16 Oct 2014

'He's done nothing': Hamann blasts greedy £31m LFC star & 'irresponsible' LFC. Fair?

Elite footballers are grossly overpaid; that is a given, but increasingly, young players - often teenagers - are being obscenely rewarded before they've achieved anything in the game. One of the recurring arguments made on this site is that grossly overpaying young players leads to dulled competitive edge, and it seems like more and more people are finally acknowledging this reality. Brendan Rodgers recently warned of the negative impact of throwing money at youngsters, and LFC legend Dietmar Hamann has now take an indirect swipe at Raheem Sterling, who - via his agent - is currently holding Liverpool to ransom.

In an interview with the Daily Express today, Hamann barked:

"How can somebody who is 18 or 19 and has done nothing in the game sign a long-term contract that guarantees him £12.5m?. That is the same if he plays, gets injured, or doesn't perform. It's irresponsible. It can't be right and the reason why some players lose their edge"

In my view, Hamann is clearly making a subtle reference to £31m-rated Sterling, whose current contract is reportedly worth £50k a week over five years. He makes specific reference to his age (18-19), and no other player of that age range has the specific deal to which Hamann refers.

Equally, the German's overall point applies to the likes of Luke Shaw, and Ross Barkley, who - like Sterling - have achieved next to nothing in the game, yet have been rewarded with outrageously huge salaries.

I've made my point on this issue many times, so I won't go over the same ground, but for me, it's a huge mistake to hand Sterling a £100K a week contract. Rodgers claims the youngster is 'remarkably happy' at Liverpool, so from a business point of view, why is it suddenly necessary to hand him such an obscene pay-rise?

Sterling is 19! He should be happy on £50k a week, and if he's not - and will actually considering leaving Anfield unless the pay-rise is forthcoming - then Liverpool should sell to the highest bidder as a matter of urgency. Who the hell cares if Sterling is a talented player? He is not worth £100k a week, and if Liverpool cave on this issue, it will simply affirm that he is bigger than the club.

It's ridiculous, and embarrassing to see LFC being held to ransom by a 19-year old; Rodgers, Ayre et al seriously need to man-up and reassert the club's authority, because right now, they're looking pretty spineless.

I don't want to hear Rodgers mewling about how amazing Sterling is, and how the club is desperate to keep him at Anfield; I want him to stop kowtowing and finally show some balls. Indeed, when asked about the situation, Rodgers should call Sterling's bluff; tell reporters that he's paid ridiculously well, and make it clear that if he's not happy with his huge contract, then he's free to leave.

If Sterling is genuinely 'remarkably happy' at Liverpool, then he'll put his head down and get on with it. If not, he'll cause a problem and force a transfer. Well, so be it! To be honest, I couldn't care less if Liverpool sell Sterling. The obsessional deification of individual players is a huge problem in football, and, as always, football fans are the great enablers.

There's something perverse about blue-collar fans (many of whom are struggling to make ends meet) lionising offensively overpaid footballers. Guess what: Sterling doesn't give a damn about you; he doesn't even know or care whether you're alive. Like most footballers, he pays lip-service to the idea of appreciating the 'fans', but when it comes to the crunch, he's in it for himself, and money talks.

Yes, I know this is the reality of modern football, but it doesn't mean it has to be accepted. Fans are being ripped-off left, right and centre (for tickets/merchandise etc), and player greed is one of the principal reasons why. And yet, ironically, fans continue their rampant, destructive hero-worship.

A backlash against this shameless, egotistical greed is needed; for me, it's actually a moral imperative, but it'll never happen, because sycophantic fans are so wrapped up in the damaging idolisation of players that they can't see the wood for the trees. They'd rather pay through the nose and be taken advantage of than actually acknowledge that they're being continually fleeced.

Such is life, I guess. The backlash is coming, though. The sickening greed in football is not sustainable, and I can't wait till it all comes crashing down.

Author:



88 comments:

  1. THE WAY THIS ARTICAL IS WRITTEN IS ALMOST AS IF LIVERPOOL ARE THE ONLY CLUB RESPONSIBLE FOR OFFERING THIS TYPE OF WAGES TO PLAYERS.

    ReplyDelete
  2. If we sold every player who wanted more money we would get relegated.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Spirit of the Shadows12:24 pm, October 16, 2014

    It is a vicious circle of exploding wages. The responsible governing bodies should bring some kind of wage caps or some other scheme to control the flow of money to youngsters, unless that happens it will only get worse.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Jaimie what makes you still like football then? And what makes you think this sport still merits that you run a site about it?

    ReplyDelete
  5. And that would have to be world wide as well as this shifting depending on the tax situation in that country. So in short it can't happen.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I know what to do!... let's boycot Liverpool...and dont go to watch any games or buy any shirts/merchandise and then wonder why there's no money in the club to buy established proven players and just get young kids in to play..we could go watch Rugby instead, oh no wait thats going the same way...eh cricket.. oh no so is that...athletics...no thats the same... formula 1 ..no they're money grabbers as well.......in every popular sport the agents come in and do the talking...."show me the money".........to be fair I can see where he's comming from but it's not only young 18/19 year olds that are getting rediculous and obscene contracts, there are alot of older players out there that have done nothing either and getting massive pay packets and we've had more than our fair share of them (joe cole etc)...... bog snorkeling now theres a sport that hasnt been touched by agents...yet

    ReplyDelete
  7. Spirit of the Shadows12:41 pm, October 16, 2014

    not world wide mate , just in the top 5 leagues.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Yes, fans should boycott their clubs across the board. Stop buying stupidly overpriced merchandise; stop buying tickets for games until prices match those in the Bundesliga etc. If German football can thrive without constantly ripping-off fans, why can't English football do the same? Why must clubs released 5-6 different shirts per year, every year? It's greed, pure and simple, and plays on fan love of football.


    Football crossed the line ages ago. Clubs don't really give a damn about their fanbase; it's all about fleecing the average fan or as much money as possible, and the fact the man on the street is now priced out of the game is ample proof of that.


    A new study released this week categorically proves that British football fans are being shamelessly fleeced, but still they get down on their hands and knees and worship these overpaid ladyboys. It really is pretty hilarious.

    ReplyDelete
  9. because its an addiction

    ReplyDelete
  10. They do it because if they didn't reap Madrid would and we would lose him. It is bad but I'd rather have that than sell all our best players and be a top 10 club.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Firstly, Sterling is widely reported as being on £30k per week, not £50k. n the article, which you use for that £50k figure, it merely states that Sterling's representatives want £50k, which is speculative, not reported as fact, as part of ongoing negotiations.
    Secondly, the reference is likely to be about RS, but could equally be about Luke Shaw, whose wages were mooted as being similar to the ones mentioned here.
    And please, anything but the nurses comparison. It is too dissimilar to be relevant. And that comes from someone whose mother was a nurse...

    ReplyDelete
  12. Shaw's wages are mooted to be much higher than 50k a week. Every credible source (including The guardian, Telegraph, and the BBC), but his salary at 100k.

    ReplyDelete
  13. thexcuriousxwanderer1:18 pm, October 16, 2014

    "Sterling is 19!"

    Hey, just to point out, to be fair to Sterling, if he has got the ability of a 28 year old in his prime at 19 years old, he should be worth more because he has that the guy at 28yo has, PLUS potential.

    Are you suggesting that the club underpay all its young players? Do you think it is in Liverpool's interest to tell a player (any player, regardless of age), "Hey bloke, I use you more than that bloke who's getting paid 80K a week, and you are obviously miles ahead of him. But guess what? Because you are playing for THE GREAT CLUB Liverpool and because you are 19 years old, I will pay you A THIRD of what he's being paid. And you better not hold any grudges against me, because I am paying you like A THIRD of his wages. That's plenty for you. Screw the rest who want to pay you what you are worth, and stick with me because i want to pay you A THIRD of what you are worth. I'll even throw in a packet of peanuts now and then, and a pat on the back."

    I would be happy to pay you a third of what you are worth Jamie, why not work for me?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Point taken, but a nurse is paid the same amount regardless of age. If the nurse's capabilities increase she is also promoted and paid higher amounts regardless of age

    ReplyDelete
  15. Would another league not then rise? What about exchange rates? Bonuses? Things like bonds and shares?

    ReplyDelete
  16. The notion of 'worth' goes out the window when discussing footballers. The idea that Sterling is 'worth' £50k+ a week is just absolutely ludicrous, and just illustrates the perverse bastardisation of football.

    How can Sterling not be happy with £50k a week? The club should have a wage structure in place for teenagers, and then stick to it, irrespective of ability. At that age, it should be about football first, not money, and if players don't like it, they can leave and pursue big bucks elsewhere.

    The club may lose some young talents, but so be it. Such a policy will weed out the mercenaries, and that is a good thing.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I see what you are saying but a newly qualified nurse has to work for so long before they are certified as a certain band which means the beginning of making more money.


    Personally I see it like this. Is he better than lots of players currently earning that sum? Are there players who are not as good as he is earning more. In any high skilled job the party would be looking for a pay increase based on these things and are often head hunted. We compare Football players to Nurses when areas like finance may be closer comparisons.

    ReplyDelete
  18. The club seems to have a strategy of buying potential and improving it (whether it is working or not is debatable), if we then cap salaries for those players we are less appealing an option and therefore get a lesser version of the players with potential and therefore fail in that strategy. We are not buying big names. We let the young potentials go easily and we are doomed.

    I am as envious as you but you just have to get real.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I agree, which is why I made the point that I was tired of the whole nurses thing being quoted to justify the wage envy many have when it comes to footballers. Finance is far more accurate a comparison

    ReplyDelete
  20. I'm not 'envious' of the money footballers get paid. It just irritates me that fans are priced out of the game by the rampant greed of footballers and football clubs.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Surely everyone is envious. From what I have heard match day income is a relatively small part of their income. Clubs are pricing f\ans out because they can. It is not necesarily connec

    ReplyDelete
  22. I don't see the big fuss about age in all this. IMO age is irrelevant. The most important factor is what the player is contributing on the pitch and for the last 7/8 months Sterling has been our star performer simple as that.

    ReplyDelete
  23. That's not the point though is it? His performance should be measured relative to others doing the same job, and regardless of age.
    If he lets it go to his head and loses performance because of it, then write performance clauses into the contract which penalises his pay accordingly. That way he only gets the headline figure if he keeps to key performance metrics.
    Which is how I understood we incentivised Suarez and others recently.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Clauses that lead to a loss of pay if performance drops? A nice idea, but no player will ever sign up for that. They get their big, fat contracts, and they're paid the same basic salary irrespective of form, injury, treachery etc.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Clubs like City and Chelsea don't need the money from fans per se. They need the turnover as what they can spend is directly related to the overall turnover of the club ie what they can generate from tickets, merchandise, prize money etc

    ReplyDelete
  26. thexcuriousxwanderer1:57 pm, October 16, 2014

    I do agree with you that "worth" is kind of perverted when football is involved. The problem is, it kind of works (meaning clubs are still able to make money, and people are still willing to pay obscene ticket prices), so let's take the economics as it is (also since we can't change it in the short term.)

    So what I have used, is actually relative worth (though not exactly, footballers/sportsmen at the top often earn a lot more than their peers without being twice as good for example, and that's because of scarcity.) If he plays better than Borini, shouldn't he be paid at least the same wage as him? Or use another player, say Henderson, I don't know.

    My answer to your question is: would you be happy if your co-worker, who does exactly the same thing as you, is earning three times of what your are earning? This is psychological, I don't know how you arrived at the answer of you (I suppose?) rhetorical question, but I can't imagine anyone in that position to be happy.

    I think Liverpool does have a wage structure, and rather for that to be wage based, they have decided for it to be ability based. And by offering raises to Sturridge, Henderson also, I think they are enforcing it quite well. Practically speaking, if we had an age based wage structure, we would be attracting a lot of not so talented players.

    Would you say to the winner of say, the PGA tour, hey you beat everyone else, but because you are only 19 years old, you get only a third of what everyone else would have gotten? I think your argument is more ludicrous, with all due respect. In an ability based sport, I don't understand how you can reward someone irrespective of ability.

    Even at 19 years old, he is human and needs motivation. A pat on the back can only do so much. You don't want him to be discouraged because he is not receiving the same rewards as the rest just because he is young.

    In the long run, we are saving money, because we are paying a player what he is worth, rather than him leaving, and then spending the equivalent money and wage to bring in a player of a same ability, and then make up for time wasted for the player to integrate into the squad.

    I just want to make it clear I am against paying a player well above his worth. BUT if a player has improved so much to be worth the raise (relatively to the football world), then he should be given it. I would like to think of Liverpool as fair employers, and not one to fleece its employees whenever possible.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Such is the life of a footballer.


    The problem is not the player. The problem is that other clubs are willing to pay him this ridiculous amount of money.


    I have no problem with Sterling wanting more money. If he can get it, good for him.


    Why should he be happy on 50k per week if someone is willing to pay him 60k, 75k, 100k?


    It's no different than you or me or anyone else here. Whatever our occupation, if someone were willing to pay us more for the same job, we'd at least consider it depending on the mitigating factors.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Not quite what I meant. The headline weekly salary is made up of a number of elements, some of which are dependant on key metrics.
    I seem to remember reading that highly performance - related contracts were our main aim in negotiations as we couldn't compete with big money clubs with basic salaries

    ReplyDelete
  29. So, you'll be happy for Sterling to demand a pay-rise every season, and basically (via his agent) hold the club to ransom until he gets it? With your 'if he can get it, good for him' approach, that's what you seem to be advocating here.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Aren't there two separate questions here? One is, are footballers grossly overpaid, to which most people seem to be agreed the answer is yes. The second question is Sterling worth 100k per week in this crazy market? My answer is an emphatic yes. He's one of the best players in the league and will hopefully become "world class" shortly into this new deal. I can't see why sterlings wage demands are an issue - he is that good.

    ReplyDelete
  31. What happens in another 8 months if Sterling continues to be a star performer - give him another pay-rise? Where does it end?

    It's Sterling's job to be a star performer, and play to the best of his ability; that's why he earns £50k a week (or whatever the real figure is).

    ReplyDelete
  32. In fairness keeping suarez through an improved contract worked out pretty well😄. I get your point thouh.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Will I be happy if he demanded a raise every year? No.


    But it's a business. And the market dictates what he will be able to get.


    It's up to the club to determine how they want to handle that. If he's playing well to justify a raise, the club has to determine whether or not to give it to him, and subsequently, other clubs will determine the same.

    The market is the market. After all, over his last 18 months here, how many times did Suarez get a new contract? 2 or 3 times?

    This idea that a player should just be happy with what he's getting is nice. But completely unrealistic. Their careers only last so long and they are going to try to milk it for every penny they can get..


    It's up to the club(s) to put an end to it or to keep allowing it.

    There's nothing wrong with Sterling's approach here. If the club doesn't like it, and he's not worth the headache, sell him.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Us too make. We make way more money from other areas. Especially as our ground is currently smaller than others.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Presumably there will be things written in to this new contract that will mean we are well compensated if we were to sell. So the power of the player to insist on a new contract is counter balanced by a big fee we would get as a minimum.

    ReplyDelete
  36. I see what your saying here giving him 100k a week now leaves little room for further rises which is dangerous territory for an 19 year old. I'm not entirely sure where this 100k figure has come from (tabloids most likely) but I would assume he would be looking at a basic of more like 50/60k with maybe a few add ons etc raising it up nearer the 100k mark. I may be wrong but that sounds more realistic. In any case we are not in a position to sell any of our star players so unless we want to become a mid table team we have to go along with agent demands I'm afraid.

    ReplyDelete
  37. This a Liverpool FC based site no? We're talking about Sterling aren't we?

    ReplyDelete
  38. Like football manager.

    ReplyDelete
  39. established big guns like strootman and vidal dont earn close to 100k... SMH

    ReplyDelete
  40. I love Raheem and believe he's our future, but what has be done to demand such a ridiculous pay hike?

    I'm reminded of a certain American prodigy, Freddy Adu, who got paid millions at a very early age when he had achieved nothing. He was played far too much with absurd expectations placed on him. Look where he's landed...

    I'm not saying Sterling will land in the same position, but the similarities are very similar imo. My sentiments are, if he can't appreciate where LFC have brought him to and the bright future he has with us then he should go if money is his only desire. Servicing greed has neve been the LFC way and I dont think we should start now just because our transition has hit a little bump in the road.

    Logic dictates that if Sterling continues to progress like he has he will be at the £100K+ mark by the time he's 24 so what's the rush? The rush is exactly what JK outlines; idolism, player greed, media hype, and (one that wasnt mentioned) the agents who are always whispering manipulitive things these players' ears just so they can make a a quick buck

    As long as there are fans there will be fanatics which helps create this. The only thing I see stopping it would be a financial crash that wakes people up to reality but we had that in 2008 and player's wages still were staggering.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Rubbish! I remember us signing Dean Saunders for a record £2.9mill then Collymore for a record £8.5m and most recently we sold Suarez for £75mill. If transfer fees have escalated then Hamann shouldn't be surprised if wages have spiraled as well. In the late eighties/ early nineties John Barnes was on £19,000 a week and was the highest paid player in the country. Nowadays £19,000 is the wage of a decent Premier League player. There is a culture perpetuated by the government and the media that is always quick to blame the little man.

    Don't let the capitalist system enslave your mind Monsieur Hamann! when Mcdonald's or any other large firm turn over billions and then proceed to pay their workers minimum wage no one bats an eyelid. When the worker demands his worth he is called a mercenary.

    I read recently that 5billion pounds is lost each year through benefit fraud, and the masses, whilst watching benefit street go into a fit of rage! However 25billion is lost each year through corporate tax fraud and because this information isn't so prevalent in the media we proceed to turn against the little man in favour of the corporation.

    No matter how much money Sterling is asking for the person writing his check will be making a fat wad at the end of the year in salary, profit and clever sugar coating of their accountants.

    Power to the Sterling! I don't rate him as a footballer but these fat cat corporations including ours are quick to chastise anyone who demand what they think they're worth. If clubs don't like the value don't pay the wages.

    ReplyDelete
  42. You know how when you say or hear a word over and over and over and over again it loses meaning. That happened to me once with "ribbit" (as in a frog goes...) and it is beginning to happen with the word "Sterling" --> with that, it's officially been typed and spoken for the trillionth time. I should win a prize. I'll just call him 31 from now on.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Absolutely wholeheartedly agree with this article. I think this is the case with most sports but football is arguably the most famous sports in the world and the clubs and respective governing bodies know this and exploit it.

    Just like Cinema and how expensive cinema tickets are becoming which will no doubt increase. But then again this is the entertainment business.

    I love the Bundesliga because of their financial fair play with the fans. Like Dortmund as an example, huge stadium, cheap tickets, great support every match.

    With Sterling, I think that his agent is playing a big part of this and instigating all sorts. IMO Liverpool should not offer him a new contract. He has plenty of time left in his contract and has been rewarded handsomely.

    The only way players wages can be controlled is if every football governing body imposes a salary cap for players, specially those under 24. I'm sure the NFL has this?

    I.E. and this is strictly my opinion:

    - Players between the ages of 18-21 can only earn a max of X per week (let's say 25K).

    - Players between the ages of 21-24 who have amassed less than 200 overall appearances can only earn a maximum of X (i.e. Rodwell who was at City, huge wages, only 140 appearances overall and Shaw, Sterling, Barkley)

    - Players over 24 who have amassed over 250 overall appearances can earn a max of X

    - Signing on fees for players should be highlight regulated and available to the public.

    Probably would not work but the Bundesliga is the structure to follow.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Good plan, and I totally agree - the Bundesliga structure is a shining example to follow. It should be forced on the Premier League, and at first, a few mercenaries will leave in protest, but over time, it will balance out.

    ReplyDelete
  45. The Club should not be held to ransom regarding wages,and Didi is absolutely right .However we should be doing what Portuguese or Spanish Clubs do insert a huge buyout clause if any team wants the player pay up or shut up.

    ReplyDelete
  46. I honestly think agents are the reason modern football is in the dumps. Agents like Jorge Mendes do not actually care about their clients will will take them to the place where the money is. Agents are often guilty of messing with the heads of young players and ruin many careers. I think the way to solve this problem is to court agent and provide strict rules in which they act. Football is a sport with emotion and passion and they just turn it into an emotionless business.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Good ideas and the 2 references you make, the Bundesliga and NFL are examples for us to learn from.


    I think, but may be wrong, that the majority of American sports operate within salary caps. The trouble is though the salary caps being operated within are still far too high (I think most of the highest paid sports players play in American sports) so although this has the basis of a good idea it would still need a lot of fine tuning.


    The key IMO lies in the Bundesliga. Problem being that until the whole of Europe buys into it, which in all honesty probably won't ever happen, then we are stuck as we are. If we were to go down this route without the backing of the other major leagues the EPL will fall behind, resulting in loss of quality players, fan base, revenue etc etc.

    ReplyDelete
  48. You are not seriously suggesting that Sterling is good enough to get into that Madrid team, are you? He's years away from that mate.

    ReplyDelete
  49. That's no laughing matter. I'm two years sober.

    Sometimes, in my weak moments, I still wonder how Bogdan Stancu is doing. I dream that Saviola is available on a Bosman. I think I can come up with a special training regime to keep Deisler fit.

    I just take it one day at a time.

    ReplyDelete
  50. You've also got to bear in mind that players of Sterling's ilk who are blessed with great pace peak much eariler (this is generally evident statistically too). If he peaks earlier, he should get the wages that come with that earlier. It wouldn't be fair to him to wait until he is 27 to give him the top wages, because a lot of players of his style are burnt out or declining by then.

    ReplyDelete
  51. What happens in American sports with the Salary Cap structure is that the cap is based upon the overall revenues of the given league and every team has to live within the limits of the same cap number.


    So let's say the players receive 50% of revenues and the clubs receive 50% of revenues and that total revenues are $1,000,000,000.


    The total cap would be $500,000,000, and divided equally among the teams (say there are 20 teams), each team would have a salary cap where they would budget $25,000,000 each to build their respective rosters.


    It's a bit of combination between capitalism and socialism. Capitalism in the sense that the cap grows as more revenues stream in. Socialism in the sense that everyone starts out with the same overall opportunity, but it potentially limits the amount of money that can be spent.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Thanks for explaining that :) I'm not a massive American sports follower hence the lack of knowledge!!! I would throw that idea straight out the window then as just wouldn't work over here. Too much of a divide between the top, United and the bottom, Burnley etc would just increase the gap even further.

    ReplyDelete
  53. I rekon he's got it spot on meself

    ReplyDelete
  54. i think that some people are looking at this issue the wrong way. these guys have a job to do. At any other job when you apply, not many employers judge you by your age, the smart ones judge you by the work you can do and the experience you have. And judging by the work that Sterling does and what he brings to the table, his employer has felt the need to offer him a raise.


    It is not fair to say that Sterling is holding the club to ransom when it is obvious the club wants to give him a raise. In fact he will be getting on average the same as or less than every other guaranteed starter that plays for one of the best teams in the world. Plus who knows, A trailerload of LFC Sterling shirts could have sold and the club could be giving him recognition for that.

    Finally who gives any of you the right to determine what another person should be happy with. I am sure you don't let other people determine what you should want. And none of you know what Raheem Sterling's worth is to Rodgers or the Owners, for all we know He could be getting ripped off.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Idealist-footballers are seldom. I dont blame him for his salery. This is his market price for being one of the best in the world of his age. And its good buisiness for Liverpool, they get more money when they sell him.
    That not to say it's a desirable system.

    ReplyDelete
  56. De we actually know if Sterling himself is full of himself and is insisting on a huge new contract or is it his agent? I'd guess the agent. Its the same crap over here in the US across all the major sports. Agents get drunk and disorderly all the time trying to milk teams dry. JK, it is indeed sickening but is it the player or agent. I would like to see guys like Sterling to reign in their agents if they are misrepresenting the players intentions. Raheem could / should show some stones here.......

    ReplyDelete
  57. Think about just how much 50,000 really is!!!!!!!!! One season and he's made more than most people make in 20 years!

    ReplyDelete
  58. I absolutely agree. While sterling is a great prospect, he has done nothing to warrent such a pay upgrade. ( mind you borini on 60 k a week is mind blowing) If sterling thinks he can walk into Madrid Psg Chelsea arsenal city or even united line ups he is dreaming. His to inconsistent. If it's money he wants, I'd gladly sell him to chelshit for 30million and they give us shurrler.

    ReplyDelete
  59. So if we pay him this 100k a week and he does not take that step up to world class? A. Can we then ask for money back? Or B. half his wage ? The answer is no

    ReplyDelete
  60. Why don't they offer him 100k a week. But if his form drops. So does his wage, why is it always the club that has to gamble on the player. The players should also take on the responsibility of performing at there best. If sterling loses form and he gets relegated to the bench then why should the club pay him the 100k a week. This should take away him being complacent. And he gets rewarded for playing good football . It's Win win for both player and club

    ReplyDelete
  61. It's a funny situation and it definitely poses two separate issues. The first is the issue of the footballing world in general being overpaid to play sport. The fact that these guys get paid so much is ridiculous, because no-one should be worth £50k a week when playing a sport, because playing a sport does not contribute as much to society as being an engineer, a doctor, a psychologist etc, but then you can look at it from the point of view that a club will pay a player what they are worth TO THAT CLUB. I highlight those words because to a club, Raheem Sterling is extremely valuable and probably worth every but of £100k p/w. In shirt sales, marketing, endorsements and in actual performance giving us a boost towards financial incentives achieved by obtaining titles and such, he will more than make the money back for the club, as ludicrous as the amounts are, and therefore technically he is worth that much. BUT I do agree that the whole industry is massively inflated and players should either be forced to make extremely considerable donations to charities or be taxed on a far higher bracket than regular income earners or something like that.

    ReplyDelete
  62. HERE,HERE, To Didi & you podger . I don't rate Stirling atall he does sweet F.A in every game he plays, to me he loses the ball to easy and always fouls trying to get it back, then walks around with his head down with a spoilt brat look on his face..SELL.SELL.SELL and get IBE back.

    ReplyDelete
  63. What evidence do we really have that Sterling or his agent are "holding the club to ransom"? It seems like a lot of assumptions are being made here.

    ReplyDelete
  64. thexcuriousxwanderer6:31 am, October 17, 2014

    I would be happy for him and the club if he deserved the raise. You are technically using "holding the club to ransom" right by dictionary definition, but the connotations are all wrong. It's like when your boss wants to pay you less than half of what you are worth, but when you want to jump ship, you are "holding your boss to ransom".

    That's utter nonsense.

    ReplyDelete
  65. thexcuriousxwanderer6:36 am, October 17, 2014

    If he can prove that he is on the level of Messi and Ronaldo, he should be given the same wages, If he improves to that level, I have no problems with giving him that level of wages.

    It's his job to play football. We pay him the figure based on how we value his ability. If he outperforms (tremendously), we give him a raise (we won't do that in the middle of the season if the discrepancy wasn't significant).

    ReplyDelete
  66. thexcuriousxwanderer6:39 am, October 17, 2014

    That's why recent pay structure has been incentive based, ie if he has achieved so-and-so, or the club has achieved this place and your contribution has been significant, you can earn an extra xxx. I don't think they would offer him 100K a week outright.

    ReplyDelete
  67. so how do we proceed? we refuse to raise his wage and sell him if he's being offered more elsewhere?at that rate, we would be playing in League 2 I presume...pay raise must be given according to progress and work rate, not according to age.and clearly Hamann was not talking about streling as he said "somebody who has done nothing in the game"...

    ReplyDelete
  68. A club that is willing to waste 18 million on the No.4 CB from Paris St. Germain can surely afford to pay 5 million a year to a player who is actually contributing and making the team better.


    Moreover, Sterling should also get Ian Ayre's wages as a bonus, and Ayre should be demoted to cleaning the toilets, for two hamburgers and two bottles of stale American beer per day as his pay, with Sakho as his assistant.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Age is irrelevant to how much a player is paid. Sterling is once of the most important players in the Liverpool team. If Glen Johnson is worth 100k per week then why shouldn't Sterling earn the same? Sterling is better than Johnson and more important to the team, they are colleagues that do the same job yet one does it better and contributes more to the team but you want to discriminate against him getting a pay rise because he is young.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Ian Ayre did some good deals over the summer and got the prices down on alot of players, he has also overseen a much improved commercial performance from the club and secured alot of good commercial deals bringing in alot of needed revenue to more the club forward. Also lets not forget he helped wrestle the club from Hicks and Gillett, so cut the guy some slack.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Films stars etc all get paid just as much but its always footballers that get targeted for criticism. Also most footballers do have charitable foundations, do give alot back to various charities and do many events for them.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Totally agree, you have to pay the market rate for a player of certain ability.

    ReplyDelete
  73. You seem to vehemently hate ever aspect of football Jaimie, what is it you like about the game?

    ReplyDelete
  74. Sterling doesn't care about us and how much we earn? To be honest I know most of my neighbours and even like some of them, and I don't give a flying fig what they earn, and why should I.
    If I was doing the same job to the same level and he was getting more that would be different.
    But otherwise, why let it bother you

    ReplyDelete
  75. So our highest scoring player so far this season, shouldn't be paid a similar wage to our other attacking players, based soley on his age? Really?! There's a name for that. Age discrimination.

    If he plays week-in week-out like everybody else, why wouldn't he want the same wages?

    At the end of the day, he's arguably our best player (or one of). So why would he be happy to see other players that aren't as good as him on better wages?



    Luke Shaw is on £120k a week and he's shite in comparison.

    ReplyDelete
  76. I think this is a mankind issue seen in all occupations and is not solely just seen in football, this exploitation you talk about is actually just plain and simple greed, a human trait that is inbuilt into society. The agents are the real problem, they have to satisfy the greed of those they represent plus their own greed for a slice of the pie too.

    ReplyDelete
  77. 30 years ago players like Barnes Rush and Dalglish were a mere fraction to what Borini Lovren and Can are now. How has this inflation happened?

    ReplyDelete
  78. This is the STUPIDIST comment I have ever read in my entire life. Disbelief. Shock. I don't know what else to say...

    ReplyDelete
  79. It's about time Sterling learn to pull out!
    But seriously - quit ragging on the kid, it will only alienate him and drive him out.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Personally I don't think Footballers are overpaid, these type of things have got to be put in context. We've long gone past the times where players played for teams because they wanted to or they "loved the club", Football is now purely a business money talks. Raheem Sterling as a player is responsible for entertaining the fans who pay to see liverpool play, the fans who buy his Shirt and the fans who pay for sky subscriptions so they can see football.

    While you can argue that Sterling "has done nothing" in football that's all but irrelevant. As it stands Sterlings direct contribution to Liverpools attack this season is the only reason were not worse then we are. We are literally dependent on him performing in order to win. So why shouldn't he be paid his worth? His Agent can see, like everyone else should, that Sterling is one of Liverpools best players and as a result he should rightfully be paid as such. That's Just Business! As fans we may not like it but that's the way it is.

    The notion would be the same anywhere in the real world. If you offered something to your company that not many others could and you knew that other companies were willing to pay you more for your services you would rightfully ask for a pay rise. Same situation here. Why should they as players feel like because they already earn substantial amounts they can't ask for a pay rise that matches their Value.

    Liverpool should do everything they can to keep Sterling he's incredibly important to us already and only at the age of 19! Imagine in 5 years time how good he can be if he continues this rate of development. Everything has to be put into context instead of just saying "these guys earn 5-6 figures a week and should therefore not ask for more". They whole heartedly deserve more for providing us entertainment which we so happily watch and pay for.

    ReplyDelete
  81. It don't matter what he earns now, he'll be off in a couple of years to a team that'll pay him more. Suarez, Torres are just recent history examples. I feel we are stepping stone club now, if a player is any good Chelsea, Man City, PSG, Barca n Real will have them. Been saying in a load of forums that I knew Markovic would be gamble based purely on the fact Chelsea passed on him (also his stats were awful for a team who dominated their domestic league). When the new owners came in they said they liked the "Arsenal model" which basically means they are buying young players cheap to make a profit without actually winning any trophies and then getting the fans to pay top dollar through the turnstiles for the privilege Have season ticket prices gone up? Even Utd without CL football were able to sign Di Maria because they were prepared to pay and they'll keep paying because the club is so reliant on CL money. Hopefully the owners will increase the ground capacity, balance the books and make it a more invest-able proposition for the owners of cash we actually require to create the dynasty of winning trophies that the fans crave. An american basketball player's wealth is not the same league as Abramovich and Man City have seriously moved the goalposts with regards finance and personnel.

    ReplyDelete
  82. He's a bloody idiot mate. Aust not Raheem

    ReplyDelete
  83. That's good for him being a good player. Bankers, pop stars, actors etc all get good money because of the income they generate. How can a club making millions daily around the world pay it's star employees minimal wages? Nonsense. Nurses and teachers etc get paid what they do because they do not generate huge income for their employers. I am an account manager in finance and I make lots more than your average nurse - I don't feel bad and would like more money akin to that of an investment banker or trader but I am not working in that sector so it is too bad. We all make choices in life and people do choose jobs irrespective of the salary to be earned either through aptitude, talent, determination or lack of.
    Your article is over emotional.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Absolutely right brother. It astounds me how the well thought out responses to the authors over emotional, sensationalist articles rarely get a response but those agreeing are quickly replied to.
    Hit generating nonsense.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Poor article for, akin to something I'd read on a lesser red top!! To vilify one of our own players because he wants to be paid his current market value is poor. If we chose to sell him would only take £5M because he's only 19, think not.
    To label him greedy because he wants to be paid parity as other emerging talents in his peer group or to other team mates that he contributes as much is poor.
    Even if he was paid £100k a week it would still be half of what Suarez was earning before he left, hardly holing the club to ransom.
    Here's the funny thing if he was at Southampton now and we wanted to buy him most people wouldn't be having an issue with wage, as a. Lot of people were happy when they thought we were going to sign Shaw.
    There are so many holes in the argument against Sterling, so to attribute greed etc is poor. Nobody in their right mind should argue that players aren't overpaid and if there is a system that can be put in place to get wages and transfer fees under control the great, but if you think those savings are going make football more accessable to the ordinary man you're mistaken, it will simply allow owners dividend on their investment.

    ReplyDelete
  86. Thanks doc for the analysis...........

    ReplyDelete