The Spanish don't need to pay them as much .. their tax is so bloody low !
New tv deal
- Thread starter Hansern
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
[quote="peterhague, post: 879720, member: 104"]I could pretty much guarantee that the only people to benefit from a wage cap would be the owners. I haven't actually got a problem with the current distribution of the money - I think the players deserve their riches. As I said, ticket prices are the problem.[/quote]
Maybe that's true. However it's also the owner's that are putting money into the club, very few (are there any ?) owners actually make an income/profit from their stewardship. If the club got to retain more of the income then maybe ticket prices would not have risen so much, or could be greatly reduced if a cap was to be introduced on player's salaries.
I've always had a problem with how much players are paid, very few 'entertainers' are paid, or earn, anything like as much unless they are right at the top of their profession. In the PL even the lazy, merely average (if that) brain-dead tossers get paid 50 - 100 times more than, e.g. a policeman, nurse or fireman. There is something wrong with society when that is the case.
Maybe that's true. However it's also the owner's that are putting money into the club, very few (are there any ?) owners actually make an income/profit from their stewardship. If the club got to retain more of the income then maybe ticket prices would not have risen so much, or could be greatly reduced if a cap was to be introduced on player's salaries.
I've always had a problem with how much players are paid, very few 'entertainers' are paid, or earn, anything like as much unless they are right at the top of their profession. In the PL even the lazy, merely average (if that) brain-dead tossers get paid 50 - 100 times more than, e.g. a policeman, nurse or fireman. There is something wrong with society when that is the case.
Personally I don't have an issue with a person 50 or 100 times as talented as a nurse or a policeman being paid 50 or 100 times more than them. Seems fairly natural to me.
The main difference between football and other, apparently less-valued professions, is that millions of people will pay to watch footballers perform. Does that make them more talented, or just very fortunate?
I'd wager that most footballers would be poor if they couldn't play football.
I agree Spearing playing football is certainly 50 times more talented than a young doctor/nurse having done 8 years training working 16 hours a day to save lives.
Firstly, to some extent people are willing to pay millions *because* they are very talented. Secondly, the fact that they are paid millions increases the supply of people wanting to ply their trade, meaning they must be ever more talented. They are fortunate in 2 obvious respects: one, they are talented; two, there is indeed a high demand for their 'service'. It's undeniable that a similarly talented, say, gymnast, won't earn the same amount. But then it's also probable that a professional gymnast does not need to be as gifted as a professional footballer, because of the much less fierce competition.
I don't see how your final observation is relevant. If Alan Sugar weren't a brilliant businessman he'd probably be poor too. But he is.
You don't think Spearing has done years and years of training to reach his present eminence?
The amount of training one has does not actually increase one's talent, of course, so that's a poor argument in any case.
Finally, sarcastic though you were being, I think it's obvious that Spearing is indeed more talented than an average doctor (and almost all nurses) by a very great factor, certainly in the 50 plus region.
Doctors have a ceiling they can reach (I. E there's nothing more to learn), whereas spearing can always improve, whether it be technique or fitness.
It's ridiculous to compare intellectual ability to physical ability
I suspect though that your tongue is firmly in your cheek Peter, and I've fell in to your trap
It's ridiculous to compare intellectual ability to physical ability
I suspect though that your tongue is firmly in your cheek Peter, and I've fell in to your trap
I'm deadly serious.
Not sure why it's ridiculous to compare different kinds of talents, except that people think a clever person 'deserves' more than a thick footballer. I don't think they do. I also can't help but wonder whether there's a bit of snobbery involved in that widely-held opinion, too.
Not sure why it's ridiculous to compare different kinds of talents, except that people think a clever person 'deserves' more than a thick footballer. I don't think they do. I also can't help but wonder whether there's a bit of snobbery involved in that widely-held opinion, too.
It's one thing deserving more, but it's another absolutely dwarfing someone else's salary.
I don't mind footballers getting their salary because it's in their own little bubble industry that's waiting to pop.
It's impossible to compare talents because how can you compare the ability to trap a ball to the ability to diagnose arrhythmia? Or to time a perfect tackle to identifying and treating diabetic coma?
I don't mind footballers getting their salary because it's in their own little bubble industry that's waiting to pop.
It's impossible to compare talents because how can you compare the ability to trap a ball to the ability to diagnose arrhythmia? Or to time a perfect tackle to identifying and treating diabetic coma?
By the amount of people able to do it.
Personally I've met some extremely underwhelming medical students, probably no higher than 105-110 on the IQ scale. Let's say that puts some doctors in the top 30% of people in terms of intelligence.
Do you seriously think even as limited a footballer as Spearing is only in the top 30% most talented footballers in England?
Her name's Victoria!
Hahaha
Oh I've met plenty of thick doctors and tell them how to do stuff.
I'd quite like to know how many doctors are in England compared to paid footballers.
'Talented' is a very difficult work to use when comparing professions so I'm going to use 'proficiency' because then it's easier to equate the two. Considering what goes into becoming proficient in the medical professions/rescue-fire services and into football .... there's really no comparison ! A (young) footballer's life vs. a (young) nurse or doctor's ? Gimme a break !
The fact that millions enjoy watching football, because it is a form of entertainment, and most not wanting to watch someone being stitched up/life saved whatever, is neither here nor there, one we could easily live without and one is an absolute necessity of modern life.
Unfortunately it is also a fact of life that entertainers get paid vast amounts of money to do something they greatly enjoy, this being just another one of life's great inequalities. The world is full of them but it doesn't mean they are right as most people know.
Simply put it seems that you value people who dedicate themselves to life saving / people care far less (in monetary terms only of course) than someone who can kick a football. Personally I don't and probably most people feel the same way too.
I wonder if gymnasts would agree with you! Anyone?
The last point is simply to highlight the fact that most footballers are pretty stupid, and by no means talented in everything that they do. They just happen to be gifted at something that pays extremely well. Even mediocre footballers get paid more than nurses or policemen.
It's probably semantics really, but I think the money some footballers get paid is obscene, and wildly disproportionate to their talent.
The last point is simply to highlight the fact that most footballers are pretty stupid, and by no means talented in everything that they do. They just happen to be gifted at something that pays extremely well. Even mediocre footballers get paid more than nurses or policemen.
It's probably semantics really, but I think the money some footballers get paid is obscene, and wildly disproportionate to their talent.
That's almost entirely useless waffle. Your last point is of some interest, because you're precisely wrong in saying that most people don't value a doctor as highly as a footballer. They might very well say that they do, but you have to look at people's actions rather than their words. They're happy to pay £40 a month to Sky to make a footballer extremely wealthy; try asking them to pay an extra £40 a month to HMRC to increase a doctor's or nurse's pay.
Then you'll know what they *really* think.
You need to find a thread dedicated to football mate. This is serious stuff (and a damn sight more interesting than half the crap on here recently) we are debating here !
I don't care whether gymnasts would agree with me or not, I'd still be right.
I'm not saying footballers are talented in everything they do. Again I sense a bit of snobbery. Thick, working class, ill-educated oafs getting paid millions more than a nice middle class professional? Can't be right/fair/just!!
Finally, I wish people would not invoke the sentimental love of the caring professions in this sort of debate. Better to remove that and talk in terms of group financial controllers and estate agents instead.
I was gonna make that point earlier but I thought it wasn't relevant. But maybe it is. It's always fucking nurses innit. Never prison guards.
Well there's waffle that demonstrates a valid point and then there's waffle that's pure BS as per the above. People are selfish and will spend far more on themselves than they would ever donate to a good cause, that doesn't mean they actually value a footballer above a nurse.
Funny I was going to add prison guards but thought the former would make the point just as well !
If people are willing to spend perhaps £1 a year on a footballer but only 0.1p a year on a nurse, do you not think that kind of proves you wrong?
In early communist China when you were introduced to someone they would often ask (and still do sometimes) "How much do you earn" ? it wasn't because they really wanted to know your income but because how much you earned would indicate your ranking on a common scale. Anyone of a specific rank would earn the same as someone of the same rank, no matter the profession they were in. Interesting if not exactly valid here !
Do taxes not cover that then ? Do we actually know the actual breakdown of how the average person's taxes are spent ? I'm sure that for most people the amount directed to the health service equates to a lot more than just a few £s. And of course, for those that can afford it, many supplement that with private health care plans, costing in the hundreds and sometimes thousands of £s.
Of course taxes are for the most part invisible, in that it's difficult to put a price/value on something which isn't paid and delivered directly to you. Entertainment however is obviously far easier to calculate a value for (to that individual). I don't think you have a valid comparison there at all.
I'm saying what they actually spend on an individual nurse's salary compared to an individual footballer's salary. 0.1p is probably a gross overestimate. Make it perhaps 50p on a footballer and 0.001p on a nurse, say. If they valued a nurse anything like as highly as a footballer, then they'd be spending much more on them, but they obviously don't.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
