Should we have a wage cap?

EDIT: Got confused, they can't leave Brazil till 18

We still need a rule to stop kids being poached by bigger clubs.

coolhead33 wrote:

Zzonked wrote:

coolhead33 wrote:

Zzonked wrote:

coolhead33 wrote:
But why should they earn what some people earn in a lifetime in only a matter of weeks/months.

I might as well pull an Ali Dia stunt and injure myself before I can play any games...

Because they have a talent which can generate large amounts of money. Clubs will always get loads of money from shirt sales and TV. Isn't so isn't it only fair that the players get paid a good share of this money?

Oh so being able to kick a ball about and do fancy things with it is worth a better salary than people who save lifes, fight for their country or keep order in the community?

Tens of thousands of people aren't going to turn out to watch them do their job. So yes, definitely.

The soldier thing is such a ridiculously bad argument, it makes no sense. Jobs don't pay by how hard they are.

But surely fighting and risking your life to try and keep the peace deserves more money than kicking a ball? I know football is a business and entertainment and we pay lots of money just like we do with our computers and consoles but the money made is stupid. Sky killed football. Only internationals should ever be televised seeing as all the country support the same team. Club football is something for actual fans who earn money at work and pay the club to watch the match. But instead you get people watching the games for free on the internet when everyone else pays for it with hard earned cash.

Morally, maybe. But it still makes no sense in reality. Anyone could be a soldier really if they wanted, but not everyone could be a professional footballer. A lot of people I know who join the army are just chavy fuck ups who had no other option.

I like watching neutral games on TV. I'll watch nearly any match that's on. I wouldn't be able to do that without sky.

James ♠ wrote:The only clubs that wont like it is the top clubs. We should also bring the same rule Brazil are in, kids can't sign pro contracts till 18.

Wouldn't that just allow poaching of youngsters by bigger clubs?

Zzonked wrote:

James ♠ wrote:The only clubs that wont like it is the top clubs. We should also bring the same rule Brazil are in, kids can't sign pro contracts till 18.

Wouldn't that just allow poaching of youngsters by bigger clubs?

Edited my post, got it wrong.

They need to do something to stop the poaching though.

Kids could still sign pre-contracts, so it doesn't matter.

Like Matej Delac.

Fine Shagger wrote:

coolhead33 wrote:

Zzonked wrote:

coolhead33 wrote:

Zzonked wrote:

Because they have a talent which can generate large amounts of money. Clubs will always get loads of money from shirt sales and TV. Isn't so isn't it only fair that the players get paid a good share of this money?

Oh so being able to kick a ball about and do fancy things with it is worth a better salary than people who save lifes, fight for their country or keep order in the community?

Tens of thousands of people aren't going to turn out to watch them do their job. So yes, definitely.

The soldier thing is such a ridiculously bad argument, it makes no sense. Jobs don't pay by how hard they are.

But surely fighting and risking your life to try and keep the peace deserves more money than kicking a ball? I know football is a business and entertainment and we pay lots of money just like we do with our computers and consoles but the money made is stupid. Sky killed football. Only internationals should ever be televised seeing as all the country support the same team. Club football is something for actual fans who earn money at work and pay the club to watch the match. But instead you get people watching the games for free on the internet when everyone else pays for it with hard earned cash.

It's not really stupid, it's logical. Equilibrium wage of footballers is higher than that of soldiers because they earn more for their employers.

It is stupid because Soldiers don't fight to earn for their employers...

James ♠ wrote:The only clubs that wont like it is the top clubs. We should also bring the same rule Brazil are in, kids can't sign pro contracts till 18.

I wouldn't say top clubs, I would say successful.

If you bring in a wage cap, in the medium term you'd expect the playing field to level. Then once a number of teams establish themselves as the superior teams they are going to be pissed off that this wage cap is limiting their potential, even if they are the same clubs who today would be for it.

It works the way it is imo. You just see it differently because your club is not successful.

Fine Shagger wrote:

James ♠ wrote:The only clubs that wont like it is the top clubs. We should also bring the same rule Brazil are in, kids can't sign pro contracts till 18.

I wouldn't say top clubs, I would say successful.

If you bring in a wage cap, in the medium term you'd expect the playing field to level. Then once a number of teams establish themselves as the superior teams they are going to be pissed off that this wage cap is limiting their potential, even if they are the same clubs who today would be for it.

It works the way it is imo. You just see it differently because your club is not successful.

I see it differently because no club can become succesful anymore without a billionaire buying another club out. It will be the same top 6.

coolhead33 wrote:

Fine Shagger wrote:

coolhead33 wrote:

Zzonked wrote:

coolhead33 wrote:
Oh so being able to kick a ball about and do fancy things with it is worth a better salary than people who save lifes, fight for their country or keep order in the community?

Tens of thousands of people aren't going to turn out to watch them do their job. So yes, definitely.

The soldier thing is such a ridiculously bad argument, it makes no sense. Jobs don't pay by how hard they are.

But surely fighting and risking your life to try and keep the peace deserves more money than kicking a ball? I know football is a business and entertainment and we pay lots of money just like we do with our computers and consoles but the money made is stupid. Sky killed football. Only internationals should ever be televised seeing as all the country support the same team. Club football is something for actual fans who earn money at work and pay the club to watch the match. But instead you get people watching the games for free on the internet when everyone else pays for it with hard earned cash.

It's not really stupid, it's logical. Equilibrium wage of footballers is higher than that of soldiers because they earn more for their employers.

It is stupid because Soldiers don't fight to earn for their employers...

That's up to them. Footballers are a specialist type of labour so can demand higher wages. If soldiers demand higher wages they have no bargaining power because there would be plenty of people willing to take their place and at no loss to the employer.

James ♠ wrote:

Fine Shagger wrote:

James ♠ wrote:The only clubs that wont like it is the top clubs. We should also bring the same rule Brazil are in, kids can't sign pro contracts till 18.

I wouldn't say top clubs, I would say successful.

If you bring in a wage cap, in the medium term you'd expect the playing field to level. Then once a number of teams establish themselves as the superior teams they are going to be pissed off that this wage cap is limiting their potential, even if they are the same clubs who today would be for it.

It works the way it is imo. You just see it differently because your club is not successful.

I see it differently because no club can become succesful anymore without a billionaire buying another club out. It will be the same top 6.

Only in the short term. In the long term any club run well can achieve success.

Fine Shagger wrote:

James ♠ wrote:

Fine Shagger wrote:

James ♠ wrote:The only clubs that wont like it is the top clubs. We should also bring the same rule Brazil are in, kids can't sign pro contracts till 18.

I wouldn't say top clubs, I would say successful.

If you bring in a wage cap, in the medium term you'd expect the playing field to level. Then once a number of teams establish themselves as the superior teams they are going to be pissed off that this wage cap is limiting their potential, even if they are the same clubs who today would be for it.

It works the way it is imo. You just see it differently because your club is not successful.

I see it differently because no club can become succesful anymore without a billionaire buying another club out. It will be the same top 6.

Only in the short term. In the long term any club run well can achieve success.

No they can't. This is different to 15 years ago. The gap is too big now. Look at Villa and the money they spent, they still couldn't hit the top 4.

Only Everton managed to and they couldn't sustain it.

You cant compare a nurses wage to a footballers.

It happens in every society the lower class say the higher payed people do not deserve what they get etc. In England people will say footballers dont deserve soo much money but switch the tables and go to a poorer country such as Togo and people will say mechanics are payed too much here.... Unless your called Adebayor.

People will always complain about other people who make more money than them its become second nature here. Footballers are payed whatever their club is willing to pay them and I cant see the problem with that.


Plus more money = more people wanting to become pro footballers = bigger sport.

James ♠ wrote:

Fine Shagger wrote:

James ♠ wrote:

Fine Shagger wrote:

James ♠ wrote:The only clubs that wont like it is the top clubs. We should also bring the same rule Brazil are in, kids can't sign pro contracts till 18.

I wouldn't say top clubs, I would say successful.

If you bring in a wage cap, in the medium term you'd expect the playing field to level. Then once a number of teams establish themselves as the superior teams they are going to be pissed off that this wage cap is limiting their potential, even if they are the same clubs who today would be for it.

It works the way it is imo. You just see it differently because your club is not successful.

I see it differently because no club can become succesful anymore without a billionaire buying another club out. It will be the same top 6.

Only in the short term. In the long term any club run well can achieve success.

No they can't. This is different to 15 years ago. The gap is too big now. Look at Villa and the money they spent, they still couldn't hit the top 4.

Only Everton managed to and they couldn't sustain it.

Villa bought poorly. O'Neill was good at getting players to play above their level but he bought mediocre players. Sidwell, Heskey, Warnock, L.Young, Beye etc etc. They were not well run on the transfer side.

Fine Shagger wrote:

coolhead33 wrote:

Fine Shagger wrote:

coolhead33 wrote:

Zzonked wrote:

Tens of thousands of people aren't going to turn out to watch them do their job. So yes, definitely.

The soldier thing is such a ridiculously bad argument, it makes no sense. Jobs don't pay by how hard they are.

But surely fighting and risking your life to try and keep the peace deserves more money than kicking a ball? I know football is a business and entertainment and we pay lots of money just like we do with our computers and consoles but the money made is stupid. Sky killed football. Only internationals should ever be televised seeing as all the country support the same team. Club football is something for actual fans who earn money at work and pay the club to watch the match. But instead you get people watching the games for free on the internet when everyone else pays for it with hard earned cash.

It's not really stupid, it's logical. Equilibrium wage of footballers is higher than that of soldiers because they earn more for their employers.

It is stupid because Soldiers don't fight to earn for their employers...

That's up to them. Footballers are a specialist type of labour so can demand higher wages. If soldiers demand higher wages they have no bargaining power because there would be plenty of people willing to take their place and at no loss to the employer.

That's just greed though. Anyone can live on a couple of million. I understand that you also have to make money for your childs future but you don't need tens of millions to do that. They could use their money more wisely and help get rid of problems such as poverty. People are just selfish.

That's up to the players Coolhead, but regardless economically they deserve the wage they are paid.

James ♠ wrote:EDIT: Got confused, they can't leave Brazil till 18

We still need a rule to stop kids being poached by bigger clubs.

Even at 18 they can get the work permits declined to play in England. Also young players should have the freedom to join whatever club they want. If this affects smaller clubs its not the bigger clubs fault. Ya snooze yer lose.

At then end of the day a football club is a business, Players are like adverts essentially, The bigger the name the more revenue brought back through shirts, tickets, merchandise etc: Also better players mean the team gets more success, Chelsea's wage budget is £172m Mcdonalds spend about £500m yearly on their advertising campaigns. Chelsea and all there players bring in millions of pounds, Aswell as entertainment for the people all across the land, where as Mcdonalds just brings heart attacks to people, Also its the public demand for Football that brings in these high prices, Its all paid for out of our money essentially, Chelsea are just trying to sustain the flow of money coming in buy buying big name strikers.


Hope that makes sense, I am pretty high atm :p

True but when you get money you always want more. Then it gets spent on prostitutes and fuck knows what else.

I'm going off now so you win for now.

I don't think when people bring up the argument about soldiers and nurses getting paid less is exactly fair. Football is in the private sector, therefore, wages can be anything; and it's pretty much part of the entertainment industry where wages are huge, so they're going to get paid a lot. Soldiers and nurses work for the government where there is a budget. So unless all the people moaning about this want to lose something that benefits the whole country, i.e. healthcare, education etc. I think they should stop going on about it. If they want those wages increased, pay more tax. And no one want's to pay more tax.

Coolhead Nurses, soldiers, doctors ect deserve the money more than the footballers essentially, but in our society entertainment pays more and you can't argue against it because that's how it is. No point saying they deserve more money when they're not going to get the same amount of money as footballers. I wouldn't want to pay more tax to justify soldiers "to help protect my country", government can fund that by making a different sacrifice but again it's not going to happen so it's a pointless argument.