Ian Wright - "Fans don't pay player wages anymore"

[Saint Canary 0]

Anyone else read the interview with Ian Wright over the weekend where he suggested that in the past the "fans" had a right to say that they paid player wages through ticket sales but that does not hold true any longer.  He went on to say that because of so money coming in from the likes of Sky that is no longer the case.

I think Ian obviously forgot that it is the fans who pay Sky money to then pay into football.  If no one paid a Sky Sports subscription then there would be no money.  Footballers eh?  Not the smartest bunch........

It does make you wonder how many current players feel the same way though.  Do they still see that they are playing for the fans or do they just think they are putting on a show for Ruphert Murdoch?

[Regime Change 0]

I think Ian Wright is talking about clubs in the Premiership or those that have recently played in the Premiership.

Realistically what Sky pays for televising Football League matches is fairly derisory, and for most clubs in the Football League tickets sales accounts for a huge amount of their turnover.

[ricardo 7,395]

[quote user="Sherlock Holmes"]

I think Ian Wright is talking about clubs in the Premiership or those that have recently played in the Premiership.

Realistically what Sky pays for televising Football League matches is fairly derisory, and for most clubs in the Football League tickets sales accounts for a huge amount of their turnover.

[/quote]

Last years gate reciepts and ticket sales were £7.6 million while staff costs were £15.3 million. (pages 23 &24 of the Annual Report).  It was only the parachute payment that kept the books anywhere near balanced.

It seems that Ian Wright is pretty much correct in what he says.

[nutty nigel 7,536]

And of course it shouldn''t be forgotten that  fans who "watch it on the wireless" make a contribution too. I wonder how much of Worthy''s 600K came from the "wireless money" and canary world subscriptions! [;)]

 

 

[Shack Attack 0]

Ian Wright is a complete tosspot who knows next to nothing about football despite being involved in the game most of his life.

His treatment of Owen Hargreaves before the World Cup was shameful (suggesting he must have pictures of Sven in a compomising position to justify his inclusion in the squad) and made all the more pathetic by refusing to apologise when he turned out to be our player of the tournament. Add to that his constant sulking about "Shaun" not being in the squad, his insistence on talking about England even when we weren''t playing ("I don''t care about the other teams") and his idea that we should cheat because everyone else does and you''ve got the most loathsome pundit on TV today.

The man''s an idiot and I''d be no more likely to take advice on the rights of fans from him than I would take advice on race relations from Jade Goody!

P.S. Don''t even get me started on Alan Shearer!!!

[ricardo 7,395]

[quote user="Shack Attack"]

Ian Wright is a complete tosspot who knows next to nothing about football despite being involved in the game most of his life.

The man''s an idiot and I''d be no more likely to take advice on the rights of fans from him than I would take advice on race relations from Jade Goody!

P.S. Don''t even get me started on Alan Shearer!!!

[/quote]

However you may feel about him personally the figures do seem to support his assertion.

[norfolkbroadslim 223]

I cannot agree in the slightest with Ian Wright.

How he can even suggest that fans don''t pay wages any more, whether it be Premier league or league two, is irrelevant.

The fans pay through gate receipts, merchandise, food, drink and programmes while at the game.  Subscriptions to things like Canary world, Sky TV.  Buying sponsors products etc etc.

I suppose a blunt way to look at this is -

If Man U for example suddenly had no fans, would they survive?  Well no obviously not, nobody would go to games, watch them on TV, buy a shirt etc etc, even Man U wouldn''t last 5 minutes if that were the case.

I can''t believe people agree with Ian Wright on this.  Do you seriously believe top players would still be paid what they are if there was no demand to see them play?  They are paid what they are because the demand is there, whether it is from the man on the street, the business man taking a client to a game, or from a big corporation through sponsorships.  The sponsorships would not be there if no body wanted to see them play.

Get real

[James Kent 0]

I think it''s important to remember that gate receipts are not the only sources of income from the fans.  Merchandise, concessions and other ancillary sources are present such as canaries world and many more are also factors.  The argument that gate receipts account for a tiny portion of a football clubs income is indeed a correct one.

[ricardo 7,395]

[quote user="norfolkbroadslim"]

I cannot agree in the slightest with Ian Wright.

How he can even suggest that fans don''t pay wages any more, whether it be Premier league or league two, is irrelevant.

The fans pay through gate receipts, merchandise, food, drink and programmes while at the game.  Subscriptions to things like Canary world, Sky TV.  Buying sponsors products etc etc.

I suppose a blunt way to look at this is -

If Man U for example suddenly had no fans, would they survive?  Well no obviously not, nobody would go to games, watch them on TV, buy a shirt etc etc, even Man U wouldn''t last 5 minutes if that were the case.

I can''t believe people agree with Ian Wright on this.  Do you seriously believe top players would still be paid what they are if there was no demand to see them play?  They are paid what they are because the demand is there, whether it is from the man on the street, the business man taking a client to a game, or from a big corporation through sponsorships.  The sponsorships would not be there if no body wanted to see them play.

Get real

[/quote]

If you read Ian Wrights comments you will see that he specifically said that "Fans do not pay players wages through ticket reciepts" and in that he is entirely correct. Sky TV money is largely advertising revenue and not subscription money. Bringing up the fact that "sponsorship would not be there if nobody wanted to see them play" is totally irrelevant to the point that Ian Wright was making. People do want to see football played and they do not pay players wages simply through gate reciepts. Thats all he said.

[mbncfc 1]

Considering 15 years ago, when Mr Wright was playing, those fans that arrived at the ground did pay the players wages, in various matchday guises. That had been the case since professional football began.

But the fact is at the top end of the game the various businesses and money men are pumping their hard stuff into the game because it is deemed a popular product and something worth being associated with in terms of their own brand.

It is those millions which now pay the players'' huge wages. I do not believe the TV companies will make as much money from new/existing subscribers compared to the cost in signing and paying the new TV contracts. Clubs like Wigan, Bolton, Reading, Watford, Birmingham, Sunderland, Derby, and even ourselves up to the end of this season do not pay their wage bill from gate receipts. It comes from television money.

It is a lot like newspapers. They are produced for their readers, but the majority of the money needed to pay for them comes from advertising, not the cover price...

I do think professional football is split in half at present - with one half much smaller than the other (oxymoron I know...). Once you leave the realms of parachute payments and travel down the leagues, gate receipts become ever more important. Mr Wright is, like most people who talk about football in the media, only really referring to the Premiership which is probably a route to why the lowest team in the Premier League next year will earn £50m from television rights, while Championship teams will get £1m.

[Making Plans 936]

I''ve just watched Ian Wright on MOD Live (although I didn''t see a lot of life from England)

Ian Wright, so called expert. Hah, what a laugh - I''d like to know who''s paying his wages for the drivel that he comes out with. Whoever it is, they ain''t getting value for money.

Hang on a minute, it''s us, through the damn TV Licence - get him off (and Shearer too) 

[Regime Change 0]

[quote user="ricardo"][quote user="Sherlock Holmes"]

I think Ian Wright is talking about clubs in the Premiership or those that have recently played in the Premiership.

Realistically what Sky pays for televising Football League matches is fairly derisory, and for most clubs in the Football League tickets sales accounts for a huge amount of their turnover.

[/quote]

Last years gate reciepts and ticket sales were £7.6 million while staff costs were £15.3 million. (pages 23 &24 of the Annual Report).  It was only the parachute payment that kept the books anywhere near balanced.

It seems that Ian Wright is pretty much correct in what he says.

[/quote]

That just proves my point about Wright talking specifically about clubs in the Premiership or those recently relegated.  Clubs playing in League One or Two don''t get a great deal of money from Sky, and to some extent, ticket revenue dictates these clubs wage structures.  

[Syteanric 1]

[quote user="mbncfc"]

Considering 15 years ago, when Mr Wright was playing, those fans that arrived at the ground did pay the players wages, in various matchday guises. That had been the case since professional football began.

But the fact is at the top end of the game the various businesses and money men are pumping their hard stuff into the game because it is deemed a popular product and something worth being associated with in terms of their own brand.

It is those millions which now pay the players'' huge wages. I do not believe the TV companies will make as much money from new/existing subscribers compared to the cost in signing and paying the new TV contracts. Clubs like Wigan, Bolton, Reading, Watford, Birmingham, Sunderland, Derby, and even ourselves up to the end of this season do not pay their wage bill from gate receipts. It comes from television money.

It is a lot like newspapers. They are produced for their readers, but the majority of the money needed to pay for them comes from advertising, not the cover price...

I do think professional football is split in half at present - with one half much smaller than the other (oxymoron I know...). Once you leave the realms of parachute payments and travel down the leagues, gate receipts become ever more important. Mr Wright is, like most people who talk about football in the media, only really referring to the Premiership which is probably a route to why the lowest team in the Premier League next year will earn £50m from television rights, while Championship teams will get £1m.

[/quote]

would the money men bothe r though if there was no one to swallow up everything?

Budweiser, If no fans went to the ground no one would Drink it.. it wouldnt be the official beer of the Premier League

Ginsters Pies - Again, no fans = no sales.. Ginsters would lose money and pull out.

EA games/Konami - if football had the following of a game such as field Hockey we wouldn''t get games such as Fifa or Pro evo.

If the consumer simply stopped buying the products and supporting the endoresements there would be some very poor players and some very skint businesses around dont u all think?

 If no one bought Sky would it be the force it is in football today?  id doubt it... the consumer pays the wages.. and always will... If everyone in this country was to hand back their sky subscription tommorow the company would go Belly up. and football would be a poor mans game.

jas :)

[mbncfc 1]

[quote user="jas the barclay king"][quote user="mbncfc"]

Considering 15 years ago, when Mr Wright was playing, those fans that arrived at the ground did pay the players wages, in various matchday guises. That had been the case since professional football began.

But the fact is at the top end of the game the various businesses and money men are pumping their hard stuff into the game because it is deemed a popular product and something worth being associated with in terms of their own brand.

It is those millions which now pay the players'' huge wages. I do not believe the TV companies will make as much money from new/existing subscribers compared to the cost in signing and paying the new TV contracts. Clubs like Wigan, Bolton, Reading, Watford, Birmingham, Sunderland, Derby, and even ourselves up to the end of this season do not pay their wage bill from gate receipts. It comes from television money.

It is a lot like newspapers. They are produced for their readers, but the majority of the money needed to pay for them comes from advertising, not the cover price...

I do think professional football is split in half at present - with one half much smaller than the other (oxymoron I know...). Once you leave the realms of parachute payments and travel down the leagues, gate receipts become ever more important. Mr Wright is, like most people who talk about football in the media, only really referring to the Premiership which is probably a route to why the lowest team in the Premier League next year will earn £50m from television rights, while Championship teams will get £1m.

[/quote]

would the money men bothe r though if there was no one to swallow up everything?

Budweiser, If no fans went to the ground no one would Drink it.. it wouldnt be the official beer of the Premier League

Ginsters Pies - Again, no fans = no sales.. Ginsters would lose money and pull out.

EA games/Konami - if football had the following of a game such as field Hockey we wouldn''t get games such as Fifa or Pro evo.

If the consumer simply stopped buying the products and supporting the endoresements there would be some very poor players and some very skint businesses around dont u all think?

 If no one bought Sky would it be the force it is in football today?  id doubt it... the consumer pays the wages.. and always will... If everyone in this country was to hand back their sky subscription tommorow the company would go Belly up. and football would be a poor mans game.

jas :)

[/quote]

Agreed Jas, fans make the game the huge attraction it is. They provide the image of a healthy product to buy into and it is clearly those who such companies want to sell to.

If every Sky subscriber withdrew from their football packages now, Sky would not spend such a vast amount of money on it again, for sure. But my point is that Sky pump far more money into the game than they make in having it, holding the rights to it, or advertising during it.

Using the newspaper analogy to death, if no-one bought newspapers they would undoubtably go out of print eventually. But if companies withdrew their sponsorship/advertising, they''d immediately struggle to print another issue.

Sky will not make up from football subscriptions alone what it shells out on the rights. Budweiser will not sell the equivalent value of beer compared to the cost of their sponsorship. It is something they deem a necessary expense to keep their brand''s image - and that money accounts for the wages of top level players, not Wigan''s 15,000 crowd - IMO.