Tammy Abraham...£34 mill...

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Bored of picking on footballers for what they earn, can we do musicians or film/TV stars next?

[Dark Cloud]

You also have to consider the length of a person's career as well as what they can command in terms of £s in the market place. I totally agree it is ethically very questionable that a footballer earns a million % more than a doctor (as just one example), but as others have said, we and the TV companies chucking all that money into the industry are what allows those wages to be demanded and paid. A doctor is also working well into his or her late 50s, 60s or even beyond, whereas footballers are pretty much done by 34 (ish) and that's if injuries don't get you first. If wages paid to footballers were in the "normal" range of other professionals, much of the top talent in football would simply clear off in their early 20s and do something else for a living. Something which offered longevity as a career which could take them into later years and retirement. Many wouldn't choose to play top level pro footy for say 15 (pretty comfortable) years knowing they were going to be unqualified for anything else, yet back in the jobs market at 34.

[Jakubclaret]

As much as I feeling uncomfortable with that statement, KRBFC is correct. You cannot compare doctors and nurses pay with footballers, not least because we are part of the problem. We fuel those wages.

Who would pay £900 for a telephone? But if you want an iphone 13 pro, that's what you have to pay, because people are willing to pay that amount. Ask yourself should I really be buying that phone, or sending that money to help starving children in Africa.

That particular model of iPhone retails at £949 on the Apple website I’m not quite sure how the acquisition of expensive gadgets fits in with paying players obscene sums of money, of course if you want nice things in life you have to pay a premium, some people who buy expensive items might also donate to charity it’s not 1 or the other if you can afford to do both. An Ethiopian orphan doesn’t have to go hungry because somebody decides to buy an iPhone or whatever luxurious impulse purchase.

[JTClaret]

I think you have partially understood what I was getting at at least. The money in football IS ridiculous when one looks at the state of the world. But the only thing making clubs ‘compete’ is the sheer greed of agents, players and the clubs who buy players not because they need them but in many cases because they don’t want another club to have them. There are huge clubs with global support in eye watering debt because of ‘competing’ but those debts mean that somebody is owed money, and yet still these clubs are allowed to pay fees they can’t honestly afford and wages the same. Debt means someone is owed money but clubs still pay out these huge sums.

I've deleted a bit of the above so it's not a huge post. In the main I agree with what you are saying, totally. Clubs shouldn't be able to buy players with money they don't have. Though because of this the price has been pushed up, rightly or wrongly (I know, wrongly, but still), for all players.
The Burnley comment was more relating the every transfer window and the 'the markets have moved' type comments - Sadly we need to move with them, or at least accept them. If a loaf of bread was £50 but some people got 50000 a week and you got 20000 then yes, youd have to accept it - Even if those on 50k spent 60k a week.

Made that way more complicated than I intended, and it probably doesn't make sense haha
We cant compete with how it is by playing by how it should be.

[JTClaret]

It’s bonkers complete madness the money that’s involved, no logical understanding to what a careworker earns as an example & a footballer, I’d be in favour of a complete boycott with everything to drop the money to a reasonable sensible level no footballer should ever earn more than a doctor or a nurse.

Football is paid for by sponsors, tv and fans. Doctors and nurses are paid for by everyone (unless private, then they are paid for by those that use, like football). It is bonkers though, you are right.

[Jakubclaret]

Football is paid for by sponsors, tv and fans. Doctors and nurses are paid for by everyone (unless private, then they are paid for by those that use, like football). It is bonkers though, you are right.

I know. I’m completely opposed to the excessive sponsorship & overpriced merchandise, Nike & Adidas ect clothing are made in Far Eastern sweatshops for pennies a Nike sweatshirt & jogging pants ect shouldn’t be costing the customer anymore than £10 & that’s still allowing for a decent profit margin.

[houseboy]

I've deleted a bit of the above so it's not a huge post. In the main I agree with what you are saying, totally. Clubs shouldn't be able to buy players with money they don't have. Though because of this the price has been pushed up, rightly or wrongly (I know, wrongly, but still), for all players.
The Burnley comment was more relating the every transfer window and the 'the markets have moved' type comments - Sadly we need to move with them, or at least accept them. If a loaf of bread was £50 but some people got 50000 a week and you got 20000 then yes, youd have to accept it - Even if those on 50k spent 60k a week.

Made that way more complicated than I intended, and it probably doesn't make sense haha
We cant compete with how it is by playing by how it should be.

Sorry bud I did get a bit carried away. I think we do agree in principle. My comments aren’t aimed at anyone in particular. I suppose I’m clumsily trying to make the point that football doesn’t seem to operate in the real world. It exists in some fantasy world where it’s okay to pay more in wages than you actually make. No other business model works that way.
Fans of a lot of clubs wet themselves if their club pays 50 million for a player. Personally, as much as I’d like to see Messi sign for us, I think I’d be unhappy if the club paid such fees.