Greetings readers. Sorry, thought I’d try a different opening. I’ve done a few of these now and I feel like I say the same thing in every introduction. It’s the same way I feel when writing a card for someone. Anyway, given the remarkable story about Marcus Rashford last week, I thought I’d write about footballers this week and how they are perceived publicly, particularly when it comes to how much they earn. For those who missed the story last week, Manchester United forward Rashford started a campaign to get the government to U-turn their decision to scrap Free School Meals (FSM) during the summer. The government’s initial decision would have meant an estimated 1.3 million children would have gone hungry. Thanks to Marcus Rashford’s persistence and determination, he eventually got the government to agree to fund FSM. Why the government were happy for 1.3 million children to go hungry in the first place is a question for another time. Well done to Marcus Rashford, using his platform for such a noble and worthy cause. Top man.
I’d like to kick off today’s post with a clarification that I feel is needed for a lot of people. When people hear the word “footballer”, one of the first things most people think is that they’re well off. This would be a misconception about 75% of the time. There are roughly 4,000 male professional footballers in England. Of those, about 1,000 ply their trade in the top two divisions (Premier League and Championship). The other 3,000 or so play for teams in the lower divisions. League 1 is the third tier of English football, so is obviously the highest league barring the top two. The average yearly salary for a player in League 1 is £69,500. Now, don’t get me wrong, that is decent money that a lot of people would be more than happy to earn. But it’s not millionaire money. That’s not mansion and Ferrari money. That’s living life comfortably money. Or is it?
It’s worth remembering how short a career footballers have. If they’re lucky, they may break through at an early age (18, 19). Chances are, they’ll be a bit older (20, 21). Retirement age is anything between 32-35. Let’s say they play professionally from 18-35. That’s only 17 years worth of employment. Looking at a comparable job salary wise (for example, Head of Sales, average salary 69.5k), if you’re lucky, you might land that sort of role at 25. Let’s say you start that role at age 30. Retirement age is currently 68. You could potentially have this job (or similar) for 38 years. That’s a huge difference in earning potential.
And that’s not to mention that footballers won’t start on that sort of wage. If they start at a club in a lower division, or if they’re a youth team player in League 1, their first professional contract won’t be anywhere near 70k. It would likely be their second – or maybe even third – contract before they earned their uppermost wage (maybe at 24-28 years of age). So they might only get 10 or so years of earning top dollar. And that’s if they can avoid a serious, career-ending injury. All players know that they could be forced into retirement at any point, so it behoves them to earn what they can while they can.
Of course, the further down the football pyramid you go, the lower the wages get. But the short career and risk of injury are the same. So when talking about footballers, it’s worth bearing in mind that they’re not all multi-millionaires.
Let’s talk about the millionaires though. The top 25% of players. These are the ones you see in the newspapers (for good or bad reasons). The ones with the mansions and Ferraris. These are the ones that people are usually referring to when they use the label “footballer” disparagingly. They have the same problems with a short career and risk of injury, but most earn so much that they are sorted for life financially regardless.
I’m not going to sit here and say that they don’t earn ridiculous money, because they do. But what I am going to ask is: why is it a problem? One problem people raise is whether they “deserve” to be paid so well. “Getting paid loads to kick a ball about. Nonsense!” But is “deserve” relevant? Whether we like it or not, we live in a society that is driven by supply and demand. This is why the cost of flowers goes up massively in the weeks leading up to Valentine’s Day or Mother’s Day. Is it fair? No, probably not. But florists know they can do it because people will pay the higher prices. If everyone suddenly boycotted all florists just before the aforementioned holidays, they would have no choice but to reconsider their price gouging. Likewise with football, players earn a lot because clubs earn a lot (from matchday stadium revenue and from broadcasting deals). Clubs earn a lot because they have thousands of season ticket holders. The broadcasters earn a lot because fans who don’t regularly physically go to watch football (and even loads who do) pay lots for sports package subscriptions. If there wasn’t a global fanbase throwing money at the broadcasters and clubs, the clubs wouldn’t be able to pay their players so much. So the demand is clearly there.
Because of the supply and demand aspect of it, it bugs me when people attack the players themselves over their salary. Of course, some players are greedy and just want to earn as much as possible, but that isn’t exclusively a football problem. In your job, whatever it is you do (unless you’re self employed), if your manager said that you were getting a £10,000 pay rise, would you turn it down? Even if your current wage was more than fair and you didn’t necessarily feel like you deserved it, you’d take the extra money. So I don’t think it’s fair to expect footballers to turn down big money if it’s offered to them.
Wherever the anger should be directed, I don’t really understand why there is any anger in the first place. You don’t see this with other well-paid professions. Actors seem to be able to earn huge sums without ever being questioned. Leonardo DiCaprio earned $29 million between June 2014 and June 2015. Barring the top six or seven players in the world, this is more than every other footballer (quite significantly in a lot of cases). Yet I never hear people ask if Hollywood actors are paid too much.
In TV land, it can be even worse. Let’s look at Friends as an example. It’s well documented that in the last few seasons, the six main cast members banded together to negotiate their fee. They each received $1 million per episode. Each season of Friends has 22 episodes, so they pocketed $22 million per year. EACH! The first year this deal was in place seems to be 2002. The highest paid footballer in England at that time was Roy Keane, who was on £90,000 per week. About £4.6 million per year. So the Friends stars made way more at the time. Adjusted for inflation, the Friends stars earned over $31 million in today’s money. To make matters even worse, the stars continue to make money from the show to this day. From the syndication re-runs, each star earns $20 million per year. For work they stopped doing 16 years ago (read: for doing nothing). I say good for them. But where is the outrage? It’s apparently perfectly acceptable to chastise footballers for their lavish wage, but uncouth to criticise Matt Le Blanc for earning 20 mil to sit on his arse.
And what of music? Would anyone like to take a punt at how much money Ed Sheeran made in 2019? Anyone? $110 million! One. Hundred. And. Ten. Million! Again, and I feel like I’m beginning to sound like a broken record (pun 100% intended), why is no one talking about this? I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone say that the money musicians earn is ridiculous. So why do footballers get it in the neck?
I have two theories. The first is around how divisive football can be. Even though it is a global game and it is an important part of a lot of people’s lives, there are just as many people (if not more) who can’t stand football. Or at the very least are indifferent to it. Therefore, those who don’t really follow it – being told footballers salaries out of context – are likely to baulk at the figures. Whereas you’d be hard pressed to find someone who doesn’t listen to any music at all. People who claim to not watch films or TV are few and far between. This theory may hold water, but wouldn’t explain why so many football fans also seem to think footballers are overpaid.
My second theory is around tradition. Hollywood has been a glitzy, elite corner of showbusiness for over 100 years. Movie stars – and by extension, TV stars – have always been held in high regard. They aren’t like us. For the last 70 years or so, musicians have been put upon a pedestal. Think about the fanfare that used to follow around the likes of Elvis or The Beatles. There has long been a sense that musicians are almost other-worldly sprites, crafting gorgeous, melodic sounds for us plebs to listen to. Footballers, on the other hand, for a long time, were seen as one of us. Normal blokes who started off as fans in the terraces, then with a bit of talent and luck, forged a career as a footballer. And it would be no surprise to see them down the pub after a match, enjoying a well deserved beer. This was largely the case up until the 90s. Alas, no more.
It does make you think though. Perhaps in 50 years or so, the astronomical wages of footballers will be normalised, and there’ll be another group being criticised. I can almost see my grandchild writing:
“A lot has been made of how much Twitcube stars earn, but why do other professions not face similar scrutiny? Elite X Division footballer Marcus Rashford III earned over £300 million last year. Fair enough, he put a lot of that money into the Rashford Foundation (the charity set up by his grandfather, to ensure no children go hungry), but it’s still a huge sum. Why is it ok for one group to earn that sort of money, but not another group? I have a couple of theories…”
A bit of a long one this week, so if you stuck with it all the way through, thank you. Take care and stay safe out there.
A Rob Blog 
One thought on “(Back of the) Net Worth”