Stars greedy or getting their two cents worth?

Which comes back to; if they play a major role in the success of the game, why shouldn't they share in it?

Andrew, footballers only get a chance to earn big bucks for a short time. Also, some of them may suffer career-ending or limiting injuries or injuries which remain with them for their life. Australia is a free capitalist country - I encourage any Australian to earn as much as they can as a result of their hard work, talent or luck. One man's spending is another man's wages. Now if only NRL contracts were more lucrative in the first place then we wouldnt see as many players heading to rugby or the AFL.

HI Everyone, Great to see the passion of your responses. Probably should clarify - I agree they have the right to earn what the game can provide them. It was more a comment on that many people in the social and work places I have been in this week have scoffed at how player lockouts, salary demands, appearance fees and contract negotiations seem out of place to a large majority of Australians. I have left out executives because this is generally not as publicised and this is a sports blog / news site not a financial one. Of course many executive salaries are obscene, but that's what the market can afford - much like what many sports can afford. On whether Australia is sports mad compared to other countries. I would have us in the top 10 globally on an average assessment of a population of how important sport is to an individual. Of course the money has to go somewhere - and yes I would prefer it go to the players than the owners or administrators as they are the entertainers. As I said above the article was more an observation on the growth of sport at the top end to a level that most people cannot fathom. Enjoy and finally - Let's hope Harry signs, let's hope tournament money increases for the Australasian Golf Tour, let's hope the AFL players resolve their differences and get a satisfactory offering.

Andrew Leonard, And thats why you need to treat the players as partners, not employees and give them a cut of the revenue. They grow the game, they get paid better. They dont grow the game, they get paid worse.

Ok, let just say that Sport players earn too much money but if the sport is attracting enormous revenue by paying customers. Where would that money go? We get so upset of sports player earning money, would we be happier if all that money that pays sports stars are diverted to faceless sports administrators or even share holders and owners of clubs. Would we rather have guys like Clive Palmer getting million dollars or a H.Kewell? Would you prefer instead of Chelsea players getting millions of dollar, the money goes to Abramovich instead who is even richer? Nup, it's incredibly anti-worker to just go and criticised players to get too much money is when the alternative probably means that even RICHER owners or administrators get that money. If a sports makes millions of dollars out of players hard work, the players need to collect a fair share of that money. If that fair share is millions of dollars then so be it. I'll also add that a) sporting career is a very risky career to get into. It's pretty much a boom or bust career. If you succeed you get the jackpot, if you don't it is probably poverty until you give up and find a career change. For the small percentage that succeed there are thousands more who put all their effort in a sporting career and walk off with nothing. To justify that risk, it makes sense that for people who succeed they are well compensated for that. b) Sporting career only last until you are mid to late 30's. It is fair that sports star has to pocket as much money as they can out of their short career considering that they have to retire from that sport from such a young age. If you are a worker for a company who had a policy that anyone over 35 would be forced to retire, you will be demanding stacks load of money as well.

I would like to see that concept introduced to my Financal-Adviser (Super).

@ whiskeymac ... now you're talking! I'd love to see that type of "penalty for under-performance" clause inserted in the employment contract for every CEO of a public company. ;-)

agree this first statement was a bit fanciful - do we love it more than most? really? we are good at it and play it a lot but do we watch it and support it more than others? interesting set of articles in the SMH re Conca and chinese clubs too recently. The top club gets paid mozza for a win or draw but get fined a fair whack when they lose. interesting concept. cld that work here? bonuses are not new for good performance but when the club loses is there a punitive fine imposed? harsh but hey, why not...

Is Australia really obsessed with sports though ? compared to some countries we arnt really

Sorry, but I can't agree with a single sentiment that you've espoused in this article. This is type of quaint and insular thinking has no place in the 21st century where markets for goods, services and labour are GLOBAL. Basically, you are saying that people, who decide to make a living from one type of trade/skill/profession - i.e. PARTICIPATING in sport - should not be able to demand a "market fee" for their labour. The Australian economy is built on the concepts of free & open market capitalism and, even though I am a social democrat who abhors many of the excesses of capitalism, I find any attempt to cap any individual's or group of individuals' true & fair earning capacity to be simply outrageous. You've made the comment: "Just because the US, UK and European sports stars earn exorbitant salaries there is no reason that Australia has to follow suit." The reason why Australia doesn't need to pay local sportsmen exorbitant wages is b/c, for MOST sports in Australia, the labour market is NOT a global market ... heck, it's barely a national market! When Aussies do participate in GLOBAL sports - e.g. tennis, golf, football, basketball - the global market will set the appropriate wage. And, finally, Andrew, why should only sports participants in Australia be subject to "wage capping"? Shouldn't you also be lamenting the excessive and exorbitant fees being paid to certain sports administrators ... or, is it your view that "the workers" are the only ones, who should accept wage restraint?

Australian ethos or fair go? Sportsmen are professionals, and they have as much right to maximise their earnings as anyone else. Maybe I'm not really an Australian, but I don't buy into this Australian ethos or fair go, at least not when it comes to sportsmen. The majority of sports fans might not be as well off as their sports heroes, however that is irrelevant. The reality is that the athletes only earn as much as the sport brings in. Many sportspeople have to work extra jobs just to pay the bills, as the truth is most professional sportspeople and athletes don't earn great amounts of money. Just look at the Olympics. For every Ian Thorpe or Cathy Freeman, there is a long-jumper or a discus thrower or a Greco-Roman wrestler who has to worry about paying the mortgage each month. Not to mention that the overwhelming majority of those who would give anything to play sports professionally, don't make it. I don't see why in a popular sport such as Australian Football, the participants who bring people in through the gate and are primarily responsible for the record TV deal- and whose average careers are relatively short- shouldn't attempt to maximize their earnings; even if it involves more money than many of their fans are ever likely to see. I also think that if you are going to complain about salary "levels that sit out of kilter with the Australian ethos of a fair go" then you should focus your attention on banking CEOs and mining executives, not athletes. "Just because the US, UK and European sports stars earn exorbitant salaries there is no reason that Australia has to follow suit." NBA players earn about 57% of revenue, while NFL players earn more than 60%. 25%-27% doesn't come close. It will also be many years before the average AFL footballer earns as much as the average EPL player. "After all, as a sports lover who didn’t quite have the talent to play sport professionally – who wouldn’t be happy to be playing full-time sport and be paid their current salary today?" You say that since you don't play sports professionally, however should you do so, you will have to deal with the negative aspects and not just the positive aspects. I remember reading Michael Jordan's book, and him commenting that those who speak about how much they would love to be him don't fully understand just what it means; that for every free car, there's a license plate stolen off it every day. Now, I'm not comparing the lives of AFL footballers to that of MJ, however being a professional athlete is more than just playing sport. It's also lack of privacy, injuries, travel, brutal training regimes; and for many players, it becomes more like a job than an opportunity to be paid for following their dream. Just like any other job, I don't think the players are happy being paid salaries which they feel (rightly or wrongly) are less than they entitled to. You write that "the tried and tested argument of John Citizen would change jobs for an extra ten or twenty thousand is not relevant in this case", except it absolutely is. Nobody, no matter how much they get paid, are happy being underpaid. As such, in answer to your question, I wouldn't "be happy to be playing full-time sport and be paid their current salary today" if I meant the AFL was shafting me, which is the opinion of the players. In conclusion, I don't think the players are being greedy (if they demanded 40%, they might very well be greedy), and I hope that they get whatever they want. BTW, I find it interesting that you would put sending kids to private school in the same sentence as a holiday home. Those that send their kids to private schools are not automatically wealthy and nor are they paying for an unnecessary luxury like a holiday home.