Ronaldo’s wage too much?
Roar Guru By Towser, 19 May 2009 The Crowd is a Roar Guru
- Tagged:
- EPL, football, International Football, Ronaldo
This story appeared last week about Ronaldo’s muted transfer to Real Madrid.
Let’s try and put this into perspective by reading this article about Footballers’ wages.
I take this quote from it:
“The maximum wage was increased to £14 (1951), £15 (1953), £17 (1957) and £20 (1958). The union argued that in 1939 the footballers’ £8 was approximately double the average industrial wage, by 1960 the gap had narrowed to £5 with these figures standing at £20 and £15 respectively.”
Now, as one of the many fans who stood amongst the 50,000 crowds of the day at both Sheffield Wednesday and United matches, to see a £5 difference between the average industrial wage and a footballer’s wage, given their entertainment pulling power and skill, seemed somewhat askew.
But I remember my grandad astonished when picking up his Sunday paper and reading that Johnny Haynes was getting £100 a week. I looked at his plaque on the wall that said he had worked for 50 odd years till the age of 70 in a steelworks to receive the princely sum of £2 a week pension, and was inclined to agree with him.
What of Ronaldos wage of $480,000 per week then (let alone $143 million transfer fee)? I don’t know what the average industrial wage is in England now, but I guarantee its only a fraction of $240,000 per leg Ronaldo.
Here is another article judging the current state the 1961 decision had on football.
My own thoughts are that, although the maximum £20 wage was, in my book, exploitation by the clubs, perhaps Johnny Haynes’ £100 was a more realistic wage, based in reality on what is the only real indication of a club’s drawing power: punters through the gate.
I guarantee that clubs like mine, Sheffield Wednesday, would still be a big club if wages and transfer fees were kept at a realistic distance from the average industrial wage.
The killer in my book, TV rights, has put footballers’ wages way out of proportion to the actual pulling power of the market they operate in.
Recommend this story.
- Explore:
- EPL, football, International Football, Ronaldo
May 19th 2009 @ 12:45pm
Towser said | May 19th 2009 @ 12:45pm | Report comment
Brian
There ‘s a lot of sweeping statements in your post with no real back up.
Ronaldo is underpaid-compared with a golfer-individual sport,Baseball-show me the figures & even if you do & wages are higher, Americans live in Disneyland in my book re the importance of everything American. Just look where we are now for concrete proof.
Ronaldos skill covers his own wage & the rest of the Footballing hangers on-wheres the proof for this ? By fans through the gate at ManU to see him. They’d get 75,000 because its ManU not because Ronaldo plays for them. Same if he went to Real Madrid. No difference to the gate. If he went to Bramall Lane or Hillsborough or indeed CCM sure a massive increase on the gate. How he pays for Sepp Blatters wage( whether at Man U or CCM) or the rest of the people mentioned is unfathomable.
Why is it not possible to contain wages any less than now? All it needs is UEFA or other governing bodies to sit down & nut things out with FIFA in tow. What is the Bosman decision except a curb on the free wheeling transfer market & treatment of players like cattle.
It can be done if theres a will to do so. Thats the problem, things have gone so far in terms of power & influence by a select few Clubs & Leagues that the will can be influenced to block any change that may curb the ability of Mega clubs to further balloon their Swiss bank accounts.
Lastly in relation to AFL. What has a domestic sport here, got to do with the World market Football operates in. You are somehow assuming that the skills of one sport transfer automatically to another. That is a grandiose sweeping statement.
Why is the FFA importing overseas(Dutch) coaches to improve the skills of our young players.To compete with AFL?
Of course not its to compete with the Ronaldos & the Messis of this world to produce technically efficient players capable long term of making this country a top 20 football nation. If a child does not choose football early & be one of the “Chosen Ones” theres no chance of anybody coming into the sport at 12 or 13 & becoming our next Kewell. It doesnt happen in football,because of the ball control skills need to be learned & developed as early as possible.
May 19th 2009 @ 1:45pm
Brian said | May 19th 2009 @ 1:45pm | Report comment
Towser
The backup is basic economics and capitalism which you fail to acknowledge. You cannot take Ronaldo on his own and say he’s only worth this much, you have to look at football in total and see how much revenue he brings into the pie. Let me assure you the gate for Man U is a very small part of the pie. If Ronaldo and the other top EPL players go to La Liga the TV rights deal takes a huge hit. My point is that Fletcher, Robson, Blatter could all become plumbers tommorrow and not one dollar will be lost. The money is not created simply because of the name Man U it is created by Ronaldo and others like him. If Man U lose him they go to 4th and TV rights, merchandising etc all suffer by more than the $20m.
Who do you propose funds Blatter’s wage? I am yet to meet anyone who watches the World Cup for his trophy presentation? If you do not understand this you should not be writing articles touching on economic matters such as player wages.
You go on to say its possible to curb player wages, well sure if your willing to curb capitalism, otherwise a G15 group will emerge and start a new league. Your own proposal for a salary cap just goes to show that you agree Ronaldo is underpaid, otherwise why is he earning more than he’s worth? On a side note you write about players (workers) being treated like cattle and mega-rich clubs with Swiss bank accounts, yet than argue Ronaldo (worker) is overpaid??? I suggest you never take up a job as a union official.
Lastly regarding the AFL please re-read because my statement had nothing to do with the skills of AFL or Football. I was (again presuming we’re talking about free markets) pointing out that one of football’s strengh in a country like Australia is the wages that could be earned by a young talented sportsman in pursuing football as opposed to AFL. Again we have a free market economy and Football is competing with AFL for talent and dollars.
May 19th 2009 @ 2:29pm
Art Sapphire said | May 19th 2009 @ 2:29pm | Report comment
The issue is not how much the players are paid. It is whether the salaries are sustainable.
The reason why most clubs get into trouble is when over 70% of their turnover ends up going on wages. This is how small clubs end up going to the wall. Currently the EPL clubs average is around 60% going on wages.
UEFA believe cap of 50% should be introduced. It makes alot more sense than a salary cap. That way big clubs don’t get punished for being successful and they can still pay big wages to players that warrant it.
So if Man U can turnover 250 Million pounds a year they should be able to spend up to 125 million pounds on wages.
Here is the status of UCL English clubs.
Among English clubs, Chelsea would have the most to fear from such a ruling – they spend 71 per cent of their turnover on salaries. Liverpool, according to the most recent figures available from 2006, would also be affected with 57 per cent of turnover going on salaries. Manchester United would have least to fear – they have made a policy of prudent spending on wages, and their current level is 43.6 per cent. Arsenal’s proportion is also comparatively low at 45.4 per cent, although this rises to 49 per cent if the income from property sales at the old Highbury stadium is discounted.
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-and-comment/clubs-to-learn-salary-restrictions-1605129.html
May 19th 2009 @ 2:42pm
Towser said | May 19th 2009 @ 2:42pm | Report comment
Brian
What basic economies are we discussing? If a Club like ManU lose Ronaldo they just buy another player of world renowned status like Messi who’ll get the TV dollars. Thats how the modern brave world of football works the rich get richer because they can. Why because nobody had the vision back when the 20 quid wage was abolished to see that football was not a game for the people like it had been for the previous 100 years,but a sport for the priveliged few to reap the benefits of glory. To me cold economics leave a passionate fan like me dead. Everything comes back to dollars & cents thats what makes the football world tick today. Well it doesnt its fans that make it tick & in the world theres a lot of fans who’ll never see a Champions league trophy in the cabinet because Football today is full of bean counters because greed rather than common sense took hold. That is what this article is about Brian. How the football world is shrinking to serve the needs of an elite few.
As far Blatter no hes not perfect & neither is FIFA but without them the big clubs woulnt be able to scour the world for emerging talent because without the vision of FIFA administered by the likes of Sepp Blatter there would be no worldwide talent. So looking at it from the economic perspective Blatter pisses all over Ronaldo in terms of economic wealth creation for football & in turn the pot of gold worshipped by footballs bean counters TV rights.
Re curbing capitalism.( I prefer the term greed it fits more into my idea of what has happened in Football since the sixties.) I cant see how a proposal for va salary cap means I believe Ronaldo is underpaid. Hes earning more than hes worth because no footballer in relationn to the skills he is offering is worth 240,000 a leg. The next time my arm is hanging by a thread of skin I’ll just call Ronaldo rather than a micro surgeon he earns a crap load more money so his skills must be better.
Bean counting is not the be all & end all of any of lifes endeavours.
Re the union official bit I used to be one.
Re Footballs strengths in comparison to AFL even if looking at it as an attraction. Its only an attraction if you are attracted to it by the skills of that particular sport. AS I also explained you are ignoringby this sentence “the wages that could be earned by a young talented sportsman in pursuing football as opposed to AFL” the fact that football & in particular technique & related skills need to be learned at an early age. You are assuming that a talented young spoirtsman no matter the sport can turn his hand to any sport. As far as football goes that is not the case & never will be. Unless you have “mastery of the ball”from an early age you can never be a world class professional footballer. You cant just swan in at 13 because you are a “talented sportsman” & expect to have “mastery of the ball’.
So once again bean counting is not the key criteria for a person choosing a particular sport,but their ability to take their playing career to the highest level of that sport.
May 19th 2009 @ 2:55pm
Towser said | May 19th 2009 @ 2:55pm | Report comment
Art Sapphire
This % of turnover has been discussed in relation to the A-League. Whether this would have worked in relation to football if implemented at the beginning of footballs wage expansion I dont know,but you would think as far as wages go anyway it may have put a damper on clubs like Chelsea being able to dominate because a rich owner took a fancy to them.
May 19th 2009 @ 3:20pm
Pippinu said | May 19th 2009 @ 3:20pm | Report comment
Doesn’t the Bundesliga use a version of this percentage of turnover idea? (a very good comp too – has perhaps overtaken the Serie A, and rapidly approaching La Liga in terms of overall quality and strength of the clubs across the board)
I rather like the idea (but clearly it would suit the Victory more than any other club in the A-League).
It wouldn’t suit the Gold Coast!!
It would give clubs like Melbourne the incentive to try and match it with the better Asian clubs (there’s no use growing the club if you can’t improve your playing stocks).
At the end of the day, it’s a means of putting in place some control which rewards effort, while ensuring clubs don’t send themselves broke trying to buy their way to the championship (something that happens to plenty of clubs at all levels in all codes), i.e. it’s an effective guard against human nature.
May 19th 2009 @ 3:28pm
Art Sapphire said | May 19th 2009 @ 3:28pm | Report comment
Towser – I don’t think this %turnover cap would have stopped the wages explosion.
There is just so much money in the game now.
What it would have done is stop clubs from getting ahead of themselves by making them financially responsible.
In Man U’s case they have the best squad in the EPL and they don’t even spend 50% of their turnover on wages.
Their only problem is having been taken over by a Yank with a massive debt.
However, In terms of football operations they are very profitable. They probably would be in favour of a cap.
The interesting one are clubs like Man City who don’t have the turnover or Man U but a have suddenly become the plaything of a rich Sugar Daddy. I would not be surprised if their wages bill ends up being over 100% of turnonver as the Sheikh try to get them into the UCL.Like Chelsea, they hope that their turnover will increase as a corollary of success.
A 50% cap would not go down well with Man City for example.
May 19th 2009 @ 3:28pm
Brian said | May 19th 2009 @ 3:28pm | Report comment
Towser
I think your problem is with our free market system rather than Ronaldo. Yes if Man U lose Ronaldo they buy someone else and yes the rich get richer. This is capitalism. I suspect you also think that most rich people are overpaid.
Personally I dont see how we’re talking about an “elite few”, to my understanding Ronaldo comes from a relatively poor background, part of the beauty is that the highest wages are now earned by the best players irrespective of background, how is this elite? Anyway I don’t intend to argue on the merits of the free market economy I’m sure there are many socialist leaning blogs out there for you.
Since you brought up my comment regarding AFL I wasn’t suggesting a 12 year old can magically switch to football and become Messi but again him doing so benefits football. To break it down for you if football’s elite earn less than say AFL players some parents/children may be less inclined to play which in turn makes them less inclined to watch football or have their kids play football. I know Its a small argument and does not sit with your greater view that money does not motivate.
May 19th 2009 @ 3:37pm
Towser said | May 19th 2009 @ 3:37pm | Report comment
Pippinu
Yes I think its 60% of turnover. But dont quote me on that figure. Although Bayern still dominate under that system. in terms of winning titles.
MV would also dominate here. But at least as you say there is some degree of control & clubs are operating in relation to their revenue ,rather than acheive more than the reality of their financial position.
At least here within our own small market we can ensure that from the beginning there is some policing of clubs finances.
May 19th 2009 @ 3:48pm
Art Sapphire said | May 19th 2009 @ 3:48pm | Report comment
Pip – what the Bundesiga has is the 51% rule. No one person can buy more than 49% of a club. 51% belong to the members. This is why no foreigh owner can take over a club in Germany. They are easily the best run comp in Europe as they still make it affordable for the working family to see a game of football. 12 Euro to stand and watch high quality football.
This is why their avg attendance this year has gone up to 42k and the EPL is down to 35k.
I don’t think they have a set cap in regards to% turnover. But, they do have rigorous reporting mechanisms in place to stop clubs getting into financial trouble.
However, I do agree with the concept of a salary cap based on % turnover in th A-League.