jdefoe wrote:I think they are way overpaid, and I feel that its our fault for buying all the memorabilia and tickets at outrageous prices.
The most profit comes from merchandise and broadcasting rights. Attendance is not that important for most pro clubs.
jdefoe wrote:It's all about supply and demand. When the industry sucks us in, owners can get economists to calculate maximum profit. I think that we are to blame since we buy all these things. What do you guys think?
Overpaid according to who's perspective? Clubs are not stupid, they won't pay too much for a player unless his presence will return their investment. The problem I see is with guys like Beckham who have a really high market value just because of their popularity.
With €25million (£17million) a year, England captain Beckham tops the table ahead of his Real Madrid team-mates Ronaldo, who earns €19.6m (£13.3m), and Zinedine Zidane, on €13m (£8.8m).
The three each have salaries of €6.4m (£4.36m) and collect €200,000 a year (£136,000) in bonuses. However, Beckham earns an additional £12.5m in advertising contracts, Ronaldo receiving £8.8m for his commercial deals and Zidane £4.4m.
OK, even if you put the advertising aside, should Beckham get the same salary as Ronaldo and Zidane? Hmm. That's why Makelele left Real, they weren't paying him nearly as much even though he was the backbone of the team.
I don't think footballers are overpaid. The only problem I have is with "superstars" who get paid for their name and not skills.
matt wrote:of course football is a business, it always has been, how could it not be?
It wasn't this crazy prior to 1995-6. In general, player value has skyrocketed since then.