Alexis Sanchez wage at Man Utd

Just been reading about Alexis Sanchez and how he is the highest paid player at Man Utd. It is obscene no one is worth that money for kicking a ball about. As things stand, Sanchez has made 22 appearances for United, which has set the Red Devils back more than £658,000 per match.

The Chile international earns £391,000-per-week, and gets even more money in the form of performance bonuses. These include £75,000 per appearance, and an annual signing-on fee of £1.1million.

It is time something was done about the silly money being paid to footballers in the PL.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/alexis-sanchez-expense-how-much-13261209

The something that should be done is to stop the income of the clubs. That means stopping paying Sky subs and stopping going to the pub to watch.

He gets paid that much because he earns it. He earns it because we all pay it.

Now pipe down please, I’m watching Southampton v Brighton

Just been reading about Alexis Sanchez and how he is the highest paid player at Man Utd. It is obscene no one is worth that money for kicking a ball about. As things stand, Sanchez has made 22 appearances for United, which has set the Red Devils back more than £658,000 per match.

The Chile international earns £391,000-per-week, and gets even more money in the form of performance bonuses. These include £75,000 per appearance, and an annual signing-on fee of £1.1million.

 

It is time something was done about the silly money being paid to footballers in the PL.

 

https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/alexis-sanchez-expense-how-much-13261209

If his employers wish to pay him such a high wage then that is up to them. Why do you think we should have a right to interfere?

Look at it this way. Much of that cash will end up down South American Way, boosting the economy. Just feel the warm glow.

If his employers wish to pay him such a high wage then that is up to them. Why do you think we should have a right to interfere?

We all pay for it indirectly, Sky pay mental amounts for the TV rights, advertisers pay big bucks to get their name on the kit or associated with the club. All those costs are passed onto the consumer eventually.

Do we have a right to interfere??

Depends, how many more clubs do you wanna see collapse because they can no longer afford the wage bill.

We all pay for it indirectly, Sky pay mental amounts for the TV rights, advertisers pay big bucks to get their name on the kit or associated with the club. All those costs are passed onto the consumer eventually.

 

Do we have a right to interfere??

 

Depends, how many more clubs do you wanna see collapse because they can no longer afford the wage bill.

How many have collapsed so far?

How many customers do Sky coerce into contracts?

Just been reading about Alexis Sanchez and how he is the highest paid player at Man Utd. It is obscene no one is worth that money for kicking a ball about. As things stand, Sanchez has made 22 appearances for United, which has set the Red Devils back more than £658,000 per match.

The Chile international earns £391,000-per-week, and gets even more money in the form of performance bonuses. These include £75,000 per appearance, and an annual signing-on fee of £1.1million.

 

It is time something was done about the silly money being paid to footballers in the PL.

 

https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/alexis-sanchez-expense-how-much-13261209

Don't get the last bit tho', 1.1 million annual 'signing on fee' ? I thought footballers only signed once but then I'm a bit behind the times.

Don't get the last bit tho', 1.1 million annual 'signing on fee' ? I thought footballers only signed once but then I'm a bit behind the times.

Seems weird unless just a way of giving the players more money. What gets me is the £75000 appearance money on top of the £391,000 a week. So 40 appearances = £3m plus £1.1m annual signing on fee plus £20.3m a year plus any win bonus, sponsored car etc. just for kicking a ball. Then you think of clubs in the lower leagues who would love to have a portion of that money to run a club on, all they get is the scraps as Sky and BBC pay out more to the PL.

How many have collapsed so far?

Rotherham

Pompy

Palace

Plymouth

Pompy (again)

Rotherham (again)

Port Vale

Coventry

Hearts

Rangers

To name a few. Bolton are currently teetering on the edge doing abit of a 'will they, won't they' act right now.

Obviously other factors come into it with the clubs finances, but the wage bill is a massive outgoing.

---------- Post added 18-09-2018 at 16:19 ----------

Then you think of clubs in the lower leagues who would love to have a portion of that money to run a club on, all they get is the scraps as Sky and BBC pay out more to the PL.

Utd have massive international appeal so bring in a ton of money from merchandising sales, advertising and other stuff.

Even when a lower club makes it into the top division and access to the big TV money there is a huge gulf between the clubs finances.

Rotherham

Pompy

Palace

Plymouth

Pompy (again)

Rotherham (again)

Port Vale

Coventry

Hearts

Rangers

 

.

Last time I looked, they were all still functioning.

It is no use blaming the players or the clubs. The driving force is the consumer. Whether through the gate, through subscription or by going to the pub. Wages are high, I agree, but income is also high. There is a good argument to redistribute the premier league riches more equitably though.

Seems weird unless just a way of giving the players more money. What gets me is the £75000 appearance money on top of the £391,000 a week. So 40 appearances = £3m plus £1.1m annual signing on fee plus £20.3m a year plus any win bonus, sponsored car etc. just for kicking a ball. Then you think of clubs in the lower leagues who would love to have a portion of that money to run a club on, all they get is the scraps as Sky and BBC pay out more to the PL.

And reading today about the sad passing away of Kevjn Beattie that when he had to travel from Carlisle to Ipswich in1971 to sign for them, he had to borrow his dad's shoes as he couldn't afford any.

---------- Post added 18-09-2018 at 21:35 ----------

Seems weird unless just a way of giving the players more money. What gets me is the £75000 appearance money on top of the £391,000 a week. So 40 appearances = £3m plus £1.1m annual signing on fee plus £20.3m a year plus any win bonus, sponsored car etc. just for kicking a ball. Then you think of clubs in the lower leagues who would love to have a portion of that money to run a club on, all they get is the scraps as Sky and BBC pay out more to the PL.

Yes but he does play for world soccer power Chile.

Last time I looked, they were all still functioning.

oh yes, just because the business go's belly up doesn't mean the club ceases to exist.

but it does mean a colossal fall from grace, take Pompy or Rangers for example.

They went bust and went shooting down several divisions, for the fans thats totally gutting.

There is a good argument to redistribute the premier league riches more equitably though.

Very much so, at the moment it's mere scraps from the rich mans table.

Unless some bored billionaire comes along there's little chance of lower clubs getting anywhere.