Something Has Gone Wrong

[bad company]

I have always regarded myself as a capitalist. The market dictates what you can earn but read this:-

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-a...

He would have to work 10 years to earn 1 weeks footballers wages.

[Countdown]

The "footballer's wage" bit is irrelevant IMO.

Unfortunately for Raja the market decides what his labour his worth. The NAsty Socialist Govt has stipulated that it must be at least £6.50 an hour, if it hadn't then he would be on less.

Nothing has "gone wrong" - this is always how society has worked.

[Kaj91]

£6.50 an hour £260 for a 40 hour week. Something has gone terribly wrong.

[bad company]

Countdown said:

The "footballer's wage" bit is irrelevant IMO.

Unfortunately for Raja the market decides what his labour his worth. The NAsty Socialist Govt has stipulated that it must be at least £6.50 an hour, if it hadn't then he would be on less.

Nothing has "gone wrong" - this is always how society has worked.

I have previously agreed with that point of view but IMO it's now gone too far

[mickk]

So Raja works for a contractor, he doesn't work for the club. I expect Raja's boss is living in poverty as well.

[cotney]

I agree the premier league clubs have a moral obligation to ensure staff are paid the "living wage" when you look at how much profit they make. The ones that don't turn a profit, fail to because of the level of players wages and agents fees.

I think we need to look at a salary cap for clubs like they have in some American sports. Otherwise the wages are just going to continue to spiral, and in turn the price of a ticket goes up, and the average person struggles more and more to afford to go to a game.

The idea Scudamore continues to float about playing the 38th game of the league in far flung countries just sums up how much the league has become a cash cow for those at the top, with no consideration to the fans involved.

[DeltonaS]

Countdown said:

The "footballer's wage" bit is irrelevant IMO.

Unfortunately for Raja the market decides what his labour his worth. The NAsty Socialist Govt has stipulated that it must be at least £6.50 an hour, if it hadn't then he would be on less.

Nothing has "gone wrong" - this is always how society has worked.

That's bullst ofcourse, in quite a lot of businesses (banking for example) all employees benefit to some extent from the (financial) performance of the company.

Secondly; it's pretty perverse and flagrant if you as an employer dare to pay some of your employees the absolute minimum while on the other hand your managing a business where some of your other employees become millioners every half a year. And then I haven't even mentioned the disgracefull fees player agents are getting for basically doing nothing but a few phonecalls.

Tells you somehting about the people your dealing with.

[Countdown]

DeltonaS said:

That's bullst ofcourse, in quite a lot of businesses (banking for example) all employees benefit to some extent from the (financial) performance of the company.

how much do you think cleaners in a bank get paid? Do you think theirselves is linked in any way to the bank's top earners, or to the amount of dividend paid out?

DeltonaS said:

Secondly; it's pretty perverse and flagrant if you as an employer dare to pay some of your employees the absolute minimum while on the other hand your managing a business where some of your other employees become millioners every half a year. And then I haven't even mentioned the disgracefull fees player agents are getting for basically doing nothing but a few phonecalls.

it's called supply and demand. That's how the free market works. I think you're suggesting that it's unfair. This may come as a shock but there is no such thing as "fair".

[Countdown]

bad company said:

I have previously agreed with that point of view but IMO it's now gone too far

What has actually changed?

The fact that PL footballers are earning more make doesn't mean that cleaners are earning less - they're still on NMW. If the footballers were restricted to £100kpa I guarantee you that the cleaners would STILL be on NMW.

The two things are completely unrelated. You could argue that the NMW isn't a living wage (and ithats why people on NMW get various benefits) but its wrong to say that cleaners wages are unfair BECAUSE PL footballers earn so much more.

[DeltonaS]

[quote=Countdownhow much do you think cleaners in a bank get paid? Do you think theirselves is linked in any way to the bank's top earners, or to the amount of dividend paid out?".
[/quote]


Not much, but in a banking environment their are a lot of people in between the very few top earners and the bottom earners.

Or to put in other words; the income distribution in most businesses is much healthier. On top of that; those top earners in regular businesses in most cases don't earn nearly as much as a PL footballer does and their not 12 years old, unlike the average PL footballer ;-)

And given the PL club income distribution; I don't expect them to pay a cleaner a PL wage obviously; but to pay one the absolute minimum (or even less in a London environment) is flagrent and unnecassary; in the total scheme of things a cleaners wage rise of lets say 25% compared with an avarage PL footballers wage is nothing for a PL club. But somehow I think you know perfectly well what I mean.


[quote=Countdown]it's called supply and demand. That's how the free market works. I think you're suggesting that it's unfair. This may come as a shock but there is no such thing as "fair".
[/quote]


Supply and demand ?? free markt ?? really, never heard of it ;-)

I think your working your way towards an answer here, SIR ;-)

Edited by DeltonaS on Sunday 15th February 15:41

[TwigtheWonderkid]

cotney said:

I agree the premier league clubs have a moral obligation to ensure staff are paid the "living wage" when you look at how much profit they make.

I am pleased to say that my club, Chelsea, pay the London living wage (£9.15 an hour minimum) to everybody employed by the club. They also will not contract work out to any firm who doesn't pay at least £9.15/hour to their staff working at Stamford Bridge.

We're by no means perfect, but we have got that right.

[bad company]

Looks like my team West Ham have also agreed to pay the London minimum-

http://kumb.com/story.php?id=128273