Footballers have too much money

Kanes · 29 Aug 2003 at 11:48

British soccer star David Beckham may have disappointed some fans by leaving Manchester United to join Real Madrid, but he didn't disappoint the developers of a luxury development in the United Arab Emirates. The 28-year-old just bought a villa, reportedly worth $1.6 million, in a luxury development called the Palm.

His neighbors on the island will include a slew of English soccer players--Michael Owen, Wayne Bridge, Ashley Cole, Joe Cole, Kieron Dyer and David James--who all have signed contracts to buy villas on the island. The Palm, which is located close to Dubai's Jumeirah Beach, isn't expected to be completed until 2005.

Beckham first became familiar with the Palm last year when he was in Dubai for World Cup training. The island will be shaped like a palm tree, and developers say it will be visible from the moon. Perhaps 'N Sync's Lance Bass will one day be able to verify whether that's true. It will be 3 miles long and 3 miles wide, and each villa is said to come with a private beach and swimming pool.

Now when I looked at that lsit of people, it looks like a bunch of guys who were at the England training camp in Dubai and decided one the off chance to buy a place. It's just not fair

Exorcist · 29 Aug 2003 at 11:56

you think thats a lot.

Sammy Sosa is getting paid $108million a year for playing baseball!! :eek:

Dj_Jestar · 29 Aug 2003 at 11:58

Originally posted by Afterlife
you think thats a lot.

Sammy Sosa is getting paid $108million a year for playing baseball!!

Isn't Mark McGuire earning more than Sammy just becuase has hit more Home Runs or summin?

Exorcist · 29 Aug 2003 at 12:00

i believe there wage is sommit similar.

jailbird · 29 Aug 2003 at 12:44

Becks can demand as much money as he wants - he knows Real Madrid are never gonna say no. And if they do, he'll just move somewhere where they will pay him too much!

£100k a week for 90 minutes work...pfft :rolleyes:

Exorcist · 29 Aug 2003 at 12:50

dont forget daily training, gym work, advertising etc.

im not condoning this kind of money but there is a bit more to it than 90minutes work.

Big Kev · 29 Aug 2003 at 12:53

I think they deserve their wages, it's a business after all nowadays and they are the main assets.

Kanes · 29 Aug 2003 at 12:55

Originally posted by Big Kev
I think they deserve their wages, it's a business after all nowadays and they are the main assets.

not a very good business when most of the clubs lose money due to the high wages they pay their players?

Big Kev · 29 Aug 2003 at 12:57

Originally posted by Kanes
not a very good business when most of the clubs lose money due to the high wages they pay their players?

Then the clubs concerned are negligent, can't blame the players though.

jailbird · 29 Aug 2003 at 13:00

Originally posted by Big Kev
Then the clubs concerned are negligent, can't blame the players though.

Yeah, Arsenal can talk about wages!! Not being able to sing decent players, losing their best players because they can't pay them enough...

Exorcist · 29 Aug 2003 at 13:02

Arsenal havent lost anyone :confused:

Big Kev · 29 Aug 2003 at 13:03

Originally posted by jailbird
Yeah, Arsenal can talk about wages!! Not being able to sing decent players, losing their best players because they can't pay them enough...

We're losing players? We're after singing players?

Get rid of your Arsenal obsession.

Exorcist · 29 Aug 2003 at 13:05

We're after singing players?

I hear Daniel Beddingfield might be available

Big Kev · 29 Aug 2003 at 13:05

Originally posted by Afterlife
I hear Daniel Beddingfield might be available

Can't afford him either.

CliffyG · 29 Aug 2003 at 13:08

Originally posted by Afterlife
I hear Daniel Beddingfield might be available

That made me laugh

.

jailbird · 29 Aug 2003 at 13:08

Originally posted by Big Kev
Get rid of your Arsenal obsession.

Sorry, forgot to put this in my sig:

Goose · 29 Aug 2003 at 13:09

The top stars are probably over paid, yes. The guys who earn less (but still a lot for us guys) may have to live of what they earn for the rest of their lives.

SamuearlJackson · 29 Aug 2003 at 13:39

Originally posted by Afterlife
you think thats a lot.

Sammy Sosa is getting paid $108million a year for playing baseball!!

that is not correct! he gets almost $17m a year from what i've just read - $108m is probably the total value of his contract. still, it's a lot of money! the NY yankees have the highest payroll in all of baseball and that is around the $140m a season for everyone so that sosa figure is way-off.

at the end of the day though, it's market-forces. if people don't want to turn up to the game, buy the shirt, not interested in products that footie players advertised etc... then players would get paid less.

SamJ

Exorcist · 29 Aug 2003 at 13:41

i stand corrected.

Kanes · 29 Aug 2003 at 16:27

Originally posted by Big Kev
Then the clubs concerned are negligent, can't blame the players though.

There are a handful of clubs that turn a profit every year, the majority lose money by the barrel. Some clubs appear rich when actually they're in huge pits of debt but are backed up by the government/royals of their country, it really affects the market.

Take away those clubs, which IMO needs doing, it's a total farce for clubs to be bankrolled by the government. All it does is ensure they get the best players because they can pay the highest wages.

Admittedly big business gets involved but not to that extent. Look at the french leagues, the clubs don't pay the same wages the UK/Italy/Spain pay but they still have some top quality players coming through. But immediately they get poached by those 3 leagues, because if a club gets into financial difficulty in France, nobody in a position of power can back them out, only individuals.

So you don't get the Leeds/Barcelona/Real Madrid situations happening, because they governing body will sort it out and remove you from the league if you operate in huge debts.

At the end of the day, it's the fans who suffer. I'll give a predicition:

ATM Sky has no competition form the UK market, ITV and the BBC are negligable, they can't pay anything near what Sky can. So Sky can happily bid whatever they want for the football rights, nobody else is around to bid against them except for the scraps. Why would Sky spend £600 million on the football rights when it knows full well it can spend something like £80m?

Fans get shafted for tickets already, but they still pay. Grounds are getting bigger and more expensive to build (and they don't get government help like the waste of money that is the Wembley project). I personally thought AFC were having a giggle when they said the stadium would cost over £220m in construction charges (not anything else, no buying land or the council bits or whatever). Just to build, on the other side of the coin, the Millenium stadium cost £132 (but Laing recorded a loss of £30 so let's say £160m for arguments sake), how does that work out? a 60'000 seater open roof costs more to build than a 80'000 (the third tier would actually cost less to build than the 2 tier at Cardiff cost) with a retractable roof? how is that cost effective?

Likewise the huge squads, what's the average Premiership side size now? First team, Reserves, Youth, Junior, etc. Most never make it to the first team, why bother? get a squad of say 24 players and it's sorted?

FIFA have got to start putting embargos on the banrolled clubs, having them around completely ruins the football economy. If they aren't around, it's going to mean clubs can pay their players less, where else can they go? ok possibly to somewhere like Chelsea but even he will have his limits when he knows what he can pay.