Should there be a salary cap on football players?


#1

Should there be a salary cap on football players? They earn a LOT whereas nurses earn way less.

(By the way its football NOT soccer you damn Americans!)


#2

Yes, but it should ideally be done through UEFA. Footballer wages are probably the biggest modern example we have of wage inequity produced by the market, in terms of salary when compared with the contribution made to overall society.


#3

Should there be enforcements such as 15% is given to the charity of your choice etc?


#4

No. Entertainers are paid a lot because of public desire.


#5

Should actors get paid a similar salary then?


#6

More people watch normal TV rather than football I should imagine.


#7

Right, this pisses me off.

Football players, top class ones, get paid hundreds of thousands of pounds every week. For kicking a ball. I’m sorry, how is that justified?

There are masses of other jobs that deserve a higher level of pay. Doctors, teachers, aid workers. In what universe can a man kicking a ball around a field be compared to these giving, deserving, compassionate people?


#8

…They already do?

Johnny Depp is twice as rich as Cristiano Ronaldo. Add another $100m on top of that and you get to Tom Cruise’s wealth.

So? Footballers aren’t paid by the government, so what difference does it make?

Plus, footballers will simply leave to other countries and the sport will die.

Can you kick a ball with their skill? Do you also train 10 hours a day to kick that ball? Are you also in high demand like them?

Yes, we should make teachers and doctors get $100 000 a week as well. That’s totally budget-sustainable.


#9

No, but that doesn’t justify their earnings.

Sorry, where did I say we should pay them that much?


#10

Not sure what justifies doctor earnings then. I thought it was the skill, responsibility, practise and demand. Clearly I was wrong.

So your ideology is

“I don’t want to level up doctor/teacher earnings, but I want to level down people whom I don’t agree with”

Makes a lot of sense.


#11

No because the free market has spoken


#12

If demand meets such a salary, yeah sure.


#13

All salary caps lead to inefficiencies the free market is the only answer footballers are producs and we pay what we are willing and they should reap the money from this


#14

I think what @Frankie is arguing is that the wages of footballers in comparison to how much they contribute to society is unjustifiable when compared to the wages of doctors/aid workers who save the lives of other people, rather than merely providing entertainment. I understand that to a certain extent this is a trade-off of living in a free market economy, where popular demand fuels wage growth. But that then begs the question, why can we not just impose regulations, taxes and indicative planning measures to correct this bad outcome, provided it’s not too distortionary?

Would you say that if 90% of the population decided they wanted to buy machine guns? Is the free market always right? We could easily drift into entirely anarchist territory here…


#15

If 90 percent of people wanted to buy machine guns what right have you goto stop them from protecting themselves this is not a failure of the free market this is you making up silly arguments. And you got a problem with anarchy? Because last time i checked governments are biggest murderers in history


#16

Athletes need to spend countless hours, days and years of their life to have a crack at becoming professionals at any sport. I think we’re forgetting how much they sacrifice to be one of the best. Why do you say they don’t contribute to society? Because of Michael Jordan, I wanted to become the best basketball player I could become. This lead me to a much healthier life style, an increased social presence, long time friends and most importantly an increase of happiness whether I’m playing or watching.

Many athletes also give back to their communities. I wouldn’t say they aren’t contributing to society.


#17

What the fuck is the point? They’re paid for (AFAIK) by the public sector, and I see no immediate damage presented by them receiving such large salaries.


#18

No. That’s immoral and bad economics.


#19

Do you think that it would make everyone safer if 90% of a population had machine guns? Is this something you’d freely allow?

There is ultimately no difference whatsoever between a “free market” and a lawless market. Are you fine with having all of your protections and rights stripped away from you?

I think it’s fair to say that Stalinist governments, National Socialist governments and Maoist governments are a far cry away from liberal governments.

I agree there is some contribution - I spend tons of my spare time playing and watching football, but it’s nothing compared to the contribution of, say, doctors. An decent level Premier League footballer can earn around £60,000 per week. Some doctors earn that in a whole year.


#20

Nope. They earn their money. If the whole organisation earns enough money and the people buy tickets and they fund the players, they should get whatever they get. It is their job. And if the whole organisation can afford to pay football players such a large sum of money for their skills they should be.