum. Just a massive string of numbers that would result in all the tabloids going bust from not being able to afford the ink and space to print.

Actually that sounds like a cracking idea

Nothing against football, but I’ve never understood how they get paid when they lose. It’s the equivalent of me doing a properly shit job and expecting no repercussions. I reckon it would make the games better too, having a massive mortgage payment and potential to lose the trophy wife on the line.

Takes too long to say the annual number.

Takes too long to say the annual number.

“Four hundred thousand pounds per week”

“Twenty million pounds a year”

Nope, it’s not that.

P-jay’s comment seems the most reasonable.

As to why the salaries are so high (especially in the upper leagues), well there’s a lot of money going into the sport via ticket sales; TV deals; merchandising; etc., that it’s not unreasonable to expect those who are the reason it all exists to get a decent share of it. Whether you or I find the figures involved obscene is neither here nor there. If people want to pay to watch the games then so long as they can afford it, it’s their money.

It’s snobbery mostly.

It’s only the press who do it.

the press being mostly written by middle class uni grads (despite what the Sun would like their readers to believe )

And is the quoted weekly figure net of tax

yes. At the higher levels footballers aren’t employees, they’re contractors signed up for a set period with the contract itself liable to be sold. Hence Player X was sold for £Y milions. you can’t sell employees but you can sell contractors’ contracts. They then hire accountants to ensure they pay tax at the same levels as Amazon and Boots.

Google Rangers EBT for an example of how that doesn’t usually work out

It’s tradition, players were capped at a weekly maximum fee then Jimmy Hill campaigned for the FA to lift the cap. Following that Johnny Haynes becomes first £100-a-week player. Since then wages have always been quoted in weekly figures, it just sounds weird now because the sums are so enormous.

Chicken.

Egg.

Are tickets expensive because the players are highly paid, or are the players are highly paid because the tickets are expensive ?

You can’t ban fans for supporting Football, they’re the cash cow of the industry built on the pillars of an elaborate dressing up ponzy scheme.

cpon – Member

It’s tradition, players were capped at a weekly maximum fee then Jimmy Hill campaigned for the FA to lift the cap. Following that Johnny Haynes becomes first £100-a-week player. Since then wages have always been quoted in weekly figures, it just sounds weird now because the sums are so enormous.

Ladies and gentlemen; a factual answer delivered in a way that wasn’t just “you are all fools”. Let us all learn from this.

well there’s a lot of money going into the sport via ticket sales…

Not really. Vast amounts money goes into the sport through tv money and sponsorship deals which are largely dependent on the game being on tv to ensure sponsors logo is seen by a wide audience. that’s why we now have games with lunchtime kickoffs, and games played on weekday evenings which often isn’t practical for fans. **** the fans, it’s telly money that counts.
Tickets are expensive because people are prepared to pay that for them. As the supply side of the laws of supply and demand clearly state – how much do you charge for something? As much as the customer is prepared to fork out.

Are tickets expensive because the players are highly paid, or are the players are highly paid because the tickets are expensive ?

Neither.

Tickets are priced at a level people will pay.

Ladies and gentlemen; a factual answer delivered in a way that wasn’t just “you are all fools”. Let us all learn from this.

It will never catch on

Ladies and gentlemen; a factual answer delivered in a way that wasn’t just “you are all fools”. Let us all learn from this.

You do know this is STW?

Ladies and gentlemen; a factual answer delivered in a way that wasn’t just “you are all fools”. Let us all learn from this.

Who gave the sensible answer? This is why the ban hammer exists. We’ll have none of your sensible, reasoned answers to questions. 😀

Ladies and gentlemen; a factual answer delivered in a way that wasn’t just “you are all fools”. Let us all learn from this.

How completely un-STW – bet he doesn’t even have a woodburner or exotic coffee maker. Or drive an Audi or T5

@Bigbutslimmerbloke – you selectively quoted there 🙂 while ticket sales aren’t the main source of income they are still significant. A quick check on Old Trafford ticket prices shows full price tickets are from £31 to £53, let’s say an average of £40, ground capacity is 50,000 (I’m sure it’s more but 50K will make the sums quicker and possibly allow for season ticket holders) so that’s £2M per game in tickets, 19 home games per season, that’s £38M. Last season MU got £96.75M from the TV deal. So while ticket sales aren’t on a par with the TV money it’s still significant. These figures are Premier League fixtures only.

OK, the above are back of envelope figures. From MU’s financial report we have (in whole millions)

Commercial: £286M
Broadcasting: £140
Matchday: £104 (this will include all the pies)

So roughly a 50%/30%20% split.

Their “Employee Benefit Expenses” (their words not mine) are £232M

I’d imagine the other top clubs have similar figures and income spread.

So direct tv income is nearly 3x that of ticket sales.
You haven’t included sponsorship/advertising (unless that was what you meant by “Commercial”). the value of sponsorship and advertising is determined by the size of the audience, which is dependant on the number of matches being televised. It’s probably (no figures to back this up, let me know if you disagree) that TV dependant income is yp to 5x that of ticket revenues. 20% of your income is still a substantial amount but tv based income is still far higher, which was my point and why there are so many weekday evening games – it’s not to keep the fans who go to games happy.

BTW – a quick google shows that old trafford seats 75,635 with 55,000 season ticket holders
A run in Europe will generate far more in terms of sponsorship and telly money than in ticket sales, especially for the Champions league

Err, 140 isn’t 3 times 104 😳

The financial report splits income into those three categories (I didn’t go past the summary page so they might be split down later) so I’m assuming that:

a) commercial refers to sponsorship deals, replica kit sales, playing the stock market
b) Broadcasting refers to the premiership TV deal, European competition broadcasting rights, adverts on their own TV channel.
c) Matchday sales is everything sold at the ground when there’s a match on.

Not sure if their shop sales go in matchday or commercial.