I think they should get more because they have to clean 5 h itty nappies, hoover, make beds, wash up, cook and iron.
Yes. Not sure of the amounts but I think the England (men’s) players have been donating their pay to charity for a good few years.
Yeah I believe this to be true, although it was well over a decade ago, and im sure I read they got 7k every match they appeared in. Fairly certain it was a reputable source
Not related to football but work in general. Equal pay only covers the opposite sex. So eg. You could have 2 men doing the exact same job on different pay. It's rife in industry. And causes friction in most cases. If a new starter is offered a salary. Some companies now use benchmarking for a role (and do not have to offer the rate of a present employee). The same salary has to be offered to a starter of the opposite sex. Same applies to other T's n C's. Eg different holiday allowances. Pensions etc.
Yes but thats fair - an inexperienced person gets the same regardless of whether they are Male Female or something in between the same goes for an experienced person. In principle I dont see any issue paying more for someone with more experience
If I was Carlton Morris I'd be a tad miffed that Obbi Oulare was on almost double what I was in the same job
Totally wrong in my view. The new guy/gal will never match their predecessor. And the gap widens when rises are paid. The employers are laughing all the way to the bank. In my dept. (Other depts. get treat differently) We made sure all engineers came in on the same rate. If qualified. And apprentices go on equal pay when qualified. It was/is an accepted practice. Voted to be kept in. by the maintenance workforce It's purely a cost cutting exercise. I know people that overtake their mentors in knowledge and work ethics. Yet will never reach equal pay. And as I say the gap widens with % pay rises. Totally unethical. Using starters was probably the wrong wording. And some obviously need training. But once of equal standing. They should get the equal highest rate for the same job. And we are not talking small amounts but thousands p.a. In my view and as a retired union rep. The unions should have prevented these abhorrent practices. The same time as when equal pay was introduced.
Experience is fair enough, but I'm still bitter about having started work in the civil service just as austerity was kicking off and ending up stranded at the bottom of my band for almost the whole time! After a few years I got promoted, which came with 30ish per cent more money - I was still on less than my colleagues a band below. From memory I think the top of the lower range (which everybody was sitting quite happily on but you'd never get anywhere near if you joined after 2000) was something stupid like 5-6k higher than the bottom of their manager's band, so I was managing people who were being paid substantially more than me. And they had a better pension scheme! (This isn't strictly relevant to the thread, but I never miss a chance to rant about it...)
100% correct. It's what I was trying to say in my latest post. Best way I can describe it. 2022 Employee A 30k pa 50 yrs of age Employee B 25k pa 30 yrs of age Both started from school Both fully qualified and experienced. 2037 Employee A 40k with % increase rises 65 yrs of age Employee B 33k with same % increase rises 45 yrs of age. He's quite possibly going to get a similar salary to A 20 yrs later. 2057 All the above are obviously an example of what will happen. Just the figures are an example. One of the biggest travesties I've ever encountered.
Same for me. I'm top of Band 2 because i've been at NHS for 12 years. If I went for a band 3 job my salary wouldn't go up that much as the bottom of Band 3 is the top of Band 2. The conclusion I drew was that if you had the drive ( which I don't) the incentive is to try to get into band 4 asap to see the real pay rise. Then you'd jump the 3k increment quicker than the six years it takes at the minute. (£500 per year).
At least the NHS still has spine point rises. They disappeared in the civil service about 30 years ago. Although most departments are at least working to get rid of pay bands at the lower grades now. DWP almost got rid of the ‘band’ for the lowest 3 grades and I believe HMRC has too. although it’s always a scrap to stay ahead of NMW rises as that’s embarrassing for the govt. But after that same 30 years I reckon my salary is equal to what someone 2 grades lower would have earned. After the war the salary for my grade would have been significantly higher than an MP, it’s now less than half an MP’s salary.
(Possibly controversial) but IMO football, whilst primarily a sport, is about 'entertainment'. It is funded to some extent by the fans, but a large proportion comes from corporates, marketing, sponsorship and advertising from sports and non sports businesses. As such, like many sports, it is all about 'bums on seats'. Womens' soccer does, for now, have nowhere near the draw or exposure to justify equal pay with the men. That said, even within the men's game. remuneration logic has flown out of the window. At one time, in spite of it being a team game and results driven, certain individual players like George Best, Pele etc. would draw crowds in as their style and skills added to the entertainment value and it was shown that they increased the profile (and therefore market value of the clubs they played for). As such it justified the much higher contracts they were offered. Nowadays, journeymen footballers with no ability to draw bigger crowds or revenue for the club are paid ridiculous sums of money albeit the upper end of the Pyramid. Silly money still gravitates to high profile players like Ronaldo but that is in response to the kudos and increased revenue they generate for their club. Actors musicians and other performers are generally awarded contracts based on their box office draw and as a primarily entertainment medium professional sport is no different. IMO, currently women's (and in spite of BBC's best efforts to promote it being unable to afford to compete with PPV in men's soccer) it lags far behind the mens' game in its popularity.
Business is and always will be business. And football is definitely a business. Internationals possibly not as much.
I’d argue that the revenue to the FA from the England team is substantial. They generally pack a huge stadium, are a sought after TV draw, and the merchandise is a higher value than any premier league club. The fact the player’s performance fee is considerably lower than they get for playing at club level is an indication of how warped football finances are.
Whilst I agree in principle about the value of bums on seats, football finances are a very warped market. Where the highest value clubs lose an enormous amount of money. And lower value clubs lose a massive amount of money chasing the dream that they could possibly make a profit with a small amount of success. It’s bats that most of the clubs making a decent profit are those at the bottom end of the top leagues in whatever country. The comparison to cinema would be to pay Tom Cruise £20m for a film guaranteed to not make a profit. It wouldn’t happen.
