Evolution of Money - Analysis of Richest Players & Managers

(Extract from my article at footballspeak)

There is way too much money in football these days. In this first part of a series which examines the extent & impact of money in football, we take a look at the evolution of earnings of players, how much do the top players and managers earn today.

When I was a teenager at Dundee and I saw the senior players I used to think "Well if I'm with Arbroath at that age,getting £30 a week and all the kippers I can eat, I'll be doing pretty well for myself." - Gordon Strachan

Paradigm shifts in the History of Wage Structures

In 1901, we had a wage limit of £4-a-week in England. It took over 20 years for that maximum amount to double to £8-a-week in 1922, which was subsequently raised to £12-a-week in 1947. It was an entirely different game those days.

In 1961, the first paradigm shift in the way players were paid happened as the wage limit was abolished. When Fulham's Johnny Haynes became the first £100-a-week player in football that year, people were shocked at the ridiculous amount of money in the game. These days, you need to multiply that a thousand times to raise a few eyebrows.

Wages have been steadily increasing in football since the days of Johnny Haynes, like is most other professions. The legends of Manchester United's 1968 team were apparently on about £250-a-week of wages, making a little more from endorsements. Then in 1979, Peter Shilton became the best paid player in Britain with a £1200-a-week salary at Forest.

The 2nd paradigm shift which radically changed... continued at 20 Top Earning Players & Managers

Please do go there and rate it (highly)!

Swiss ramble is better.

Més que un worm wrote:Swiss ramble is better.

Football Speak is over 10 times more popular

DPL is more popular than La Liga in Asia.

La Liga is better.

bluenine wrote:

Més que un worm wrote:Swiss ramble is better.

Football Speak is over 10 times more popular

Really?

Good for you. I'll read it but do you mind explaining how you judge that there is too much money in the game? Compared to what?

Super Mancini wrote:

bluenine wrote:

Més que un worm wrote:Swiss ramble is better.

Football Speak is over 10 times more popular

Really?

Good for you. I'll read it but do you mind explaining how you judge that there is too much money in the game? Compared to what?

Thanks, yeah footballspeak.com is like growing by a swissramble every month

Re "too much money" - In this context, I guess its an opinion based on a comparison to what it used to be 20-70 years ago and as a comparison to other sports these days... please do leave your comments after you read it

Funny there seems to be a lot more comments on Swiss ramble.

bluenine wrote:

Super Mancini wrote:

bluenine wrote:

Més que un worm wrote:Swiss ramble is better.

Football Speak is over 10 times more popular

Really?

Good for you. I'll read it but do you mind explaining how you judge that there is too much money in the game? Compared to what?

Thanks, yeah footballspeak.com is like growing by a swissramble every month

Re "too much money" - In this context, I guess its an opinion based on a comparison to what it used to be 20-70 years ago and as a comparison to other sports these days... please do leave your comments after you read it

Aight I'll write but I think the this conventional wisdom is wrong. Why should players be paid the same today as they were back then? They are worth more to their clubs. They bring in more money today so logically they should be paid more. The alternative is that non-players in the club should get the money instead and I can't see how that is more "fair" than the players getting it.

Good article. At least youre making an effort to contribute constructive unifying discussion, unlike dole spongeing little twerps who roam the internet seeking primarily to get kicks from pissing over everybody's chips

Disco Benny wrote:Good article. At least youre making an effort to contribute constructive unifying discussion, unlike dole spongeing little twerps who roam the internet seeking primarily to get kicks from pissing over everybody's chips

Like when I create threads to generate genuine discussion about football and posters like you just troll in them and abuse me?#hypocrite

Not just a hypocrite, but a hashtag hypocrite. I am flattered.

Which of your threads do you believe have been trolled? Out of morbid curiousity. Not one of the ones where you claim jews are satanic parasites was it?

Disco Benny wrote:Not just a hypocrite, but a hashtag hypocrite. I am flattered.

Which of your threads do you believe have been trolled? Out of morbid curiousity. Not one of the ones where you claim jews are satanic parasites was it?

The thread about Messi.

Who and what are you talking about TRWP?

Super Mancini wrote:

bluenine wrote:

Super Mancini wrote:

bluenine wrote:

Més que un worm wrote:Swiss ramble is better.

Football Speak is over 10 times more popular

Really?

Good for you. I'll read it but do you mind explaining how you judge that there is too much money in the game? Compared to what?

Thanks, yeah footballspeak.com is like growing by a swissramble every month

Re "too much money" - In this context, I guess its an opinion based on a comparison to what it used to be 20-70 years ago and as a comparison to other sports these days... please do leave your comments after you read it

Aight I'll write but I think the this conventional wisdom is wrong. Why should players be paid the same today as they were back then? They are worth more to their clubs. They bring in more money today so logically they should be paid more. The alternative is that non-players in the club should get the money instead and I can't see how that is more "fair" than the players getting it.

I agree with this. While many talk about players getting paid too much, where would they prefer the money to go? The board members, CEOs etc already get paid a shit load for playing golf and networking. At least the players generate the money, so they should get a fair chunk of it.

Of course we should all pay less to go to matches etc, but then they can only fit so many into a stadium, so if it was cheaper it would be even harder to get a ticket.

Invest in youth development? Improvements to stadium/training ground/etc?

Besides which, players don't get generate as much as they get paid in a lot of cases. Taking Villa as example, losses last year were something like £50m and player wages were accounting for over 80% of turnover which is clearly unsustainable. Players on 50k+ per week who do very little for the club - e.g. Heskey has been at Villa for 3.5 yrs on something like 50k/week. People do not pay to go and see Heskey. He has provided very little in terms of goals/entertainment/anything. No way in hell has he generated the money he's earned over his contract. And he is far from a rare example.

I think the problem is that at the top, someone like Messi is worth what they are paid (and probably more besides) because they geniunely do generate a shedload of income for their club both through winning them things and their general marketability. But the high wages at the top drag up all the wages for middling players who aren't worth it in terms of what they offer.

110% wrote:

Super Mancini wrote:

bluenine wrote:

Super Mancini wrote:

bluenine wrote:

Més que un worm wrote:Swiss ramble is better.

Football Speak is over 10 times more popular

Really?

Good for you. I'll read it but do you mind explaining how you judge that there is too much money in the game? Compared to what?

Thanks, yeah footballspeak.com is like growing by a swissramble every month

Re "too much money" - In this context, I guess its an opinion based on a comparison to what it used to be 20-70 years ago and as a comparison to other sports these days... please do leave your comments after you read it

Aight I'll write but I think the this conventional wisdom is wrong. Why should players be paid the same today as they were back then? They are worth more to their clubs. They bring in more money today so logically they should be paid more. The alternative is that non-players in the club should get the money instead and I can't see how that is more "fair" than the players getting it.

I agree with this. While many talk about players getting paid too much, where would they prefer the money to go? The board members, CEOs etc already get paid a shit load for playing golf and networking. At least the players generate the money, so they should get a fair chunk of it.

Of course we should all pay less to go to matches etc, but then they can only fit so many into a stadium, so if it was cheaper it would be even harder to get a ticket.

But even here it doesn't quite make sense. It is simple supply and demand with prices isn't it?
When you have a higher demand relative to supply you will get higher prices. This is the way the market works. In technology we have so much production that prices keep falling yet I don't hear anybody complain that computers are too cheap. We can't have it both ways. Stadiums would have to increase in size and that isn't that easy to do because you can't really undo it if it turns out the fans won't come or if the fans turn away when the going gets tough.

debaser wrote:Invest in youth development? Improvements to stadium/training ground/etc?

Besides which, players don't get generate as much as they get paid in a lot of cases. Taking Villa as example, losses last year were something like £50m and player wages were accounting for over 80% of turnover which is clearly unsustainable. Players on 50k+ per week who do very little for the club - e.g. Heskey has been at Villa for 3.5 yrs on something like 50k/week. People do not pay to go and see Heskey. He has provided very little in terms of goals/entertainment/anything. No way in hell has he generated the money he's earned over his contract. And he is far from a rare example.

I think the problem is that at the top, someone like Messi is worth what they are paid (and probably more besides) because they geniunely do generate a shedload of income for their club both through winning them things and their general marketability. But the high wages at the top drag up all the wages for middling players who aren't worth it in terms of what they offer.

But that is a question of management. They are the ones that have to figure out what players are worth whatever. Simon Kuper goes through how unbusiness like football actually in Soccernomics. I mean you have people in mangement who don't know how to balance a budget but they are part of the old boys club so they get hired. Another part of this is that labour isn't free to roam as it generally does for most saleried people. So there is some ridigity in the system because of these rules.Kuper gives Lyon as an example of a club that is willing to part with players if the offer is good enough. I think most fans would probably prefer the current way rather than one that was based on balancing the budget because it would mean ruthlessly getting rid of players. It would be interesting if one country decided to give football players the same rights as everybody else just to see what would happen with regards to the balance of power in the league.

Super Mancini wrote:But even here it doesn't quite make sense. It is simple supply and demand with prices isn't it?
When you have a higher demand relative to supply you will get higher prices. This is the way the market works. In technology we have so much production that prices keep falling yet I don't hear anybody complain that computers are too cheap. We can't have it both ways. Stadiums would have to increase in size and that isn't that easy to do because you can't really undo it if it turns out the fans won't come or if the fans turn away when the going gets tough.

They could bring back standing sections, increase capacity & at cheaper prices. Would do wonders for atmosphere at some clubs too.

I'm not sure it's exactly supply and demand - clubs that are consistently failing to fill their stadium still don't seem to drop the prices low enough to attract full crowd. If season is going badly and they can't attract casual fans, they can't really drop the price too far to counter it, or they alienate the season-ticket holders who've already paid a fixed price & they'll fuck up their sales for next season.

Clubs also have a captive market (fanbase) and do take the piss when the fanbase is big enough & the richest fans are rich enough (see: Arsenal). It's not really an open market like technology because a fan can't go elsewhere to see their club.

debaser wrote:

Super Mancini wrote:But even here it doesn't quite make sense. It is simple supply and demand with prices isn't it?
When you have a higher demand relative to supply you will get higher prices. This is the way the market works. In technology we have so much production that prices keep falling yet I don't hear anybody complain that computers are too cheap. We can't have it both ways. Stadiums would have to increase in size and that isn't that easy to do because you can't really undo it if it turns out the fans won't come or if the fans turn away when the going gets tough.

They could bring back standing sections, increase capacity & at cheaper prices. Would do wonders for atmosphere at some clubs too.

I'm not sure it's exactly supply and demand - clubs that are consistently failing to fill their stadium still don't seem to drop the prices low enough to attract full crowd. If season is going badly and they can't attract casual fans, they can't really drop the price too far to counter it, or they alienate the season-ticket holders who've already paid a fixed price & they'll fuck up their sales for next season.

Clubs also have a captive market (fanbase) and do take the piss when the fanbase is big enough & the richest fans are rich enough (see: Arsenal). It's not really an open market like technology because a fan can't go elsewhere to see their club.

Are standing sections allowed though? Like I said it is hard to increase capacity when your fans are willing to go watch tv or when it depends on getting permits to build a bigger stadium and if you club does poorly you won't get the money to pay off the stadium etc etc. I'm not talking about the big clubs on this one because they have more than enough fans so they can adjust prices like Arsenal for example and get away with it.(not that there is anything wrong with that)

You are right that it isn't simply supply and demand. Like I said football does have some rules that create distortians in the market and until EU or some individual country breaks that up I think we will see the same patterns. But I would prefer some experiments first before changing things up. What are you thinking of in terms of reforms?

debaser wrote:Heskey has been at Villa for 3.5 yrs on something like 50k/week. People do not pay to go and see Heskey. He has provided very little in terms of entertainment

This is a lie, Heskey is loved by all

I think the problem is that at the top, someone like Messi is worth what they are paid (and probably more besides) because they geniunely do generate a shedload of income for their club both through winning them things and their general marketability. But the high wages at the top drag up all the wages for middling players who aren't worth it in terms of what they offer.

But that is a question of management. They are the ones that have to figure out what players are worth whatever. Simon Kuper goes through how unbusiness like football actually in Soccernomics. I mean you have people in mangement who don't know how to balance a budget but they are part of the old boys club so they get hired. Another part of this is that labour isn't free to roam as it generally does for most saleried people. So there is some ridigity in the system because of these rules.Kuper gives Lyon as an example of a club that is willing to part with players if the offer is good enough. I think most fans would probably prefer the current way rather than one that was based on balancing the budget because it would mean ruthlessly getting rid of players. It would be interesting if one country decided to give football players the same rights as everybody else just to see what would happen with regards to the balance of power in the league.[/quote]

Brilliant post, happy other people had listened/read Kupers book. Did you download it from audible?

I have Picard's syndrom so only physical does it for me in general. Recently I tried listning to an audiobook and I enjoyed it so I might try audio's more but nothing beats having it in your hands.