Zgodovina plač nogometašev

Zgodovina plač nogometašev


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Januarja 1884 je Preston North End v pokalu FA igral z londonskim Upton Parkom. Po tekmi se je Upton Park pritožil Nogometni zvezi, da je Preston profesionalna in ne amaterska ekipa. Major William Sudell, sekretar/direktor Preston North Enda, je priznal, da so njegovi igralci plačani, vendar je trdil, da je to običajna praksa in ne krši predpisov. Vendar se FA ni strinjal in jih izključil iz tekmovanja.

Znano je bilo, da je Sudell izboljšal kakovost ekipe z uvozom vrhunskih igralcev z drugih področij. To je vključevalo več igralcev iz Škotske. Poleg tega, da jim je Sudell plačal denar za igranje za moštvo, jim je v Prestonu našel tudi visoko plačano delo.

20. julija 1885 je FA objavila, da je "v interesu zveze Football, da se legalizira zaposlovanje profesionalnih nogometašev, vendar le pod določenimi omejitvami". Klubi so lahko plačevali igralce, pod pogojem, da so bili rojeni ali živeli dve leti v polmeru šestih milj od tal.

Blackburn Rovers se je takoj registriral kot profesionalni klub. Njihovi računi kažejo, da so v sezoni 1885–86 za izplačilo plač porabili skupaj 615 funtov. Ugotovljeno je bilo, da so vrhunski igralci, kot sta James Forrest in Joseph Lofthouse, plačevali 1 funt na teden. Zapisi kažejo, da je West Bromwich Albion svojim profesionalnim igralcem plačeval 10 šilingov na teden, brez bonusov in stroškov.

Leta 1888 so poročali, da je Nick Ross prejemal 10 funtov na mesec, potem ko je bil premeščen iz Preston North End v Everton. Ocenjuje se, da je bilo to skoraj dvakrat več kot pri najboljših igralcih. V zgodnjih 1890 -ih so vodilni klubi, kot so Aston Villa, Newcastle United in Sunderland, svojim najboljšim igralcem plačevali 5 funtov na teden.

Septembra 1893 je okrožje Derby predlagalo, naj nogometna liga uvede najvišjo plačo 4 £ na teden. Takrat je bila večina igralcev le poklicnih delavcev in so imeli še druga dela. Ti igralci niso prejemali kar 4 funtov na teden, zato jih zadeva ni močno prizadela. Manjšina igralcev pa je bila tako dobrih, da so lahko pridobili kar 10 funtov na teden. Ta predlog je resno ogrozil njihove dohodke.

Nekateri od teh vrhunskih igralcev so se združili in ustanovili sindikat. To so bili Bob Holmes in Jimmy Ross iz Preston North Enda, John Devey iz Aston Ville, John Somerville iz Bolton Wanderers, Hugh McNeill iz Sunderlanda, Harry Wood iz Wolverhamptona Wanders in John Cameron iz Evertona.

Drugi igralci, ki so prevzeli vodilno vlogo v Zvezi nogometašev (AFU), so bili Tom Bradshaw (Liverpool), James McNaught (Newton Heath), Billy Meredith (Manchester City), John Bell (Everton), Abe Hartley (Liverpool), Johnny Holt (Everton) in David Storrier (Everton).

V sezoni 1895-96 je William Foulke iz Sheffield Uniteda povišal svojo plačo na 3 £ na teden, kar je vključevalo zadrževalno plačo poleti. Foulke in njegovi soigralci so bili plačani tudi deset šilingov (50 p) bonusa za zmago v gosteh in pet šilingov za zmago doma ali neodločeno. Zapisi kažejo, da so bili igralci za ključne igre plačani 5 funtov za zmago. Takrat je bila povprečna plača delavca približno 1 funt. Nekdo s specializiranimi veščinami pa bi lahko zaslužil do 2,50 funtov na teden.

Klubi v lasti industrijalcev, kot je Arnold Hills, bi lahko igralcem zagotovili tudi visoko plačano delo v podjetju. Drugi so se klubu pridružili z zavedanjem, da jim bodo plačali velikodušen podpis pristojbine. Tako je bilo z Davidom Lloydom iz garde 3. bataljona. Ker je bil vojak, bi lahko delal za Thames Iron Works in igral za West Ham United. Ta branilec s šestimi čevlji je svoje prve dve tekmi odigral pri beku. Za tretjo tekmo je bil prestavljen na sredino in klub je nagradil z hat-trickom. Pomanjkljivost te sheme je bila, da so igralci le redko ostali dolgo v klubu. Na primer, v štiriletnem obdobju 1896-1900 je igral za štiri različne klube. To se je končalo šele, ko so ga poslali v Južno Afriko na boj v bursko vojno.

AFU je uspelo prepričati Nogometno zvezo in Nogometno ligo, naj ne uvedeta najvišjih plač. Ko je Liverpool v sezoni 1900-01 osvojil prvenstvo v prvi ligi, so imeli njihovi igralci 7 funtov, kar bi z bonusi lahko doseglo 10 funtov.

Nogometna zveza je na skupščini sprejela pravilo, ki določa najvišjo plačo profesionalnih nogometašev, ki igrajo v nogometni ligi, na 4 £ na teden. To je bilo dvakrat več, kot so v tem času dobili spretni trgovci. Na istem sestanku so glasovali tudi o prepovedi bonusov za tekmo. Da bi moške nekaj časa spodbujali k igranju v klubih, bi morali igralci po petih letih prejeti ugodnost. Takrat so trdili, da je bil to poskus omejevanja moči bogatejših klubov. To novo pravilo je bilo uvedeno na začetku sezone 1901-02.

Ker so nekateri igralci zaslužili kar 10 funtov, so se odločili, da se pridružijo klubom južne lige, kjer ni bilo omejitev pri plačah. Kot je poudaril John Harding v knjigi Za dobro igre: Uradna zgodovina Združenja profesionalnih nogometašev (1991) "Nogometna liga je v bistvu odpravila prosti trg, na katerem so bile plače in pogoji igralcev ... obstajali so" poti za pobeg v klube in države, kjer bi lahko igralec svobodno opravljal svojo trgovino in zaslužil primerno (res, kar zadeva nekatere klube južne lige, zelo donosno) plačo ... Klubi južne lige so začeli privabljati zvezde nogometne lige, da so se zmotili z obljubami do 100 funtov za prijavo. "

V svoji knjigi je West Ham United: Ustvarjanje nogometnega kluba (1986) je Charles Korr izvedel podrobno preiskavo plač, ki jih je izplačeval West Ham United. "Leta 1906 je bila povprečna plača za celotno ekipo (30 igralcev) 2 £ £ na teden skozi celo leto. Najmanj 12 je bilo plačanih med 4 £ in 4 10 £ £ v sezoni in najmanj 2 £ 10s poleti ... Veterani, ki so bili v klubu od leta 1900, so napolnili rezervno in tretje ekipe, njihova plača pa se je gibala od 2 funtov v sezoni do 15 -ih na tekmo. Direktorji so vztrajali, da vsi igralci zaslužijo več kot 2 funtov. 10-ih med sezono ne bi smeli prevzeti druge službe; bili so profesionalni nogometaši s polnim delovnim časom in so bili kot takšni plačani. "

Charles Korr nadaljuje primerjavo plač nogometašev leta 1906 z drugimi poklici: "Leta 1906 so naključni dockerji zaslužili med 5s 6d in £ 1 2s 7d za 44-urni teden. Vozniki tramvaja so zaslužili 233 £ za 60-urni teden in moški zaposleni v gradbeništvu so v povprečju znašali 288 funtov za 44-urni teden. "

Leta 1907 so se Billy Meredith in več kolegov pri Manchester Unitedu, med drugim Charlie Roberts, Charlie Sagar, Herbert Broomfield, Herbert Burgess in Sandy Turnbull, odločili ustanoviti novo zvezo igralcev. Prvo srečanje je bilo 2. decembra 1907 v hotelu Imperial v Manchesteru. Na srečanju so bili tudi igralci iz Manchester Cityja, Newcastle Uniteda, Bradford Cityja, West Bromwich Albiona, Notts Countyja, Sheffield Uniteda in Tottenhama Hotspurja. Srečanja se je udeležil tudi Jack Bell, nekdanji predsednik Združenja nogometašev zveze (AFU).

Herbert Broomfield je bil imenovan za novega sekretarja Združenja nogometašev (AFPU). Billy Meredith je vodil sestanke v Londonu in Nottinghamu, v nekaj tednih pa se je sindikatu pridružila večina igralcev nogometne lige. Med njimi so bili Andrew McCombie, Jim Lawrence in Colin Veitch iz Newcastle Uniteda, ki naj bi postali pomembni osebnosti AFPU. Glavni cilj AFPU je bil povečati najvišjo plačo.

AFPU je dobil podporo tudi od administratorjev klubov. John J. Bentley (predsednik) in John Henry Davies (predsednik) Manchester Uniteda sta se pridružila kampanji za odpravo zgornje meje plač v višini 4 funtov.

Nogometna zveza se je na letni skupščini leta 1908 odločila ponovno potrditi najvišjo plačo. Vseeno so povečali možnost uvedbe sistema bonusov, po katerem bi igralci ob koncu sezone prejemali 50% klubskega dobička.

AFPU se je še naprej pogajala z Nogometno zvezo, vendar so se aprila 1909 ta končala brez dogovora. Junija je FA odredila, da morajo vsi igralci zapustiti AFPU. Opozorili so jih, da bodo, če tega ne storijo do 1. julija, njihove registracije za profesionalce preklicane. AFPU se je odzval z vstopom v Splošno zvezo sindikatov.

Večina igralcev je odstopila od sindikata. Vseh 28 strokovnjakov v Aston Villi je podpisalo javno izjavo, da so zapustili AFPU in se ne bodo pridružili, dokler jim FA ne dovoli. Vendar pa je celotna ekipa Manchester Uniteda zavrnila odstop. Posledično jih je klub vse suspendiral. Enako se je zgodilo sedemnajstim igralcem Sunderlanda, ki prav tako niso hoteli zapustiti AFPU.

Igralci so s tem, da so ostali v sindikatu, ogrozili svojo kariero. Kot je poudaril kapetan Manchester Uniteda Charlie Roberts: "Takrat sem imel garancijo v višini 500 funtov in če kazni ne bi umaknili, bi poleg plače izgubil tudi to, tako da je bila resna zame zame. "

John J. Bentley, predsednik Manchester Uniteda in nogometne lige ter podpredsednik nogometne zveze, ki je prej podpiral ukinitev najvišje plače, je zdaj napadel dejavnosti AFPU. "Že sam predlog o stavki nogometašev kaže na zlobnost motivov, ki stojijo za tem, in po moji presoji ne moremo pretirano obsoditi."

Colin Veitch, ki je odstopil iz AFPU, da bi nadaljeval pogajanja z Nogometno zvezo, je vodil boj za obnovo igralcev. Na sestanku v Birminghamu 31. avgusta 1909 se je FA strinjala, da bi lahko bili profesionalni igralci člani AFPU in spor se je končal.

Billy Meredith je odločitev videl kot poraz za Združenje nogometašev: "Žalostno je, da toliko igralcev noče stvari jemati resno, ampak se zadovolji z nekakšnim šolskim življenjem in s tem, kar jim je rečeno ... namesto da razmišlja in deluje zase in za svoj razred. "

Charlie Roberts se je strinjal z Meredith: "Kar se mene tiče, bi videl FA v Jericho, preden bi odstopil s članstva v tem organu, ker je bila to naša moč in desna roka, vendar sem bil le en član igralcev. "Sindikat. Na sramoto večine so glasovali za edino moč, ki so jo imeli proč od sebe, FA pa je to vedela."

Ko je ekipa Manchester United 1. septembra 1909 igrala na prvi tekmi v sezoni, so vsi nosili obroče AFPU. Vendar pa je trajalo šest mesecev, da so igralci prejeli zaostale plače. Charlie Roberts nikoli ni dobil ugodnosti in več sindikalnih aktivistov ni bilo nikoli več izbranih, da bi igrali za svojo državo.

Po prvi svetovni vojni so profesionalni nogometaši prejemali najvišjo tedensko plačo 10 £. Leta 1920 je upravni odbor nogometne lige predlagal znižanje na največ 9 funtov na teden. Buchan je bil eden tistih, ki so AFU pozvali k stavki. Vendar je veliko število igralcev odstopilo od sindikata in Nogometna liga je lahko uvedla najvišjo plačo v višini 9 funtov. Naslednje leto se je znižala na 8 £ za 37 -tedensko sezono igranja in 6 £ za 15 -tedensko sezono.

Kljub prizadevanjem Zveze igralcev do leta 1945 ni prišlo do nobene druge spremembe, ko se je najvišja plača ob koncu sezone povečala na 7 funtov na teden. Dve leti kasneje je bilo ustanovljeno nacionalno arbitražno sodišče. Odločilo se je, da se najvišja plača dvigne na 12 funtov v sezoni igranja in 10 funtov v zaključni sezoni. Minimalna plača za igralce, starejše od 20 let, je bila določena na 7 funtov.

Najvišja plača se je povečala na 14 funtov (1951), 15 funtov (1953), 17 funtov (1957) in 20 funtov (1958). Sindikat je trdil, da je bilo leta 1939 8 funtov nogometašev približno dvakrat višje od povprečne industrijske plače, do leta 1960 se je vrzel zmanjšala na 5 funtov, pri čemer so te številke znašale 20 funtov oziroma 15 funtov.

Igralci so leta 1960 zahtevali dodatne plače in ko so bili ti podprti z grožnjo s stavko 14. januarja 1961. Nogometna liga se je odzvala z ukinitvijo najvišje plače. Johnny Haynes, kapetan Anglije, je postal prvi igralec 100 funtov na teden. Vendar so nekateri klubi, kot je Liverpool, poskušali uveljaviti neuradne zgornje meje plač. Manchester United je na primer plačal najvišjo plačo 50 funtov na teden.

Newcastle United je svojim igralcem poskušal naložiti tudi najvišjo plačo. Prav tako ni hotel prodati Georgea Easthama Arsenalu. Zveza igralcev je zadevo podala na višje sodišče, sodnik Richard Wilberforce pa je leta 1963 razglasil, da je sistem zadržanja in prenosa nerazumen in da je zavrnitev Newcastla pri prodaji Easthama pomenila "omejitev trgovine". Naslednje leto se je element »zadržanja« zadrževanja in prenosa močno zmanjšal, kar je omogočilo poštenejše pogoje za igralce, ki se želijo znova podpisati za svoje klube, in vzpostavitev prestopnega sodišča za spore.

Kaj je bolj razumno od našega prošnje, da bi moral nogometaš s svojo negotovo kariero imeti najboljši denar, ki ga lahko zasluži? Če lahko zaslužim 7 funtov na teden, zakaj bi mi morali onemogočiti prejemanje? Svoje življenje sem posvetil nogometu in postal sem boljši igralec od večine, ker sem si veliko zanikal, da moški nagrajujejo. Človek, ki skrbi zase, kar sem kdaj storil, in se bori proti skušnjavam vsega, kar lahko poškoduje sistem, si zagotovo zasluži priznanje in nagrado!

Oni (igralci) so na splošno preveč radodarna brezskrbna dirka, ki ne posluša jutrišnjega dne in se na deževen dan ne pripravi tako, kot bi to storili modri. To lastnost karakterja igralcev so tajniki klubov v Angliji vedno znova izkoriščali. Marsikaterega fanta so prevarali z nejasnimi ustnimi obljubami, ki so bile namerno pozabljene, ko se je črnilo posušilo na obrazcu. Šele pred kratkim so igralci s stalnim izboljševanjem v razredu moških, ki igrajo igro kot profesionalci, spoznali neumnost neprevidnega življenja in spoznali, da so predolgo zdržali vse vrste brezbrižnosti in krivic. Edini način, da se to stanje spremeni, je bilo združeno delovanje, zato je konec prvega leta nastala in uspela Zveza igralcev s svojih 1300 plačljivimi člani ...

Kar odpira vrata nerednim plačilom, je krivica ranga omejitve 4 funtov na teden in sistema prestopov, ki daje klubu 1000 funtov za igralca in slednjemu - res bi ga morali imenovati - 10 funtov. Če bi 10 funtov pripadlo klubu, 1000 funtov pa človeku, katerega sposobnost je dogovorjena vrednost, bi bilo v njem več pravičnosti.

Konec prve povojne sezone - 1919-20 - so se pojavile težave glede plač igralcev. Takrat sem bil v odboru sindikata igralcev in želeli smo, da se tedenska plača stabilizira na največ 10 funtov na teden.

Upravni odbor lige, glasilo klubov, je predlagal znižanje na največ 9 funtov na teden. Zveza je imela sestanek delegatov v Manchestru, na katerem je bilo soglasno sklenjeno, da se razpiše stavka.

Delegati so dobili navodilo, naj se vrnejo k svojim skupinam in glasujejo z "da ali ne" o stavkovni akciji ter se naslednji ponedeljek vrnejo na drugo sejo.

Vmes pa je več ekip ponovno podpisalo en blok. Tako do stavke ni moglo biti. Rezultat je bil, da so morali sprejeti pogoje lige največ 9 funtov na teden.

Še huje je sledilo ob koncu naslednje sezone, 1920-1, ko so se plače znižale na največ 8 £ za 37-tedensko sezono igranja in 6 £ za 15-tedensko sezono.

Unija je ves čas zahtevala odpravo omejitev plač. Zahtevali so plačo brez omejitev, klubi pa tega niso imeli.

Če bi igralci uveljavili svoje zahtevke poleti 1920, sem prepričan, da bi dobili svoje pogoje. Tako kot je bilo, nista se uspela zbrati kot telo in sta bila zavrnjena.

Podobno se dogaja tudi danes. Unija se zavzema za odpravo najvišje plače in nove pogodbe za igralce. Nikoli jih ne bodo dobili, če ne delata skupaj v tesnejši harmoniji.

Pogodba poklicnega nogometaša je zloben dokument. V to sem prepričan, tako prepričan, pravzaprav, da sem čisto presenečen, da je tako brezupno enostranski dokument preživel ogromno kritik, ki jih je v teh razsvetljenih dneh nanj navrglo toliko ljudi. O tem so v Domu skupnosti postavljali vprašanja. Javno ogorčenje je bilo izraženo, kljub temu pa rak ostaja z nami - povzroča nemire in nezadovoljstvo, ki se iz sezone v sezono širijo po nogometu.

Pogosto smo slišali besede, kot so kmetje ali sužnji, ki se opisno nanašajo na nogometaše, toda vse igralce v igri, ki so utrpeli nogometno kmetstvo in proti temu dvignili glas, se bojim, da teh opisov nikoli ne bomo jemali resno. Priznajmo si - zdi se, da ima povprečni profesionalec precej dobro življenje, z možnimi 15 funtov na teden, plus bonuse, upanjem na 750 funtov ugodnosti (brez davka) vsakih pet let, gnezditvenim jajcem devet odstotkov ves svoj nogometni zaslužek ob upokojitvi, hišo za bivanje in ugoden delovni dan.

To se do neke mere zdi dovolj razumno, toda ob natančnejšem pregledu je mogoče v postavitvi opaziti številne pomanjkljivosti. Prvič, največ petindvajset odstotkov igralcev lige zbere največ 15 funtov. V mnogih klubih koristi niso slišane, v drugih pa so prepolovljene ali še bolj drastično pohabljene po muhi direktorjev. Izselitev iz klubskih hiš je samodejna, ko se klubi odločijo opustiti storitve igralcev, "precej dobrega življenja" pa je običajno konec že veliko prej, preden ga poškodba zaradi štiridesetega rojstnega dne ni omejila še prej. Dejansko je bilo nekoč navedeno, da je povprečno igralno življenje poklicnega nogometaša sedem let, zaradi česar je več kot eden izmed nas komentiral: "To je bila kariera."

Če oceni povprečno upokojitveno starost pri 35 letih, se poklicni nogometaš na vrhuncu življenja znajde v brezposelnosti, brez doma, z nekaj sto funti iz sklada dobrodelnih in brez usposabljanja za obrt ali poklic. Včasih čaka v čakalnih vrstah, ker se je obrnil na giljotino vodstvene kariere, ali za uslužbene naloge trenerja ekipe, vendar očitno v nogometu ni dovolj delovnih mest, ki bi ustregla vsakemu igralcu, ki želi ostati v igri.

Vse to je zelo depresivno za vse, ki upajo na varnost - kdo pa ne? - vendar so to edine "nagrade" uspešnih igralcev; tisti, ki so ostali brez poškodb in jim je bilo dovoljeno, da služijo svojemu razponu kot dobri klubski uslužbenci.

Kaj se zgodi z nesrečnimi? Pogodba, ki jo podpišejo, ko se pridružijo klubu lige, jih za vse življenje zaveže s tem klubom, če si to želi klub, vendar ga lahko odpovejo brez predhodnega obvestila, če to želijo upravitelj ali direktorji. V mislih človeka ni bilo nikoli več enostranskega dogovora.

Profesionalni igralci niso nič boljši od profesionalnih lutk, ki plešejo ob koncu elastičnih pogodb, ki so varno v rokah njihovih gospodarjev in gospodarjev. Včasih je elastika odrezana ... vedno od zgoraj, nikoli od spodaj.

Ob predpostavki, da ima igralec dobre razloge, da bi se želel preseliti iz svojega kluba-njegov trener ima lahko posebno negodovanje proti njemu, morda se je spopadel s svojimi igralci ali pa sovraži mesto, v katerem živi-prosi za prestop . Potem se začne zabava.

Z vlogo se lahko obravnava ugodno, za vse namene in namene, klub pa se strinja, da bo igralca prestavil na katerega koli drugega, ki je zanj pripravljen plačati, recimo, 15.000 funtov. Za večino je ta številka previsoka, kar pomeni, da mora naša nezadovoljna nogometna zvezda ostati pri miru. Po drugi strani pa bi lahko bila razsodba v zbornici: "Ne ločujemo se z vami", kar še enkrat pomeni, da ostane tam, kjer je.

Nobena druga oblika civilnega zaposlovanja ne omejuje gibanja posameznikov, obenem pa ohranja pooblastilo, da jih zavrže na kratko. Če se moški lahko bolje zaposli na drugem delovnem mestu, bi moral biti prost, če je izpolnil pogodbo. To se dogaja na vseh področjih življenja, v nogometu pa ne. Tomu Finneyju, mednarodni zunanji desničarki Prestona North Enda, so povedali, da bi bil vse življenje bogat, če bi pet let igral nogomet na italijanski rivieri. Ne glede na to, ali je Tom želel sprejeti to ponudbo italijanskega princa ali ne - bi zagotovo bila izguba njegovega časa, da bi to premislil, ker si Preston skoraj ne bi dovolil reči "Da".

Drugi italijanski klub, Juventus, si je želel podpisati čudež Teesside, Wilf Mannion, in je šel tako daleč, da je ob zaključku prenosa predlagal, da se na Wilfov bančni račun položi 15.000 funtov. Mannion ni mogel izkoristiti svojih sposobnosti, ker je bil vezan na Middlesbrough. Z vstopom v klub v Turčiji bi lahko zaslužil veliko denarja, veliko več, kot se sanja v angleškem nogometu, a tudi po izteku moje sezonske pogodbe ne bi smel poskusiti tega posebnega užitka.

Danes bi bil bogat človek, če bi poslušal celo dva ali tri predloge črnega trga, ki so mi jih dali v osemnajstih letih igranja. Ena sama ponudba - iz znanega prvoligaša - bi me spravila v deteljico. To je bilo narejeno meni, ki ga v tistem času ni vedel nihče, ki je bil povezan z mojim klubom, ko sem zavrnil ponovni podpis za Middlesbrough. In vzelo mi je sapo.

Poleg tega, da bi mojemu klubu plačali rekordno pristojbino za prenos-približno 25.000 funtov-so bili ti direktorji denarja, ki ni predmet, pripravljeni v trenutku podpisa podariti 3000 funtov gotovine. Poleg tega sem moral kot igralec dobiti najvišje plače, nato 12 funtov na teden; plus "služba" - tako sem rekel, ker je šlo za delo samo kot prodajalec nečesa ali drugega - kar bi mi prineslo še dobrih 25 funtov na teden. Kot naključje sem dobil 25 funtov, ki so mi jih dali na železniški postaji, samo zato, ker sem se odpravil na potovanje, da bi se pogovoril o ponudbi.

"V primerjavi s povprečnim delavcem," je dejal Tommy Lawton, "delali ste zelo dobro. Bilo je veliko brezposelnosti in celo za zaposlene je bila povprečna plača približno 1,50 GBP na teden. Kar smo zaslužili, je bilo v primerjavi s premoženjem veliko moškemu na ulici, vendar si moral temu ustreči. Moral si se pravilno obleči, biti viden v pravih oblačilih in ne pustiti kluba tako, kar je stalo denar. In vedel si, da ne boš to počnem za vedno. "

Middlesbrough, medtem ko je plačeval tekoči tečaj, ni plačal več, za razliko od nekaterih drugih klubov. Nekateri so ponujali denarne spodbude, drugi zaposlitve z različnimi opisi - mnogi od njih so fatamorgana, da bi zavajali oblasti - ali podpiranje zasebnih podvigov, ki so jih ustanovili igralci. To je bila javna skrivnost, vendar le med poznavalci igre. Ko so Sunderland, slavni klub Bank of England, nekaj let kasneje pripeljali zaradi praks, zaradi katerih so izgledali kot BCCI, so bili oboževalci šokirani nad plačili, ki so se prodajala na pultu, vendar je bilo nekaj vodilnih igralcev, menedžerjev ali uradnikov presenečenih.

Wilf je za tovrstne goljufije izvedel na svojih potovanjih po Angliji, od drugih igralcev se je naučil, kakšne so njihove obrobne koristi, kako so jim njihovi klubi 'pomagali' pri ustanavljanju podjetij ali iskanju zaposlitve s krajšim, a donosnim časom. To je bil eden od razlogov, zakaj klubi niso bili tako navdušeni nad mednarodnimi vpoklici igralcev - dal jim je preveč predstave o svoji vrednosti.

"Predsedujoči niso marali igralcev, ki prihajajo igrati mednarodni nogomet," priznava Sir Walter Winterbottom, "ker je to pomenilo, da so stopili v stik z drugimi strokovnjaki in slišali, kakšni so dogovori drugih. Po igranju za Anglijo so se pogosto vračali in zahteval več. "

Morda bi celo prosili za premestitev, če bi bili res nezadovoljni, toda tam je bil kontrast z današnjimi zvezdami še večji kot pri plačah. Podpis za klub bi lahko bil dosmrtni zapor, saj je enkrat igralec svoje ime postavil na pikčasto črto, ki mu pripada. Ob koncu vsake naslednje sezone so morali ponuditi le enoletno pogodbo, ki jo je moral igralec sprejeti, dokler je klub ponujal največje pogoje. Edina alternativa - zavrnitev pogodbe - bi pomenila, da bi ga lahko izključili iz igre. Klub je smel obdržati registracijo in zavrniti prenos.

Po drugi strani pa, če bi klubi želeli prodati, bi to lahko storili kadar koli. Edino, kar so igralci dobili, je bilo sprejetje ali zavrnitev potencialnega kupca, ki ga je našel klub. Tudi če je bil odgovor pritrdilen, ne glede na to, kako velika je pristojbina, je bil igralčev znesek enak: pristojbina za prijavo v višini 10 funtov.

Zame je nogomet plačni užitek in ne spomnim se nobenega drugega poklica, ki bi mladeniču ponudil toliko, če ima fitnes, hitro misleče možgane in okretna stopala.

Vem, da pogosto slišimo govoriti o nogometnih sužnjih-vendar čudno, da se profesionalni nogometaš ne pritožuje. Pogosteje kot nekdo ni povezan z igro.

Samo za trenutek pomislite, kaj vrhunski moški prejme vsak teden. Med sezono so njegove plače 15 funtov na teden. Poleti se znižajo na 12 funtov na teden. Za zmago prejme bonus 2 £. Žrebanje pomeni bonus v višini 1 GBP. Poleg tega, čeprav v pogodbah piše, da bi "lahko" prejel nadomestilo ob koncu petletne službe, je večina igralcev ustrezno nagrajena. Največja korist je 750 funtov, kar znaša še 3 funte na teden. Ugodnosti nogometaša so, za razliko od zaslužkov v kriketu, obdavčljive. Od zadnjega čeka v vrednosti 750 funtov sem moral plačati 280 funtov, vendar to ni pomembno. Nogometna liga poleg naših plač in ugodnosti vsakemu nogometašu, ko je dopolnil petintrideset let, izroči vsoto, ki znaša 9 odstotkov njegove plače v karieri lige nogometa. To je brez davka. Nogometašu ni treba prispevati ničesar v sklad Prevident, iz katerega črpajo ta denar. Vse se plača iz 4 -odstotne dajatve, ki jo klubi predajo ligi iz svojih prejemkov.

Pomembno je, da ljudje, ki spremljajo nogomet, poznajo ta dejstva, velja pa tudi za tiste, ki na profesionalne nogometaše še vedno gledajo kot na potlačene posameznike, ki vodijo obstoj iz rok v usta.

Poleg vsega tega imajo številni profesionalni nogometaši prvovrstno nastanitev, ki jim jo zagotavljajo njihovi klubi. Številni klubi ponujajo tudi opoldansko kosilo.


Zgodovina sponzorstva nogometa

Danes si ne mislimo, da bi na majicah naših najljubših igralcev imeli logotip blagovne znamke. Če sploh kaj, komplet, ki ne vsebuje sponzorjev, izgleda bolj nenavadno kot tisti, ki to počne.

Vendar se je sponzorstvo in komercializacija športa v večini zgodovine nogometa zaničevalo in za nekaj časa celo prepovedalo.

Zgodnji dnevi nogometa

Nogomet, ki ga poznamo danes, se je začel sredi 19. stoletja z ustanovitvijo Angleške nogometne zveze (FA) 26. oktobra 1863. Takrat še ni bilo uradne lige ali pokalnih struktur, tekme pa so bile večinoma prijateljske tekme, ki so jih klubi organizirali sami. .

Problematično je bilo tudi, da je imel vsak klub svoja pravila, zato so se morali pred vsako tekmo pogajati, kateri predpisi naj se držijo. Ustanovitev FA je bil pomemben korak pri oblikovanju nogometa za standardiziran šport s kodificiranimi pravili. Pravzaprav je bil ustanovitveni cilj FA „vzpostavitev določenega kodeksa pravil“, za dokončanje prve različice pa je bilo potrebnih šest sestankov.

FA je nekaj let igralcem zavrnil plačilo za svoj čas, trud in talent. Zdelo se je, da bi ga odstranitev »amaterskega« elementa igre poškodovala. Vendar so se trudili, da bi to uveljavili, saj so klubi želeli pritegniti najboljše talente, zato so mnogi začeli izkoriščati vrzeli, kot je plačilo za "stroške iz žepa".

Sčasoma je FA popustila in nogometnim klubom je bilo dovoljeno plačati igralcem.

Nekaj ​​let pozneje so ustvarili tekmovanje, ki bi postalo pokal FA, ki ga poznamo danes, z uporabo podobnega izločilnega formata kot tisti, ki se še vedno uporablja. Čeprav je bilo to ključnega pomena za naraščajoče zanimanje za šport, ni ustvarilo dovolj tekmovalnih iger, da bi spodbudilo veliko obiskovanje tekem na tedenski osnovi.

Prijateljske igre, za katere nič ni odvisno od izida, so navijače manj razburljive kot igre, ki bi lahko povzročile podelitev srebrnine. To je postalo problematično za klube, ki so imeli vedno večje plače, saj so skoraj vsi njihovi prihodki prihajali od prodaje vstopnic in kakršnih koli popuščanj na stadionu.

Tako je nastala angleška nogometna liga, ki bi ustvarila tekmovalno vzdušje, ki bo trajalo vso sezono. Ta sistem je deloval odlično in je skozi navijače pripeljal oboževalce, vendar je bilo sčasoma potrebnih več virov prihodkov.

Prvi sponzorji v nogometu

Več kot 100 let po ustanovitvi FA bi klubi v Angliji začeli eksperimentirati s sponzorskimi pogodbami.

Prvo sponzorstvo nogometnega tekmovanja v Angliji je bil pokal povabil Watney Mann, ki je potekal le tri sezone od leta 1970. Istega leta je Ford Motor Company postal prvi naslovni sponzor sheme nagrajevanja klubov v angleškem nogometu. Liga.

Prvi naslovni sponzor velikega tekmovanja se je zgodil leta 1982, ko je Nacionalni svet za mlekarstvo podpisal pogodbo v višini 2 milijona funtov, da bi imel pravice poimenovanja Ligaškega pokala. Postala je znana kot "skodelica mleka" in se od takrat naprej tako imenuje.

Potem ko je pokal FA leta 1994 s trgovcem Littlewoods podpisal prvo sponzorsko pogodbo, so vsa velika angleška nogometna tekmovanja dobila naslovnega sponzorja. Vendar ekipe sprva niso uživale enake svobode pri podpisovanju sponzorskih pogodb.

Prvi sponzor srajc in prva polemika

Kettering Town FC je to storil prvi, ko je 24. januarja 1976 podpisal pogodbo za sponzorja srajc. Posel je videl lokalno podjetje Kettering Tires, ki je ime vtisnilo na sprednji strani majic kluba.

Poročali so, da je bil posel vreden »štirih številk«, majice z blagovno znamko Kettering Tyres pa so bile prvič uporabljene v igri proti Bath Cityju.

FA je takoj zahteval odstranitev sponzorstva iz kompleta Kettering Town, pri čemer je navedel prepoved sponzorstva iz leta 1972. Kettering pa je poudaril, da tega nikoli niso dodali pisnim nogometnim pravilom.

Da bi se skrivoma izognili pravilom, je Kettering spremenil besedilo na srajcah tako, da je rekel "Kettering T", za katerega je trdil, da je okrajšava za Kettering Town. FA je to uvidel in grozil, da bo klub udaril z globo v višini 1.000 funtov, zato je klub odstopil.

Kettering, Bolton Wanderers in Derby County so vsi lobirali pri FA, naj se odpravi prepoved sponzorstva srajc, junija 1977 pa je FA popustila.

Majhne velikosti

Velikosti logotipov so bile v prvih letih po prepovedi omejene za klube v angleški nogometni ligi. This was to avoid upsetting fans, who at the time were less welcoming of sponsors than they are today. It was also because the BBC has rules that don’t allow advertisements in its content, and the league was concerned it would be in breach of this when games were televised.

This didn’t last long though, and soon shirt sponsorship sizes increased. Advertising boards around the edges of the pitch also began to pop up as clubs took advantage of the large audiences they attracted to sell more sponsorship opportunities.

Changing Brands

Today, many clubs and leagues have sponsorship deals with bookmakers. For example, the EFL is sponsored by Sky Bet, a five-star operator according to Oddschecker . Only three of the 20 clubs in the Premier League have a sponsorship deal with an iGaming brand.

This wasn’t always the case though. In the 1980s, technology brands like Candy, Hitachi, and Cannon were big spenders in football. In more recent years, energy drinks like Carabao and Monster Energy have been investing heavily in the sport.

Hundreds of Millions

What started out as a few thousand pounds spent by a local tyre company for a controversial shirt sponsorship has become worth hundreds of millions each year. The shirt sponsorship deals of Premier League teams alone is worth around £200 million annually, with the biggest deal being the £47 million per year agreement between Chevrolet and Manchester United.

Sponsorship has become a big revenue earner for clubs who have diversified their incomes in many ways in the last 50 years. While not much changed during the first 100 years of English football, the sport has become completely unrecognisable in half the time.


Footballers are paid too much. The market has got it wrong

There has been a lot of talk in recent days about the money earned by footballers – by which, of course, I mean those in the topmost bracket of the Premier League, the Paul Pogbas and Diego Costas of this world. They are indeed fabulously wealthy and utterly cosseted – and rarely British. In the current Corbynite climate it is worth noting that they are also supremely arrogant and increasingly dismissive of loyalty to the clubs that pay their wages.

Pogba’s weekly wedge costs Manchester United £290,000 a week. A teacher in England with ten years’ experience can look forward to an annual income of around £30,000, He or she would have to work a little under ten years to earn what the 24-year-old midfielder picks up in a week. Having played competitive football since he was six, the Frenchman rakes in more on an afternoon off than most Britons earn in 12 months of often hard and repetitive slog.

Or consider Wayne Rooney. The Everton striker, who this season returned to his boyhood club after 13 years with United, is reported to be worth something like £100m and can expect to earn a further £25m or so before he hangs up his boots. No wonder he is keen to repair the damage done to his marriage after he was arrested on a drink-driving charge while in the company of a young woman he had picked up in a pub.

The rules of the market economy are clear. Footballers at the top of their profession are paid a fortune (including lucrative endorsements) because they have skills that are in high demand across the world. If fans weren’t prepared to shell out as much as £200 for match tickets, and if Sky TV didn’t think they would make a return on the £600m a year they currently pay out for television rights, footballer’s wages would plummet. But they are and they do, with the result that those in the top bracket can afford to laugh all the way to the bank.

What ought we to think about this? First, bear in mind, other celebrities can make even more. Elton John, Andrew Lloyd-Webber, Simon Cowell, Sacha Baron-Cohen and Adele, among many others, are hugely wealthy, while J K Rowling could end up worth in excess of £1 billion. If we object to footballers earning absurd amounts, why not complain about Paul McCartney, who makes more from his back catalogue each year than most of his fans in a dozen lifetimes? Is it because so many “stars” of a certain age evolve into National Treasures?

The political Left rarely point out the inequities of celebrity wealth. Be assured, if Tottenham’s Harry Kane, currently struggling along on £120,000 a week, announced he had joined Momentum, Arsenal fan Jeremy Corbyn would be licking the young striker’s boots. That said, the Labour leader revealed in January that as prime minister he would impose a “fat cat” tax not only on bankers and the business élite, but on multi-millionaire footballers. How that would go down with supporters, one can only guess. The mooted levy, of up to 5 per cent of earnings above £500,000, would be equivalent to a week’s wages for the stars of the game. But at least it might mean more English players recruited to English clubs.

“Socialists,” however, much prefer to point the finger at bankers, hedge fund managers, property developers and FTSE 100 executives, whom they regard as just one rung down from the ranks of absolute evil. Plutocrat celebs, like Bono or Russell Brand, who speak out against inequality and injustice, are placed in a different category, rich almost in spite of themselves, with honorary life-membership of the working class. The sentiment is a nonsense, but it is widely shared.

So what do the “real parasites” earn? According to City AM, top hedge fund managers in the UK were typically paid around £300,000, including bonuses, in 2016 – a week’s wages for Paul Pogba. Of course, there are stars who make much more than this. Michel Platt, co-founder of BlueCrest Capital Management, reportedly made more than £500m in 2015. Paul Marshal, whose son Winston is busy making a fortune of his own playing the banjo in the hit-band Mumford & Sons, trousered over £100m as half of the managing duo running the fund Marshal Wace. But these are truly standout performers, rather like Cesc Fabregas or Philippe Coutinho, no more representative of the sector than Ronaldo as a footballer if Real Madrid were bizarrely drawn against the journeymen of Accrington Stanley.

British bankers, you will not be surprised to learn, do okay for themselves. But they would have a job to recruit Wayne Rooney, just as he would have a job understanding what they were on about. Jes Staley, the CEO of Barclays, pocketed a total of £4.2m in 2016 – though he is expected to earn more this year, including a long-term incentive bonus. Stuart Gulliver, the top man at HSBC, did rather better: £5.7 million, excluding what in football would be called future add-ons. At the helm of Lloyds, the Portuguese Antonio Horta-Osorio had to scrape by on a measly £5.5m after a downturn in the bank’s fortunes and unwelcome publicity arising from an extra-marital affair.

All three men, and their associates, have spent their lives in banking, moving up the ladder from the Southern Conference, via the Championship, to Big Money’s Premier League. It is undeniable that banking came out badly from the 2008 crash, which revealed astonishing levels of recklessness and greed. But no one could pretend that banks, properly regulated, are not essential to both society and the economy. Jeremy Corbyn would not last five minutes in a City boardroom this does not stop him regarding bankers as wankers.

Outside of the Square Mile, Britain’s top execs pulled in an average, in salary and bonuses, of £4.53m in 2016. The market leader, as ever, is Sir Martin Sorrell, the head of advertising and communications giant WPP, whose remuneration package last year totalled a tidy £48.1m. Sir Martin is not so much the Harry Kane as the Gareth Bale of British business (Bale, you might recall, is paid £600,000 a week, before tax, by Real Madrid and could end up worth as much as £250m by the time his contract expires in 2022). But Sorrell has rivals, no more than half of whom, as in football, are British. Pascal Soirot, the French CEO of AstraZeneca, scored £13.4m Rakesh Kappor, boss of Beckitt Benckiser, took home £14.6m Erik Engstrom of RELX got by on “compensation” of £10.6m. If they go on like this, the Premier League will have to raise ticket prices again.

Is it all too much? Literally too much? Yes, it is. If the market says that the sums I have quoted are what these men (and they are all men) are worth, then the market is an ass. We need to get back to the 1960s, when a company CEO earned maybe 40 times as much as his lowest-paid employee, not 400 times, rising soon to 500 times. Naming and shaming, as suggested by Theresa May, isn’t going to do it. Too many top earners have no shame.

If big business and banking – and football – won’t put their houses in order – then the taxman must surely intervene. Would a footballer or hedge fund manager who retired worth £30 million be any less well off, in a practical sense, than one who amassed £40 million? Or is it all about money as a means of keeping the score? Not, I hasten to add, that I am suggesting football should go back to the “good old days,” when players waded through mud on a Saturday afternoon, kicking a pigskin sphere that, when rain-soaked, could weigh as much as a cannonball, and all for 7/6d a week. Footballers should be well rewarded. They are gifted entertainers whose careers are over by the time they are 35. But £200,000 a week? Who do they think they are? Mick Jagger?


Wages through the ages: a brief history of pay

In the 1800s, most Australian worked up to 14 hours a day, six days a week. There was no minimum wage, no sick leave, no holiday pay and no minimum age.

But times were changing and workers were getting organised for better wages and working conditions.

In 1856, stonemasons in Melbourne took up the call for shorter working hours. They wanted an eight hour working day, partly because of the harsh climate, but also so they could spend more time on self-education and recreation. They won a 48-hour working week – with no work on Saturday afternoons for the very first time.

As the boom created by the gold rush faded, many important industries were troubled by hard fought strikes. Troops and police were used in disputes at ports, mines and shearing sheds. In the 1891 Shearers Strike, the union was defeated but the workers went on to set up the Australian Labor Party to give them a voice in parliament.

As the colonies discussed becoming a Commonwealth, community leaders saw the need to have a way to resolve industrial disputes fairly without violence or troops. Their answer was a special court that would hear from both workers and employers before deciding on a fair arrangement – this court went on to be known as the arbitration and conciliation court.

One of the first decisions of this new court was to set minimum wages for the workers at the Harvester factory in Sunshine. This decision introduced the idea of a minimum wage rate.

Minimum wages, shorter hours, paid leave and other benefits started with union campaigns

This was the beginning of pay system where basic rights could be guaranteed to all employees by law.

It was also the beginning of union inspired improvements to wages and working conditions, including shorter working hours, holiday pay, sick leave, equal pay and more.

In coming decades, unions would argue for – and win – many work and pay entitlements that are now enjoyed by all.

History of Australia’s Minimum Wage worksheet
Check your knowledge, download our History of Australia’s Minimum Wage worksheet here.

Australian Curriculum Links:

History/Year 9/Historical Knowledge and Understanding/Making a Better World?: The Industrial Revolution

ACDSEH081
The experiences of men, women and children during the Industrial Revolution, and their changing way of life.

ACDSEH082
The short and long-term impacts of the Industrial Revolution, including global changes in landscapes, transport and communication.


6. Alexis Sánchez - $30.8 million (€27.2 million)

Ekipa: Manchester United

Contract: Four 1/2 years, $21.5 million (€19 million) annually

Sanchez was moved from Arsenal to Manchester United in 2018. He scored just six goals and had five assists in 37 appearances in his first full season as he struggled with injuries.

Sanchez also plays a leading role in the 2019 film 'Mi Amigo Alexis' about a young Chilean boy who dreams of following in his hero's footsteps.


The World’s Highest-Paid Soccer Players 2020: Messi Wins, Mbappe Rises

When it comes to measuring the greatest players in the world’s most beautiful game, the focus inevitably turns to a pair of rivals with household names and exclusive claims to being the only team-sport athletes to earn $1 billion during their careers. It may be time to make room for a third.

Lionel Messi and Cristiano Ronaldo top this year’s Forbes ranking of the highest-paid soccer players once again, after Messi resolved a weeks-long contract drama to land the top spot with $126 million, nudging out Juventus’ Ronaldo, who comes in at No. 2 with $117 million. But soccer fans have a new object of fascination in Kylian Mbappe, the Paris Saint-Germain striker who lands in fourth place with $48 million.

Mbappe is the rising hot shot of both the Paris club and the French national team, having amassed 103 goals in all competitions since turning professional five years ago. At age 19, he became the youngest player to score a World Cup goal since the legendary Pelé (who did it in 1958 at age 17) while helping the French team win its second title in history. He’s ahead of the game’s two leaders when they were his age: The two-time top goal-scorer in France’s Ligue 1 already has 12 more career goals than Messi had at age 21 and 76 more than Ronaldo.

He’s also making a heck of a lot more than they were at his age, too. The kid from Bondy, a poor Parisian suburb, became the sport’s most expensive teenager when Paris Saint-Germain shelled out $215 million to his former club Monaco for his rights in 2017 and signed him to a contract that will pay him $28 million this season. Nike and luxury watchmaker Hublot both feature him prominently, and EA Sports announced him as its cover boy for FIFA 21, making him one of the youngest ever to grace that brand’s cover solo.

The 21-year-old is topped on the list once again this year by teammate Neymar (No. 3, $96 million), but the dynamic is poised to shift as Mbappe is expected to get a bumper new contract in 2022 when his current contract expires.

In all, the top ten players in the world are expected to pull in $570 million in salary, bonuses and endorsements this upcoming season, barring no further pandemic pauses of the kind that led to the 30% to 70% pay cuts last spring across European leagues. The list’s combined haul is up 11% from the 2019-20 season.

1. Lionel Messi, Barcelona

Total Earnings: $126 million

Salary: $92 million | Endorsements: $34 million

It took FC Barcelona 105 years to win 64 trophies before Messi joined in 2005. In the past 16 years, he’s led the team to 34 trophy wins, a performance that has landed his name among the sport’s greats—and earned him $1 billion in pretax career earnings. This year, he dragged the soccer world through weeks of cliffhanger drama as he fought with the club about playing out the final year of his contract. He stayed, and stands to collect $92 million for doing so, but Messi Watch 2021 is in full force, with all eyes peeled for clues as to where he will turn up next.

2. Cristiano Ronaldo, Juventus

Total Earnings: $117 million

Salary: $70 million | Endorsements: $47 million

Ronaldo is the most popular athlete on the planet with 457 million social media followers. He’s also the most engaged, per Hookit, regularly displaying his 0% body fat and poster-boy good looks for his CR7 lifestyle branded wear, health and wellness sponsors like Herbalife and Clear shampoo, and his lifetime sponsor Nike. In July, he posted a video of himself narrating an encouraging letter he wrote to 10-year-old Brazilian soccer prodigy Julia Rosado and her tearful delight as she received it, along with the Swoosh’s latest Flight Ball. He is only the second man in history, after Iran’s Ali Daei, to have scored more than 100 international goals, recently passing the mark in Portugal’s UEFA Nations League match against Sweden.

3. Neymar Jr., Paris Saint-Germain

Total Earnings: $96 million

Salary: $78 million | Endorsements: $18 million

The 28-year-old Brazilian striker, one of the most polarizing players in the game for his antics on and off the pitch, quadrupled his pay and criticism when he traded playing alongside Messi in Barcelona for suiting up with Paris Saint-Germain in August 2017. Between his record $263 million transfer fee and his average $70 million salary, PSG is spending more than $600 million to keep him in the French capital. This summer, Nike ended its relationship with Neymar, allowing him to sign with Puma. He opened Ligue 1’s 2020-21 season with a red card for taking a swipe at the back of Marseille’s Alvaro Gonzalez head, claiming it was in response to racial abuse.

4. Kylian Mbappe, Paris Saint-Germain

Total Earnings: $42 million

Salary: $28 million | Endorsements: $14 million

For the second year in a row, Mbappe was named the winner of the Ligue 1 Golden Boot, which honors the player with the most goals for the league. His club also repeated as league champion, with last season’s title declared on a points-per-match basis after play was cut short because of the coronavirus pandemic. He was forced to spend Ligue 1’s 2020-21 season opener in quarantine after he tested positive for Covid-19 but has remained asymptomatic, according to his lawyer.

5. Mohamed Salah, Liverpool

Total Earnings: $37 million

Salary: $24 million | Endorsements: $13 million

Salah has reached the 20-goal mark across all competitions in each of the last three seasons at Liverpool, helping to propel the club to its first Premier League title in 30 years in 2019-20. He has the highest win rate of any league player to have appeared in more than 100 matches. In Liverpool’s 2020-21 opening match, he scored a hat trick. In February, the 28-year-old teamed up with long-term sponsor Vodafone to become an ambassador for a UN program that brings digital learning tools to refugees in his native Egypt.

6. Paul Pogba, Manchester United

Total Earnings: $34 million

Salary: $28 million | Endorsements: 6 milijonov dolarjev

Pogba’s current deal expires next summer, although Manchester United has the option to extend it one more year. The French playmaker scared fans in early August by posting on social media that he had signed for Verdansk FC. It turned out to be a fictional club and a stunt by sponsor Activision to promote Call of Duty: Warzone, Season 5. The 27-year-old has also appeared with Messi and Salah in Pepsi’s “Play Never Stops” campaign.

7. Antoine Griezmann, Barcelona

Total Earnings: $33 million

Salary: $28 million | Endorsements: 5 milijonov dolarjev

Since the Frenchman’s disappointing debut at Barcelona this past season, rumors have swirled that the club is negotiating to swap him to PSG in return for Neymar, at the request of Messi. Griezmann is an avid Brooklyn Nets fan, often jetting over to the U.S. for games and frequently posting his support on social media. Nets star Kevin Durant even helped Barça unveil Griezmann’s uniform switch from No. 17 to No. 7 ahead of the 2020-21 season. In January, he launched Grizi Esports to compete in FIFA, Fortnite, CS:Go in Rainbow Six.

8. Gareth Bale, Real Madrid

Total Earnings: 29 milijonov dolarjev

Salary: $23 million | Endorsements: 6 milijonov dolarjev

Bale continues to butt heads with manager Zinedine Zidane and is the most expensive bench warmer in sports right now. He played in just two of Real Madrid’s last 11 La Liga matches and then was left off the club’s 24-man Champions League squad in early August. The Welshman is an avid golfer and has pitched TaylorMade products and events on social media.

9. Robert Lewandowski, Bayern Munich

Total Earnings: $28 million

Salary: $24 million | Endorsements: $4 million

Because of the coronavirus pandemic, France Football, the organizer of the Ballon d’Or, decided to cancel the 2020 award for the world’s best player. In doing so it is robbing Lewandowski, who was the clear favorite to win. Across all competitions, the Polish striker directly contributed to 65 goals for Bayern Munich last season—55 goals and ten assists in 47 matches. In the Champions League, he scored in every match up until the final against PSG, which his team won on a lone goal by teammate Kingsley Coman. Off the pitch, he is one of the most popular athletes on TikTok, with 2.4 million followers.

10. David De Gea, Manchester United

Total Earnings: $27 million

Salary: $24 million | Endorsements: 3 milijone dolarjev

De Gea’s $24 million salary makes him the highest-paid goalkeeper in the world. In July, he made his 400th appearance in goal in his ninth year with Man United and broke the club record for the most shutouts. He’s been married to his wife, popular Spanish singer and actress Edune, since 2010 and frequently promotes her work on his social media accounts.


A brief history of college football coaching salaries in the context of the new Gilded Age

Jim Harbaugh is being introduced as the University of Michigan’s new head football coach today. Harbaugh has signed a contract worth a reported $48 million over six years. It’s unclear whether that figure, if accurate, includes potential bonus payments for winning conference and national titles, curing cancer etc., or merely represents his base pay (Some reports suggest that bonus incentives could potentially push Harbaugh’s compensation closer to ten million dollars per year).

Nadgradnja: The terms of Harbaugh’s contract are apparently somewhat fluid. He will be paid $7 million this year, which includes a $2 million signing bonus. After this year the AD will make a determination about appropriate deferred compensation and the like. The contract also includes unspecified performance bonuses. The minimum value of the contract, with no performance bonuses or deferred compensation, is $40.1 million over seven years. (This looks like a pretty slick move by Michigan’s AD Jim Hackett. By leaving deferred comp out of the original contract he holds down the up front annual salary number, and the potential backlash. Next year at this time they could up the total value of the contract to $8 million per year and it’s a small story, even locally).

Since it will take a few weeks to FOIA the documents let’s assume for now that his compensation will be $8 million per year.

Now on one hand this is obviously deplorable. Current average salaries at the University of Michigan outside the athletic department (which, unlike almost all college athletic departments in the USA is actually self-funded) look like this:

Administrative poohbahs (president, deans etc.): Several hundred thousand dollars per year

Associate professors: $114,000

Assistant professors: $101,000

People who make the wheels go round (clerical staff, food service workers, janitors etc): $20,000-$40,000 generally.

Adjunct instructors, aka the people who do the majority of the actual teaching at the institution: A petrified starfish and a bowl of potpourri (parking passes may be provided on a case by case basis).

You can look up salary data at the school here.

So Jim Harbaugh is going to get paid as much per year as 70 University of Michigan professors, or 250 clerical employees, or a nearly infinite number of adjuncts. This seems . . . disturbing.

On the other hand, hiring him is quite likely going to end up being a big net positive for the coffers of the athletic department and even the university generally, so let’s hear it for “the market.” (For example, real estate developer and Miami Dolphins owner Steve Ross is a big Michigan football fan, and he’s expressed his affection for the program and the school by giving $100 million to the AD and another $100 million to the business school. He’s also rumored to be picking up part of Harbaugh’s compensation package).

On a yet a third hand, the university can pay Harbaugh more than any other football coach in the known universe and still make a tidy profit on the deal only because college football in America is a multi-billion dollar industry that doesn’t really pay its primary labor force (in this regard, big-time football reflects the economic structure of the contemporary universities which host it).

Something to keep in mind is that big-time college football has been an extremely popular sport in America for more than a century (Indeed, until the 1960s it was more popular than the NFL). And debates about the exploitative economic structure of the game are nearly as old: I recently found a book published by Princeton and Michigan coach Fritz Crisler in 1934, and re-issued in 1948, in which Crisler addresses the apparently lively debate at the time regarding whether college football players should be paid overt wages, since, according to him, many were being paid covertly back in that simpler more innocent time (On an unrelated but fascinating side note, F. Scott Fitzgerald’s habit of regaling Crisler with alcohol-fueled late night phone calls featuring Fitzgerald’s creative ideas for helping the Princeton football team may actually have inspired the genesis of modern two-platoon football).

Therefore big-time college football coaches have been very well paid, relatively speaking, for a very long time. But “relatively” is the key term here: (All dollar figures below are in constant 2014 dollars).

Woody Hayes, Ohio State, 1951: $113,534. Hayes was a 38-year-old first-year coach at football-crazed OSU in 1951, and his salary represented a whole lot of money back then. He was making 63% more than what was then the 95th percentile of family income, which means the hard-charging young coach was in at least the 98th and probably the 99th percentile of income in the country at the time (63% more than the 95th percentile of household income today puts a household well into the 98th percentile, and household income distribution was a good deal flatter during the socialist regimes of Presidents Truman and Eisenhower).

Bear Bryant, Alabama, 1958 (Bryant had just become Alabama’s athletic director as well as its football coach): $142,998. Bryant remained Alabama’s coach until 1982. He is reputed to have insisted throughout his career that his salary should always be at least one dollar less than that of the university’s president.

Hayden Fry, Southern Methodist, 1962: $101,654. Fry was Arkansas’ offensive coordinator when he took a phone call from Lamar Hunt, of the Dallas Hunt brothers, during warmups for the 1962 Orange Bowl, offering Fry the SMU job. He accepted without asking about the salary, and later discovered he was taking a pay cut from what he had been getting as the Razorbacks’ OC (Fry, by the way, played an important and courageous role in integrating college football in the south).

Bo Schembechler, Michigan, 1969: $135,127. Schembechler in 1969 was almost the same coach as Hayes had been 1951 (One year older, in his first season, coming, as Hayes had, from Miami of Ohio). His salary was only 15% higher than Hayes’ had been, despite the enormous increase in national wealth over the intervening 18 years (GDP exactly doubled in constant dollars over this time).

College football coaching salaries began to increase rapidly in the 1970s. TV money was beginning to pour into the game, although it was still a trickle relative to what it would become. A major change in the compensation structure for coaches took hold in this decade, which is that universities began to divide that compensation into an official university salary, and another sum, with the latter representing pay for ancillary activities, such as hosting a television show, putatively running a football camp associated with the school, and so forth.

So for example by 1981, Schembechler, who had the highest winning percentage of any coach during the 1970s, was being paid a little more than $155,000 in university salary and $130,000 for other contractual obligations, making his total compensation $285,771 (again in 2014 dollars).

Then in January 1982, Texas A&M, awash in oil money and eager to challenge the University of Texas for football supremacy in the Lone Star State, stunned the college football world by offering Schembechler the then-staggering sum of $250,000 per year in 1982 dollars, which would have more than doubled his salary. (This was equivalent to $611,790 in 2014 dollars).

Schembechler turned TAMU down (Domino’s Pizza king Tom Monaghan gave him a Columbus, Ohio franchise), but Pittsburgh coach Jackie Sherrill didn’t, inspiring this amusingly quaint article in the New York Times, which wrestles with the incredible proposition that any employee of a university could be paid a quarter million dollars per year. (Of course today even some non-sports-related university employees make millions).

From there it was off to the races. Nominal coaching salary milestones, with inflation adjustments:

Bobby Bowden: Florida State 1996: $1,000,000 ( $1,505,105 2014$)

Steve Spurrier: Florida 2001:
$2,100,000 ($2,800,209 2014$)

Bob Stoops: Oklahoma 2006: $3,000,000 ($3,154,152 2014$)

Nick Saban: Alabama 2007: $4,000,000 ($4,555,777 2014$)

Nick Saban: Alabama 2014: $7,000,000

And now we apparently have an eight to ten million dollar man (I should add that as a Michigan football fan I heartily approve of this posebno development, while sincerely deploring the overall system that has brought it about).

A potential irony in all this is that the entertainment industry in general, and sports in particular, is one of the very few areas of the economy where it may actually be possible to to construct an efficiency-regarding justification for gargantuan salaries (In the context of college sports, of course, this ignores the grotesque spectacle of the players receiving salaries of zero). It’s a whole lot easier to explain why it makes sense to pay Tom Brady $15 million per year than it is to make a similar argument for why last year a couple of dozen hedge fund managers should have pulled down average compensation packages 60 times larger than that.

Of course efficiency is one thing — and let’s not forget the little detail that Harbaugh’s players won’t be paid anything for their part in this multi-billion dollar annual extravaganza — and justice is another. I suggest it is or ought to be a basic tenet of any even vaguely left or progressive political perspective that any social system in which some people have salaries hundreds — let alone thousands and tens of thousands — of times larger than those of other people* is in need of basic reform.

*Let alone people in the same institution, let alone people in the same non-profit tax-supported educational institution!


Footballers deserve money

First of all it's PAID not PAYED. And secondly, they get paid more than doctors because the clubs that pay their wages are not public corporations and they are 'for-profit' organisations in principal although some do make big losses.

- A doctor's wages comes out of my small NI contributions.
- A football player's wages comes out of the deep pockets of a millionaire, or a club with big money sponsorship deals, massive ticket-sale and merchandise revenues and competition prize money intake


But why is Messi so well paid?

While there are plenty of football players, talents such as Messi are in short supply. In fact, only 180 of the 1.5 million players in organised English youth football will make it as Premier League pros.

The demand for talented football players is high as they increase the team’s chances of winning titles. Successful teams make more money from broadcasting rights, merchandise and ticket sales. Clubs have to compete for the best players by offering the highest wages. If a particular club was to offer lower wages, other clubs would simply outbid them.

Playing in the lower leagues pays less because there’s a higher supply of footballers. Demand for such players is also lower as they bring in less revenue for the club.

In 2014-15, the average League 1 player was paid just below £70,000 compared with an average wage of £1.7m for a Premier League player.

Bank of England's KnowledgeBank guide on why footballers are paid so much.


Gender Pay Gap: Female footballers still fighting for equality in Football

The debate about gender equality and the wages gap was placed firmly on the agenda by the crowd and the team.

The US team is the most successful national women&rsquos team ever with four World Cups and four Olympic medals to their name.

Despite this, they are still paid less than their male counterparts who have never won a major tournament and didn&rsquot even qualify for the 2018 World Cup.

Not one to shy away from activism, the USWNT has been the only women&rsquos team to actively campaign for equal pay. In 2016 they sued the US Soccer Federation for gender discrimination.

They argued that they were being paid less for doing the same job as the men&rsquos team. The case is still ongoing. Earlier this year 28 squad members filing a gender discrimination lawsuit just before the World Cup. The USWNT is determined to fight until they receive parity with the men&rsquos team.

Women&rsquos football has a chequered history. In England, the FA banned women from playing football for over 50 years. The ban was only lifted in 1971. In the US it wasn&rsquot until the introduction of Title IX in 1972 that female sports funding was made equal with male funding.

This has led to slower development in the women&rsquos game and therefore less sponsorship and funding. However, it has come a long in way in a short amount of time. It wasn&rsquot long ago when female footballers had to use their annual leave to play for their country. Even, England only started paying its national team players as recently as five years ago.

Although it is still not seen as a career by many and some players still have a backup career. This week Chelsea goalkeeper Lizzie Durack announced her retirement from football at the age of 25. Leah Williamson, Arsenal and England centre back is a qualified accountant.

The FAWSL is the only full-time league in Europe meaning the majority of female footballers on the continent are only part-time and most likely have other jobs as well as playing football.

When establishing the Women&rsquos Super League, the FA introduced a salary cap meaning clubs can use 40% of their turnover on the club&rsquos wage bill.

However, there are no limits on individual salaries. This means that there is no minimum salary, and this can lead to players still needing outside sponsorship or other jobs to supplement their income.

In the States, there is also a salary cap on National Women&rsquos Super League teams. Each team has $421,500 to spend on player&rsquos wages with the minimum salary set at $16,538 and a maximum of $46,200. The existence of salary limits is promising but it means there is a huge gap between the top and bottom earners.

Steph Houghton is reportedly the highest-earning female footballer in England is said to earn around £70,000-per-year from her salary and sponsorships. This is in stark contrast with some of the highest-paid male footballers such as Alexis Sanchez who is on a staggering £500,000-per-week.

This highlights the huge disparity between the men&rsquos and women&rsquos game.

In a pioneering move in 2017, Norway signed an equal pay agreement that saw the male players take a pay cut for those funds to be funnelled into the women&rsquos team.

This agreement meant that both the male and female teams would be paid the same wages. It is still the only agreement like this.

Women&rsquos football is still rapidly growing and although it is very to reach the heights of men&rsquos football any time soon it is continuously improving and evolving.

This will, in turn, bring more sponsorship which we are already seeing through Barclays sponsorship deal of the FA Women&rsquos Super League.

After the success of the World Cup and the world finally taking notice of women&rsquos football, now is the time to make real change and establish fair wages for female footballers.


Poglej si posnetek: Valentines Day Barbie Engagement Barbie and Ken Family Triplets Story with dolls 4K


Komentarji:

  1. Eginhard

    Mislim, da se motiš. Pišite mi v PM.

  2. Ganelon

    But you yourself were trying so?

  3. Pueblo

    I love it very much!

  4. Aoidh

    I think you are wrong. We will consider.

  5. Dallon

    Ta odgovor, neprimerljivo



Napišite sporočilo