25 ms·

Footballers make 300k a week and no one complains. This is a post about the slim survival chances of British media.. well salary caps will be the nail in the co

Footballers make 300k a week and no one complains. This is a post about the slim survival chances of British media.. well salary caps will be the nail in the coffin as talent will simply go whey get the best deal.

zimpenfish 1y ago
> Footballers make 300k a week and no one complains To be fair, plenty of fans (and the occasional pundit) complain (and have been complaining for years) but unless the authorities get involved (FA, UEFA, FIFA, etc.) and implement proper financial controls (there's some coming in 2025/26 around player salaries but we also need controls on money coming from TV rights, self-sponsorships, etc.) with actual transparent penalties (they're still soft-pedalling City whilst kicking Everton and Forest), nothing will happen.
- robbomacrae 1y ago
  As an Everton fan I agree about city but I don’t think we should try and control these other things. You’re literally trying to limit the input (tv revenue) and output (salaries). If this happened countries that believe in a free market will outcompete and destroy the premier league which is one of the few things this country has going for it..
nprateem 1y ago
Like I said. Free market, who cares. But not for a publicly funded organisation. And if one group of talent moves on it'll make space for the next generation.
- permo-w 1y ago
  >it'll make space for the next generation. space promptly filled by B or C tier talent as the best go and work elsewhere to get paid appropriately
gadders 1y ago
Footballers don't take 300k/week of tax payer's money.
- permo-w 1y ago
  it's not tax payers' money
  - ndsipa_pomu 1y ago
    You're technically correct (the best kind of correct), but the TV license is very much like a tax as you're required to pay for it just for having equipment that can possibly receive broadcast TV.
    - permo-w 1y ago
      this isn't true. you're required to pay for it if you watch live TV. you're perfectly allowed to have a TV or laptop or any other device that can pick up live TV
      - ndsipa_pomu 1y ago
        Sorry, I haven't checked the rules in a while. It used to be the case that owning a reception device required a license, but as you say, that's no longer the case.
  - gadders 1y ago
    You think the BBC License Fee is not a tax? Lol.
    - permo-w 1y ago
      >Fee
      - gadders 1y ago
        Lol. They can call it a non-voluntary charitable donation. It doesn't matter what they call it. It's still a tax. You probably think "National Insurance" is not a tax. You understand that what something is called is not always the same as what it is, right?
ndsipa_pomu 1y ago
The best paid football players aren't easily replaced with cheaper talent though. Top clubs will need to compete against other top clubs, so e.g. a striker with better performance is going to be heavily in demand and can make a lot of difference to the success of the club. Arguably, news readers aren't critical to the success of the news broadcast (the content probably makes far more difference), though I can see that presenters can make a big difference to the popularity of shows. I've got nothing against Gary Lineker (quite like him, but rarely watch him on telly), but I do object to being "forced" to pay for his excessive salary when they should be helping younger, unknown talent to get exposure etc.
- permo-w 1y ago
  the issue is that Gary Lineker does a spectacularly good job, and the unknown talent they've been bringing through are by and large unwatchable. it's a moot point now because he's gone, and whatever, I'm glad the psychodrama is over, but I'd much rather be "forced" to pay his salary and enjoy the show, than not be "forced" to and instead be forced to watch some people who'd do a better job reading the news. imo they should have taken his salary and used it to poach Dave Jones from Sky or even Kate Scott from CBS. why should the country's most popular football show not have the best presenter available?

zimpenfish 1y ago

> Footballers make 300k a week and no one complains To be fair, plenty of fans (and the occasional pundit) complain (and have been complaining for years) but unless the authorities get involved (FA, UEFA, FIFA, etc.) and implement proper financial controls (there's some coming in 2025/26 around player salaries but we also need controls on money coming from TV rights, self-sponsorships, etc.) with actual transparent penalties (they're still soft-pedalling City whilst kicking Everton and Forest), nothing will happen.

robbomacrae 1y ago
As an Everton fan I agree about city but I don’t think we should try and control these other things. You’re literally trying to limit the input (tv revenue) and output (salaries). If this happened countries that believe in a free market will outcompete and destroy the premier league which is one of the few things this country has going for it..

nprateem 1y ago

Like I said. Free market, who cares. But not for a publicly funded organisation. And if one group of talent moves on it'll make space for the next generation.

permo-w 1y ago
>it'll make space for the next generation. space promptly filled by B or C tier talent as the best go and work elsewhere to get paid appropriately

gadders 1y ago

Footballers don't take 300k/week of tax payer's money.

permo-w 1y ago
it's not tax payers' money
- ndsipa_pomu 1y ago
  You're technically correct (the best kind of correct), but the TV license is very much like a tax as you're required to pay for it just for having equipment that can possibly receive broadcast TV.
  - permo-w 1y ago
    this isn't true. you're required to pay for it if you watch live TV. you're perfectly allowed to have a TV or laptop or any other device that can pick up live TV
    - ndsipa_pomu 1y ago
      Sorry, I haven't checked the rules in a while. It used to be the case that owning a reception device required a license, but as you say, that's no longer the case.
- gadders 1y ago
  You think the BBC License Fee is not a tax? Lol.
  - permo-w 1y ago
    >Fee
    - gadders 1y ago
      Lol. They can call it a non-voluntary charitable donation. It doesn't matter what they call it. It's still a tax. You probably think "National Insurance" is not a tax. You understand that what something is called is not always the same as what it is, right?

ndsipa_pomu 1y ago

The best paid football players aren't easily replaced with cheaper talent though. Top clubs will need to compete against other top clubs, so e.g. a striker with better performance is going to be heavily in demand and can make a lot of difference to the success of the club. Arguably, news readers aren't critical to the success of the news broadcast (the content probably makes far more difference), though I can see that presenters can make a big difference to the popularity of shows. I've got nothing against Gary Lineker (quite like him, but rarely watch him on telly), but I do object to being "forced" to pay for his excessive salary when they should be helping younger, unknown talent to get exposure etc.

permo-w 1y ago
the issue is that Gary Lineker does a spectacularly good job, and the unknown talent they've been bringing through are by and large unwatchable. it's a moot point now because he's gone, and whatever, I'm glad the psychodrama is over, but I'd much rather be "forced" to pay his salary and enjoy the show, than not be "forced" to and instead be forced to watch some people who'd do a better job reading the news. imo they should have taken his salary and used it to poach Dave Jones from Sky or even Kate Scott from CBS. why should the country's most popular football show not have the best presenter available?