Lionel Messi - £1m per week plus bonuses

[Tiptop24]

There are multiple players earning £100k a week who aren't close to being 1/10th of a player of Messi.

 

[rocker959]

Crazy .

 

[Bozza]

Probably what it cost to see Huddersfield off.

The Terriers will now move onto their secondary target.

 

[Seasidesage]

I suspect it's probably self financing. Assuming they have his image rights the commercial opportunities probably far outweigh even this wage. He is the best footballer on the planet after all. Barcelona also have their own PPV tv deal which makes having the best players both viable and commercially necessary.

 

[JBizzle]

If Barca can afford it and are willing to pay it, let them get on with it. I doubt I'd have a moral objection to it if I were offered that amount. Tom Cruise earned something like $100m for EACH of his films as one point and don't recall any moralising or hand-wringing about that.

As an aside, I cannot understand why people like footballer's wages with the NHS. It's irrelevant.

 

[Commander]

I don't see the problem with him earning a million quid a week, he's the absolute best in the world at what he does, and possibly the greatest ever.

It's bang average Championship footballers earning £30K a week that I have a problem with. That's where the money is crazy.

 

[Triggaaar]

With all the poverty in the world, this is perverse and shouldn't be allowed to happen.

What would happen to that money if it wasn't given to him? And what will happen to it now that it is going to him?

I sometimes get to work on projects where individuals are spending a ridiculous amount of money on stuff for themselves for something that could be done just as well for a fraction of the cost and it grates me really.
The rest could be put to much better use in the community.
There is so much that could be done with it to benefit others, how comfortable does one have to be.

Again: "What would happen to that money if it wasn't given to him? And what will happen to it now that it is going to him?"

 

[Dorset Seagull]

Again: "What would happen to that money if it wasn't given to him? And what will happen to it now that it is going to him?"

I think you have to assume that he generates enough money for the club to pay him that amount whilst also leaving a tidy profit on top. So the answer is that if the money wasn't given to him he would move elsewhere and Barcelona would lose the revenue he generates. Therefore there would not be any money to give if he wasn't playing for them

 

[Triggaaar]

I think you have to assume that he generates enough money for the club to pay him that amount whilst also leaving a tidy profit on top. So the answer is that if the money wasn't given to him he would move elsewhere and Barcelona would lose the revenue he generates. Therefore there would not be any money to give if he wasn't playing for them

If you follow that line, then he'd play somewhere else and that somewhere else would earn the money instead. OzMike was complaining about the level of money when there's so much poverty in the world, but I can't see the link - I don't see how paying him less would lead to less poverty.

Often in football you have wealthy owners like Abramovich, the Saudi's, Qataries, Chinese billionaires etc. I'd think money is more likely to reach the poor if they pay footballers millions than if they keep that money at home. The payments are taxed for a start, which transfers wealth. And with the wealth being spread to more people (even rich footballers), it also gets spread further over the years (their extended family, sometimes their home town/country etc).

 

[Rod Marsh]

Maybe you should come back to the real world for a bit, utterly ridiculous.

Who are you to decide what someone should get paid?

 

[Dorset Seagull]

If you follow that line, then he'd play somewhere else and that somewhere else would earn the money instead. OzMike was complaining about the level of money when there's so much poverty in the world, but I can't see the link - I don't see how paying him less would lead to less poverty.

Often in football you have wealthy owners like Abramovich, the Saudi's, Qataries, Chinese billionaires etc. I'd think money is more likely to reach the poor if they pay footballers millions than if they keep that money at home. The payments are taxed for a start, which transfers wealth. And with the wealth being spread to more people (even rich footballers), it also gets spread further over the years (their extended family, sometimes their home town/country etc).

Absolutely, I'm with you on this. If a person is able to generate huge wealth by having a particular skill whatever their field of work then they should be remunerated accordingly. I suppose you could argue that they just happened to be lucky to be born that way so why should they benefit from that when other less fortunate people benefit less. But as you say that wealth moves through the system and does benefit far more people than just the individual concerned.

Never really understood why footballers get singled out so much when many others also earn obscene amounts of money. I bet nobody made a fuss when they were all earning 2 bob a week!

 

[Birdie Boy]

I'm not financial accountant but I bet he 'donates' millions every year to charities even if it is a tax thing.

The problem that I have is when clubs pay stupid money to players that are a) not worthy and b) affecting the clubs chances of survival. Obviously this is not relevant to Barcelona but smaller clubs that over spend on players wages, agents money and transfer fees.

Sent from my XT1072 using Tapatalk