Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
cornish sam

Is this relevant?

Recommended Posts

As some of you will be aware the sportingintelligence sports sallary survey has been released for 2014 and whilst the headlines all go to Man City topping the table again with a whopping average weekly salary for their first team players of over $155k (~£93k at today''s rate) the reporting further down the table is less prevelant.

Now whilst these reported figures are not strictly speaking relevant for the current season as they are based on the salaries for the 2012/3 season (for the EPL, the guardian have a decent description of where the figures come from here: http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/apr/15/manchester-city-best-paid-team-in-global-salary-survey-compare) and these have already been commented on/pored over by various people, FPAs included, there are still a couple of things that jump out;

  • The relationship between 1st team wages and final position is not as strong as people state wiht only 8 teams finishing within 2 places of their position in the "salaries" table, noticable outliers being QPR who were 7th in the salary table finishing 20th and Swansea who were 18th in the Salary table finishing 9th.
  • Our weekly salary for first team players over this period was £23621.45 (using today''s exchange rate) which was 16th in the salary table but had moved us up from the 175th best paying sporting team in 2011/2 to 141st for 12/3. this put us above; 19 NFL teams (we were below them all the year before), all of the SPL, all but 5 of La Liga, all but 6 of Serie A and all but 8 of the Bundesliga
  • The disparity in wages has been commented on before but this brings it in to stark contrast, Man City paid twice as much per week as the 6th highest payers in the EPL (Spurs, ~£46k), however, to get to half of their weekly salary you have to go all the way down to 17th (Reading ~£23k).
  • Even the lowest paid team in the EPL (Wigan) outpaid Celtic (just, £20,091.68 v £19992.62), it''s amazing the lure of the champions league!
  • The SPL is even more uneven than the EPL, Celtic pay almost 30 times the amount of the lowest payers there (Ross County, ave £676.81pw, which is only ~£35k pa)

 

So as the title of the thread says, is this relevant? You could argue not as since these figures were produced we went on the spending spree that included RVW and Fer (who will be amongst our best paid players) as well as new contracts for other first team players, but it does show how even lowly clubs can steal the top talent from whichever league they choose. Either way, it''s a bit of a distraction and does leave you hoping that the relegation clauses are water tight...

 

For reference I''ve got my numbers from here: http://espn.go.com/espn/story/_/id/10709445/sportingintelligence-global-salary-survey-espn-magazine as they publish the full list, but it is in $''s not £''s so have used today''s exchange rate according to XE.com (0.59536)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="cornish sam"]

As some of you will be aware the sportingintelligence sports sallary survey has been released for 2014 and whilst the headlines all go to Man City topping the table again with a whopping average weekly salary for their first team players of over $155k (~£93k at today''s rate) the reporting further down the table is less prevelant.

Now whilst these reported figures are not strictly speaking relevant for the current season as they are based on the salaries for the 2012/3 season (for the EPL, the guardian have a decent description of where the figures come from here: http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/apr/15/manchester-city-best-paid-team-in-global-salary-survey-compare) and these have already been commented on/pored over by various people, FPAs included, there are still a couple of things that jump out;

  • The relationship between 1st team wages and final position is not as strong as people state wiht only 8 teams finishing within 2 places of their position in the "salaries" table, noticable outliers being QPR who were 7th in the salary table finishing 20th and Swansea who were 18th in the Salary table finishing 9th.
  • Our weekly salary for first team players over this period was £23621.45 (using today''s exchange rate) which was 16th in the salary table but had moved us up from the 175th best paying sporting team in 2011/2 to 141st for 12/3. this put us above; 19 NFL teams (we were below them all the year before), all of the SPL, all but 5 of La Liga, all but 6 of Serie A and all but 8 of the Bundesliga
  • The disparity in wages has been commented on before but this brings it in to stark contrast, Man City paid twice as much per week as the 6th highest payers in the EPL (Spurs, ~£46k), however, to get to half of their weekly salary you have to go all the way down to 17th (Reading ~£23k).
  • Even the lowest paid team in the EPL (Wigan) outpaid Celtic (just, £20,091.68 v £19992.62), it''s amazing the lure of the champions league!
  • The SPL is even more uneven than the EPL, Celtic pay almost 30 times the amount of the lowest payers there (Ross County, ave £676.81pw, which is only ~£35k pa)

 

So as the title of the thread says, is this relevant? You could argue not as since these figures were produced we went on the spending spree that included RVW and Fer (who will be amongst our best paid players) as well as new contracts for other first team players, but it does show how even lowly clubs can steal the top talent from whichever league they choose. Either way, it''s a bit of a distraction and does leave you hoping that the relegation clauses are water tight...

 

For reference I''ve got my numbers from here: http://espn.go.com/espn/story/_/id/10709445/sportingintelligence-global-salary-survey-espn-magazine as they publish the full list, but it is in $''s not £''s so have used today''s exchange rate according to XE.com (0.59536)

[/quote]I think it is highly relevant and very interesting. A word of caution; the figures are apparently only for wages for the first-team squad, whereas the Deloitte''s survey, for example, gives the figure for all staff costs. On that list we may not be as high up the Premier League wage table as we are on this survey, but I did say a while ago that we might not be quite as low as the club had indicated.On this squad-wage-only survey we have Reading, Swansea and Wigan below us, which does not surprise me. I thought Reading and Wigan might well be and suspected Swansea would be also. We were above them the season before. That Southampton are also below us is a bit of a surprise, but probably reflects a club in its first season up from the Championship, and indeed still slightly reflecting League One wages. Exactly what we went through a year earlier.That we are 16th in this wage table does put a bit of context on where we finished last season. Hughton still did a good job, outperforming purely on the basis of wages, but by less than most had thought. By this measure we were not relegation candidates. But, as said earlier, the Deloite''s survey may produce different placings.As to where we might be this season, if we have been above Swansea two seasons running then we may be again. Almost certainly we are above Palace and quite possibly Hull and Cardiff. We are after all in our third season in the Premier League, and that survey shows how even a rich club like Southampton takes a while to catch up after promotion. So it could be we are again in 16th place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Purple, I thought for a second it might not be!

The fact that this was concerning just the first team was what made me think that it was relevant and in many ways would provide a better tool for analysis of the League position to Spending realtionship than the report by Deloite''s. I''d also agree with your conclusions about us most likely still being above the promoted teams and Swansea so would expect us to be at least 16th if not higher come this report next year (for example taking into account corresponding signings I could see us being above WBA now who were only paying an average of £1500 more than us last season).

 

 

For those that haven''t bothered looking at the underlying figures here''s my summary:

Rank
(Last year)Team, leagueAvg annual pay $% change avg annual from 2013 surveyTotal wage bill $Total rankAvg player 5-yr earnings% diff in 5-yr annual pay, Y1-Y5Avg Weekly wage £Final Position
1-1Manchester City, EPL8,109,9120.6202,747,812331,660,77226592852.252
8-12Manchester United, EPL6,566,7758.9164,169,367827,985,2563875184.521
10-8Chelsea, EPL6,053,686-3151,342,1401230,990,544369310.053
11-15Arsenal, EPL5,928,1725.1148,204,3121525,892,6203867873.014
20-21Liverpool, EPL5,171,3510.2129,283,7792024,648,8842559207.997
54-51Tottenham, EPL4,037,692-0.1100,942,2925316,327,7409546228.475
70-91Queens Park Rangers, EPL3,255,2592581,381,48775n/an/a37270.2120
75-64Aston Villa, EPL3,044,799-8.876,119,9698117,219,644434860.6115
86-104Fulham, EPL2,678,22210.366,955,5519910,967,9449130663.5812
88-75Newcastle, EPL2,664,731-4.366,618,26610014,557,140-2430509.1216
93-98Everton, EPL2,622,2875.165,557,18710411,953,1881730023.176
109-73Sunderland, EPL2,431,002-15.460,775,03912711,160,9687427833.117
112-118Stoke, EPL2,360,0484.559,001,195135n/an/a27020.7313
117-127West Bromwich Albion, EPL2,301,7405.757,543,488138n/an/a26353.158
131(-)West Ham, EPL2,186,148n/a54,653,6881459,759,464-2025029.7110
141-175Norwich, EPL2,063,14732.751,578,685151n/an/a23621.4511
147(-)Reading, EPL2,021,930n/a50,548,252152n/an/a23149.5419
153-174Swansea, EPL1,930,16922.848,254,220155n/an/a22098.959
155(-)Southampton, EPL1,893,656n/a47,341,388158n/an/a21680.914
166-168Wigan, EPL1,754,8502.843,871,2601648,810,204620091.6818

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cornish Sam, you saved me the trouble of producing just such a list! I

do have a note of caution about these Premier League figures, because it

is not totally clear to me on what they are based. The methodology

talks about being calculated from base player salaries, excluding

bonuses, for the first-team squad.There is a line in the Norwich

City accounts of "player wage costs" being 39 per cent of turnover,

which gives a rough figure of £30m, which based on the current

pound/dollar exchange rate becomes $50m, which is  roughly the $51.5m in

this report! That may well be it, although the line in the NCFC

accounts doesn''t specify purely first-team squaders.On that

assumption, and/or assuming all the Premier League figures are properly

comparable (ie they are based on the same indicator) the survey is

fascinating in terms of this much-discussed link between wages and

on-field performance.As you say it is a more useful guide than

the Deloitte''s because it deals purely with what players are paid, while

the latter includes all salaries from catering staff to the media team -

areas of the club that have at best a minimal effect on performance.It

also emphasises that while the link betwen wages and performance is

very strong over a period of seasons, within a season or two it is much less

of an iron law, and context needs to be taken into account at all

times.The top four are the top four, albeit not totally in the

correct order, but there are only three clubs in their "right"position,

and another three only one position out. Seven clubs are five or six

places out, one seven out, Swansea nine out (in a good way) and QPR 13

out (not in a good way).QPR versus Swansea is a good example of

context. The former had a team of Finidi Georges, while the latter used

much hungrier but less well-paid players. The iron law would have QPR

11 places ahead. Context saw that precisely reversed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="PurpleCanary"]Cornish Sam, you saved me the trouble of producing just such a list! I

do have a note of caution about these Premier League figures, because it

is not totally clear to me on what they are based. The methodology

talks about being calculated from base player salaries, excluding

bonuses, for the first-team squad.There is a line in the Norwich

City accounts of "player wage costs" being 39 per cent of turnover,

which gives a rough figure of £30m, which based on the current

pound/dollar exchange rate becomes $50m, which is  roughly the $51.5m in

this report! That may well be it, although the line in the NCFC

accounts doesn''t specify purely first-team squaders.On that

assumption, and/or assuming all the Premier League figures are properly

comparable (ie they are based on the same indicator) the survey is

fascinating in terms of this much-discussed link between wages and

on-field performance.As you say it is a more useful guide than

the Deloitte''s because it deals purely with what players are paid, while

the latter includes all salaries from catering staff to the media team -

areas of the club that have at best a minimal effect on performance.It

also emphasises that while the link betwen wages and performance is

very strong over a period of seasons, within a season or two it is much less

of an iron law, and context needs to be taken into account at all

times.The top four are the top four, albeit not totally in the

correct order, but there are only three clubs in their "right"position,

and another three only one position out. Seven clubs are five or six

places out, one seven out, Swansea nine out (in a good way) and QPR 13

out (not in a good way).QPR versus Swansea is a good example of

context. The former had a team of Finidi Georges, while the latter used

much hungrier but less well-paid players. The iron law would have QPR

11 places ahead. Context saw that precisely reversed.
[/quote]The Guardian''s David Conn, probably the most authoritative national newspaper journalist for this kind of stuff, has now published his figures for last season, based on the accounts of all clubs.Unlike the Sporting Intelligence figures quoted by Cornish Sam, which as said above are only for a club''s first-team squad, Conn''s numbers are for overall staff costs for all employees. So he gives our wage bill as £51m rather than Sporting Intelligence''s $51m. In terms of linking wages to on-field perfomance plainly the Conn figures are less valid than those from SI.But as it happens there are no serious differences in the two lists. The top nine are in the same order, and those from 11 to 15 ar the same five, albeit with slight differences in order. And similarly with the bottom four of Swansea, Southampton, Reading and Wigan.The significant point is that in both lists we are 16th place, confirming what I had said some time ago about not being as low in the wages table as the club seemed to have suggested. Either way, of course, a strict link with wages would have Hughton having outperformed last season. As for this season, a guesstimate based on both lists would be that we are again in 16th, with Swansea and the three promoted clubs below us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...