One of the major criticisms of the footballer lifestyle is the salary, and putting aside people’s jealousy for a moment – as that’s the obvious motivation for some comments – is it an issue and does it prevent players from performing at their peak?
It’s important that any public figure who physically exerts themselves for the enjoyment of a crowd is allowed time to rest, whether they’re reading a book, going to a club or logging on at http://www.partycasino.com/ for a quick few games. However, as some players are pulling in around £340k a week, and that’s after tax, are we really putting the money in the right place?
Realistically, the players are the investment, and without them the club would fail. But given that a lot of clubs are in debt at the moment, it’s worth considering how much could be saved by paying them a more reasonable salary. They are heroes to many, and they deserve a significant amount of cash, but to tackle debt and to take ticket prices down a little, a reduction might be wise.
The problem with this approach is that it would have to be globally enforced, simultaneously, and there’s little likelihood of that ever happening. In Cuba, athletes are heroes, but they’re legging it the moment they’re on foreign soil because being paid $16 a week and $300 per gold medal at the Olympics isn’t the lifestyle they’re after when they could make $30million by signing with an American team.
That may happen here if we were to drop salaries. It’s a game of logistics, and it’s a flaw in the system when footballers activities after dark are not only publicised (which they shouldn’t be) but tend to damage their ability to work together – Terry certainly wasn’t popular, that’s for sure, and it’s worth asking if all the cash is a contributing factor to their self-perceived immunity.
Let us know your thoughts – it’s a complex and, to some, controversial subject, and one that’s definitely worth discussing.