To think the comparisons between nurses and footballers pay are bogus!

[BoysofMelody]

We have a visitor staying with us and I watching Match of the Day. After that tutting, she asked how much the players were paid? I said there was a huge range, but the average was about £40,000 a week. But the best paid earned over £250,000 a week.

Which was the cue for a moan I've heard many times before of: 'that's disgusting, do you know how many nurses that would pay for' ?

I couldn't be arsed arguing the toss and didn't want to spark a row, but it's such a bogus comparison, if footballers were paid directly from the same NHS budget as nurses they may have a point,but they aren't. If Premier League players had their salaries cut in half, it wouldn't result in a single extra nurse being employed or a single existing nurse getting a single extra penny.

Yes footballers are lavishly well paid, but they aren't paid from the public purse and are paid what the market will stand, at that very top level, those with rare skills are in demand from wealthy business across the world.

And why only footballers and nurses? No one seems to get their knickers in such a twist over the similarly lavish rewards for Formula One Drivers, Tennis and Golf players earn or pontificate on how many teachers could be employed on the basis of Rory McIlroy's earnings, or even other aspects of the entertainment industry? Why do people not get her up by how many social workers could be employed on what Daniel Craig was paid for the last Bond film?

The clubs do not pay the full cost of match day policing - just the police inside the stadium.

That's what annoys me about football - they utilise scare police resources and don't pay the full cost.

The clubs do not pay the full cost of match day policing - just the police inside the stadium.

That's what annoys me about football - they utilise scare police resources and don't pay the full cost.

They pay for the cost for the stadium and the immediate vicinity of the stadium. They don't pay for policing in the city centre or say, train stations on match day. Whether you or I think that should come out of general taxation or be paid directly by the clubs. Where the responsibility of the football club begins or ends is a matter for debate.

For example, I live in Edinburgh and the city centre pubs are busier when Celtic and Rangers play and there's often disorder, which presumably requires greater police resources. The match is actually 50 miles away and those responsible for the disorder may have never set foot in either team's stadium in their lives.

Its not about the value that society puts on anything, what a ridiculous argument

of course it is, how can you not see that?

They only pay for policing on land 'owned, leased or controlled' by the event organiser'. See West Yorkshire Police v Leeds United (Court of Appeal March 2013) for the definitive legal position.

Most clubs do not own much curtiliedge outside the stadium and therefore only pay for the officers inside. Immediate vicinity rule no longer applies post the West Yorkshire judgement.

It's a fact that the policing immeaditely outside the stadium costs thousands which are not recoverable by the force. It should be in my view ( as then clubs would suddenly be able to do a lot more to control the attendees I imagine).

There is some data on this which shows just how much the taxpayer subsidises a money making business - will try and find a link.

notevernotnevernotnohow
It's different because you can't control what a privately run business is prepared to pay for something. That's not society putting a value on it. The NHS can't be compared as its funded by taxes.

AnneElliott
A large percentage of the population go to football matches so they would be happy for taxes to be spent on policing.
I am not a big football fan at all but if we have to pay for police to deal with twats that steal cars, burgle houses, supply drugs etc then why not to make a city centre safe on a busy match day. Most of the people they keep safe are law abiding citizens, they are there often 'just in case'. Part of being in a society is that 'we' can attend sports/music events for hobbies and interests etc so I don't know why it's a problem for 'us' to pay through taxes. These matches/events are part of living a happy life doing things we find fun and relaxing.

The working class choose to pay for sky tv, to watch their team play. I'm more angry with how much council leaders make. Or charity director. The first is paid by the public purse too and I dont see how they are woeth more than the prime minister.

Its the people who choose to watch that pay, and they are not society.

Of course they are! The dictionary definition of society:
"human beings thought of as a group and viewed as members of a community:"

I think you've been channelling Thatcher's ghost a bit too much!

What needs to be changed then, in real terms?

Whether or not something can be done in real terms doesn't stop it being unfair.

Although there is a minimum wage which most people realise is a moral essential. So not sure why there can't be a maximum wage too.

Footballers are not the fittest sports people in the world*

If you don't think they are phenomenally fit, okay they may not have the endurance of a marathon runner, but then a top-level marathon runner doesn't have a top-level footballer's technique, football intelligence or ability on the ball.

and I don't think they're generally from "poor" backgrounds

I said that footballers are disproportionately likely to be from working class and BAME backgrounds.

hmm certainly not in this country anyway hmm it costs time and money to keep a child in football training

Almost every player who makes it to the top has been in an academy run by professional clubs, the stars of tomorrow aren't generally paying out subs to play for their club. Yes there are costs involves in terms of transport etc. but it is nowhere near as expensive as say funding a child interested in becoming a tennis player or a golfer.

This is the sort of argument made by not very bright people who don't understand how market forces or capitalism works.

It's different because you can't control what a privately run business is prepared to pay for something. That's not society putting a value on it

Of course it is society putting a value on it. Who do you think the millions are that support the teams, buy the merch etc that leads the huge salaries are? Somehow outside of society?
Society lionises celebrity, and sports. Society ratifies these enormous salaries. Salary talks about them and makes them into big news.

This is the sort of argument made by not very bright people who don't understand how market forces or capitalism works

No, the people who don't understand that you can disagree with something while fully understanding how and why it is that are not very bright!

It's a boring and facile argument. YANBU.

This argument winds me up, if we were to cap footballers wages to be the same as nurses who will end up with the money? One big wig chairman at the top! Is that a better way to manage it. Like it or not these players pull in millions for the clubs they play for. The players getting £200,000 a week are the ones playing for the Man Us/City, Barca, Real. Teams consistently pulling in 100,000 fans a week to the stadium, boosting local economy in the bars, pubs and restaurants, they are the reason people tune into the football on the TV. They should have their fair wedge of the pie.

Yes its awful, but the clubs are not responsible for the low pay in the NHS.

Well football clubs should ether pay for the police resources they use or are forced to hire sercuity to mange the event (aka like the olpyimics but actully having them there or massive fines imposed for disordly conduct paid for by the club / damaged caused by fans to actully make clubs manage there fans behaviour)

Even though it's not public money, I do think it's obscene that we have nurses going to food banks when footballers can earn a year's salary for 15 minutes work.

I also don't like that you have millions of low-paid people doing loads of overtime to pay over-inflated ticket prices that goes straight into the footballer's pockets. All that just so they can support their team.

The best player in the world is Messi. Noone on the planet can do what he does. Thats why he gets paid lots.

It seems to be british footballers that come across as being a bit dim but thats because they sacrificed their entire life including education to be footballers. Other countries seem to include education as part of their youth set up

I love football

I think people are missing the point. I don't believe anyone is suggesting taking money from footballers and giving it to nurses. I don't think anyone believes the two are actually linked in anyway.

The point is actually what does it say about us as a people where uneducated, not very intelligent and often not very nice people such as footballers, singers, professional celebs etc are famous and extremely rich while the people who provide the necessary and important work to society are paid so little?

Nothing good, that's what.

The point is actually what does it say about us as a people where uneducated, not very intelligent and often not very nice people such as footballers i love football and footballers.

Although there is a minimum wage which most people realise is a moral essential. So not sure why there can't be a maximum wage too

I see the value of a minimum wage in ensuring people have (in theory) a decent standard of living. (I don't see it as a 'moral essential' there isn't a minimum wage in Sweden or Denmark and they rely on industry by industry collective bargaining. )

I digress, but there's a world of difference between a law framed to ensure a minimum standard of living and a maximum law used to restrict wages, to what end? I fully support a more progressive tax system that makes the rich pay more, but a maximum wage would be utterly counter-productive.

Imagine you artificially fix a weekly wage at say 25,000 a week. Footballers earning above that would seek moves abroad and would earn similar amounts playing in Spain or Italy and would pay no tax whatsoever in this country.

This is the sort of argument made by not very bright people who don't understand how market forces or capitalism works.

No. Those people completely understand how capitalism and market forces work. They just don't believe that what is right for the market is always morally correct.

It's quite simple really.

i love football and footballers

Do you love them a thousand times more than you love the people who would save your life if you needed it?