Sanchez’s huge deal is just a matter of economics
There was an interesting article by Mark Reason last week about the huge – some would say obscene – money made by the top tennis players.
The best footballers rival Federer, Nadal and company at the top of any highest-earners list, but what sets football apart is the sheer number of players earning squillions.
In the English Premier League alone, there are about 500 players with an average basic income of NZ$57,000. A week. That’s just for starters. It increases with appearances, wins, draws, league position, not getting sent off, and anything else they can stick in the contract.
In England’s second tier, the Championship, players do very nicely with an average annual income of $675,000.
One of those players is Jack Rodwell, in the reserves at Sunderland, who are near the foot of the table. When Sunderland signed him on $135,000 a week, they were half-decent and so was Rodwell. But Sunderland dropped out of the Premiership, and Rodwell out of the team.
There was no relegation clause in the contract, so Rodwell stays on his absurd pay for a while yet.
The Premier League’s biggest spenders are Manchester City and Manchester United, who last year paid their first team squad an average of $193,000 a week.
That figure has just shot up at United, because they’ve lured Chilean striker Alexis Sanchez from Arsenal with a weekly avalanche of money in the vicinity of, according to The Daily Mail, $1.1 million a week. That’s $163,714 a day.
That figure comprises a basic – win, lose, draw, miss the whole season with injury – $675,000. Bonuses – roughly $193,000 a week. Then there’s the image rights – every time United sell a shirt with Sanchez on the back, he’s got to get paid more, right? And don’t forget the signing on fee. Another $38m.
Endorsements. Watches, cars, baked beans, skin care products. Add another squillion. In total the deal’s worth north of $386m. For one player. It’s not known who sprung for the coffee while Sanchez and the moneymen debated how many zeros to write on the cheque.
All this money is possible because most of the planet watches the Premier League. The TV deals are worth $16 billion, set to balloon further when they’re re-negotiated next year.
That’s a gravy train the clubs don’t want to get off, and that’s why there are 14 English clubs among the 30 richest in the world, including tiny Bournemouth, who made $270m last year, despite a stadium capacity of 11,000, at 28.
But the biggest earners don’t play in England. Real Madrid, PSG and top payers Barcelona all fork out around $12.5m a week to keep the boys happy.
Naturally, Lionel Messi’s new contract gets him a big piece of that pie – $1.3m a week, or $67m a year. Can you imagine how, over in Madrid, Cristiano Ronaldo reacted when he heard that? He was straight on the phone to the president: ‘‘It’s not fair! I’m better than him! Pay me more or I’m off!’’ We can only hope Real takes up the offer.
In Germany, Bayern Munich also operate in telephone numbers and Chinese clubs are splashing the cash.
But do the top players deserve so much money? According to the laws of supply and demand, they do. If the money’s there and the clubs want to pay it, then good luck to them.
The counter argument is that it’s simply not right, especially while billions live in poverty.
It’s easily fixed. Fans could stop paying their Sky subscriptions and the money will dry up. Hands up if you’re happy to go without televised football? Thought so.