They have similar revenues, and probably even higher costs, so if they can pay their players that much, why can't football teams?
I really, truly, don't have time to spell out the manifold ways in which the two subjects are entirely different from one another. Why don't you do something novel and exciting and research a subject before uttering an opinion on it? Start by looking at the wage structures of your average NFL team.
But since it's not a plc, does it matter much if it's sustainable? What I mean is, does Roman care that Chelsea's not profitable? He, personally, has so much money that he could operate with these kinds of losses and it not really matter at all. If he's ok with that (I don't think he is, otherwise Chelsea'd have spent more money on transfers this summer), then what does it matter? You have a "club" and an "owner". For plcs, these are pretty much one in the same (not exactly, but close). For privately owned clubs, it's a bit different. Especially in a case like Chelsea, who don't have, if I understand things correctly, and real outstanding debt (such as what Man United have with the loans the club has to repay). For a club like Man U to spend more than it makes, that would be disastrous, so I'm guessing they don't (or do very little of it - I'm pretty sure they're the club with the most income in the world via marketing). For a club like Chelsea, it only matters how Roman feels. And he could personally sustain their current spending indefinitely if he felt like it.
Right here, right now - no. And I've acknowledged as much previously. Chelsea can continue to run themselves as a basket case if Abramovich is willing to continue funding such uneconomical behaviour. That doesn't alter my point, which is that such an approach is not "the market at work", which is what people who are blase about this issue usually trot out by way of reasoning. It's the very opposite of the market at work, it's the market being actively undermined and perverted by forces beyond its control. In a truly capitalist system, Chelsea would go bust (as they almost did before Abramovich took over) because they can't afford to pay these sorts of wages to their top players without the distortion of Abramovich's wealth. And good luck to them, I have no real problem with people like Terry picking up whatever he can get: it's just useful to have people view the situation for what it is. And finally, let's not forget that Chelsea have a much-vaunted 'five year plan' for breaking even and becoming self-sustaining, so in theory the idea that "hey, it's Uncle Roman!" will see them through life is also pretty dumb. Last I heard of this plan, Bruce Buck was effectively admitting that they were "a bit behind" their schedule. Now, they're even further behind. Doesn't worry me, we've all got to sit back and just watch the Uncle Roman Show wind its way through our footballing lives, but if I were a Chelsea fan of any length of standing, I'd be uncomfortable with the situation.
Cute, but as silly as everything else you post. What price those two league titles if Abramovich decides to walk before their much-vaunted "five year plan" kicks in and they can wipe their own arse financially? I suppose they'll get to renew their rivalry with Leeds, but it'll be cold comfort beyond that.
we need some kind of salary caps how can just above average players such as lamps and terry get such massive fees each week? its a joke for kicking a ball around then dont deserve half that, most pweople would give a bollock to earn even 1k a week to play the beautiful game
On the other hand, if fans are prepared to pay £30-£40 each week, and tv is throwing £50 million at each club, and top clubs do have an average of £2 million per player available to spend on wages, and it's a competitive world, that's where the money will go. clubs will spend every penny they can on the team, and you can bet any team that doesn't will be criticised by their fans for not doing so.
The problems isn't the teams ability to pay it or whether the player deserves it or not. The problem is other teams in the same league with the inability to pay it. Wigan, Reading, Derby, Fulham and a few others can't pay those types of wages which will perenially have them battling for spots 9 and up. Soccer desperately needs a salary cap to bring parity to the game. I like Man U, Chelsea, Tottenham and Arsenal but i'd like to see a Fulham or Sunderland qualify for Europe. But the way football is set up it will never happen.
well the money needs to be lessened y not take some of the tv money and develope a decent english football acadamy that is on a similair level to frances? why not cap wages or give more money to lower league sides who struggle? arnt u sick of the prawn sandwhich eating fools taking up real fans seats because the real fans cant afford it any more?
Rediculous IMO. Chelsea have actually dug a hole for themsleves by putting Ballack and Shevchenko on rediculously high wages for doing sweet F.A so other players feel its their right to be paid as much as them for doing more, which is fair enough. Good job their owned by one of the richest mean in the world.
Thats just fine because if the players don't get that money it goes to the owner. And the fans come to watch the players and not the owners. P.S. A lot of yall don't know shit about how a sports team is managed. amIrite lolls
Clubs have their own academies. It's the FA's responsibility for a national academy, but they blew the opportunity by building that big red elephant. They only struggle if they spend beyond their means. Capping wages is illegal. Yes, but that's just tough shit.
An interesting take on this in today's Times (ignore origin of article in something that windbag Platini had to say). And that, in a nutshell, is why the whole "hey, it's just the market at work" is so banal, so nonsensical. Quite clearly, paying several players in your squad vast percentage of your overall income is ridiculous, no matter how high your income. There is, simply put, no correlation anymore between what a player can demand in salary and what a club can earn off the back of making such an investment. Instead, vast sums of money which could be spent on cheaper access, better facilities, better youth training, more inclusive community programmes or simply paid out to shareholders, is being handed over to players and agents.
Actually, this isn't a problem. It's always been like this. It's becoming more pronounced, sure, but that basic dynamic has been there since the 1890's.
Maybe football needs a crash. Then they'd be forced to bring in rules to stop teams going into debt for the sake of salaries and transfer fees. But then football's always going to be an industry involving debt. The costs are astronomical, and the revenues unreliable. You can spend millions on players that just walk out the door at the end of a contract, unless you give them even more money, even though they haven't actually improved as a player. Then you miss out on Europe, or get relegated, the season after spending twenty million on transfers.
He earns £100,000 a week. Or around 4% of Liverpool's turnover. Two crucial points though: Liverpool's overall wages/turnover ratio is around 60%, as opposed to Chelsea's 79%. And secondly, Liverpool's expenditure on wages is financed from the self-perpetuating earnings model they've had in place for decades. We earn, we spend - Chelsea have hopped into the top four by spending vast sums of money beyond what they earn and only maintain their position by continuing to do so. Beyond those two points though, I reiterate what I said earlier in this thread: I don't have a problem with the players getting what they can from the clubs. Good luck to 'em, whether it's Terry or Gerrard or whoever. The key point is that we are being dangerously naive if we just go "oh well, that's capitalism" and assume it's all self-supporting and natural. It's not. It's a perversion of the very free-market dynamics that should, when working properly, actually safeguard the future of football, rather than threaten it.
Didn't Derby win the league in the 70s? I don't think they'd be able to do that today. In fact no team from a town that small will in all likelihood ever so much as be in a title challenge ever again.
What we need is enforced market dynamics. UEFA dabbled in this a couple of years back, floating the idea of mandating that only clubs which have positive financial balances (e.g. good income, steady expenditure and any debt there is, is well-structured and carefully managed) may compete in European competition. Rather than shying away from the idea of the football club as a plc, let's make it mandatory. All football clubs within the professional structure (or at least as far down as is financially practicable) have to be publically listed entities, subject to the financial regulations of the stockmarket and of all attendant free-market dynamics. Make this something that is European-wide and the added bonus of European Comeptition Law comes into play. No club could operate with massive debt over a long-term period, without going bust or being forced to turn to the market for salvation. Over time, this is a far more likely mechanism to ensure financial probity and common sense than just sitting there listening to Platini prattle on about how "foreign owners are bad for the game". In our current system, they're just inevitable. As things stand, you can turn a football club into a private entity, remove it from the scrutiny of vast amounts of the financial authority framework and then run it like a basket case in pursuit of short-term personal gain, with little or no thought to the longer term viability of the entity your are maltreating. There are already countless examples of this having happened at the lower levels of the game (Chester City, Darlington, Doncaster, Exeter City, Bournemouth) and current trends make it inevitable that it will also happen with the big names eventually. People always cite Leeds as an example of financial meltdown in football, but that's actually a separate phenomenon. That was just businessmen with a massive amount of naivety and little or no understanding of football or fooball folk making a hash of running a business. What's happening at Chelsea is also vaguely atypical because it seems the bloke really does just like to have a football club on his keyring. No, the places to watch are clubs like Newcastle United, Manchester City, Manchester United and, yes, Liverpool.
It's always been like this. It's becoming more pronounced, sure, but that basic dynamic has been there since the 1890's. It's always been like this. It's becoming more pronounced, sure, but that basic dynamic has been there since the 1890's. It's always been like this. It's becoming more pronounced, sure, but that basic dynamic has been there since the 1890's. It's always been like this. It's becoming more pronounced, sure, but that basic dynamic has been there since the 1890's. It's always been like this. It's becoming more pronounced, sure, but that basic dynamic has been there since the 1890's. Where's the "you fucking spastic" emoticon on here, anyway?