Fixing Football

[Syn]

Why should a player not get paid for how good he is? Its like you being the most amazing programmer in the world and still making 60K a year for life!

Well obviously the argument is that players are getting paid for too much for 'how good they are'. I'm not happy to let the free-market decide that because the wage rates for top earners have been heavily skewed by Ambramovich and the other bored money men that have decided football clubs are more fashionable than yachts.

But I'm happy to concede on the salary cap point - not because I feel Rooney will struggle to live on less than £180k a week - but because I don't think it would really solve the problem of winning in football being so transparently about which owner has the deepest pockets. I think the 'financial fairplay' regulations - that will never seemingly come in - hints at clubs not being able to 'live beyond their means'; and so their expenditure (not only transfer fees but also wages etc.) have to be based on their income. The regulations should be tight enough - not only to prevent clubs like Man City getting a quick steroid boost but also to reward well-run clubs whose behaviour is thinking about building a good future.

[Syn]

Also, I think the wage structure should be tweaked towards performance-related pay. Win bonus, goal/assist bonus, clean sheet bonus...whatever. Yes it sounds Championship Managery but I'm not having Kieron Diaby earning £40k a week. That cannot happen. They could be nice guys but you can't get paid that much for being invisible.

Hard to implement that across the board...clubs like Arsenal, Wigan and Blackburn wouldn't be able to attract players if a 'win bonus' had to be some proportion of their wage. Though a 'goal bonus' might help our players grow some balls.

Impossible to solve all problems with it - there will be obvious trade offs, but there has to be a movement towards performance related pay IMO.

[fakeyank]

Also, I think the wage structure should be tweaked towards performance-related pay. Win bonus, goal/assist bonus, clean sheet bonus...whatever. Yes it sounds Championship Managery but I'm not having Kieron Diaby earning £40k a week. That cannot happen. They could be nice guys but you can't get paid that much for being invisible.

Hard to implement that across the board...clubs like Arsenal, Wigan and Blackburn wouldn't be able to attract players if a 'win bonus' had to be some proportion of their wage. Though a 'goal bonus' might help our players grow some balls.

Impossible to solve all problems with it - there will be obvious trade offs, but there has to be a movement towards performance related pay IMO.

How do you define performance related? Is it going to be based on stats or public opinion? We cant do club success related bonus because like you mentioned clubs like Villa, Sunderland, Wigan etc wouldnt be able to attract player. This is a grey area and we unfortunately cannot regulate a person's salary. In Arsene's eyes, Diaby is worth 50K when we think he is worth 50p. How do we regulate a case like that? May be that pay is based on promise of Diaby becoming a good player but based on current performance, he is worth nothing!

[Syn]

How do you define performance related? Is it going to be based on stats or public opinion? We cant do club success related bonus because like you mentioned clubs like Villa, Sunderland, Wigan etc wouldnt be able to attract player. This is a grey area and we unfortunately cannot regulate a person's salary. In Arsene's eyes, Diaby is worth 50K when we think he is worth 50p. How do we regulate a case like that? May be that pay is based on promise of Diaby becoming a good player but based on current performance, he is worth nothing!

I've already said: It would obviously be based on results. That's how pretty much every high-paying job works; you get a base salary and the rest is on the results you bring. You could be 'unlucky' and do everything right but you don't get the result you deserve. That's life. Tough titties. etc.

Villa, Sunderland, Wigan etc. wouldn't be able to attract a player if they say "If we win 35 games in the league season, you get £4m. If we don't, you get nothing". But they wouldn't say that because they do want good players. There are ways of designing contracts so that the worse clubs also benefit. Presumably they'd be more attracted to handing out player bonuses to attract better players - so instead of going on the team's performance, they give more money for good individual performers. e.g. Newcastle (not suggesting they're not a good team) say to Ba "Every goal you score, you get an extra x. Every goal the team scores, you get an extra y".

I also think it would be a pretty good way to test a player's character. If he wants to join a 'safe' club that pays out a standard amount with little variation then it says a lot about them. They're not willing to take a risk or they aren't confident of reaching a high standard. e.g. suppose Van Persie is out of contract ( ) and Barca offers him £4m a year regardless of what he does, and Real madrid offer him £3m a year (+£100k for every goal he scores). If he thinks he'll score 30 goals, he'll go to Real Madrid...assuming his decision is largely motivated by money - which is the case for many footballers (and most people in general, really).

There are many variations of performance-criteria that can be used in the contract so that each club can benefit. Clubs will want to do it. That's not an issue. Once we're in a world of performance-related pay in football, everything's fine. But the problem is getting there - since no club will want to be the first to do it. I can't think of a rule but there are ways to design shit like this. Happens all the time. Someone will figure it out.

It's not a new idea. I'm sure clubs already do have some sort of performance-related pay. I'd be shocked if Van Persie didn't get some extra pocket money for his form over the past year. But the challenge is now to increase it.

[Kano]

I've already said: It would obviously be based on results. That's how pretty much every high-paying job works; you get a base salary and the rest is on the results you bring. You could be 'unlucky' and do everything right but you don't get the result you deserve. That's life. Tough titties. etc.

Villa, Sunderland, Wigan etc. wouldn't be able to attract a player if they say "If we win 35 games in the league season, you get £4m. If we don't, you get nothing". But they wouldn't say that because they do want good players. There are ways of designing contracts so that the worse clubs also benefit. Presumably they'd be more attracted to handing out player bonuses to attract better players - so instead of going on the team's performance, they give more money for good individual performers. e.g. Newcastle (not suggesting they're not a good team) say to Ba "Every goal you score, you get an extra x. Every goal the team scores, you get an extra y".

I also think it would be a pretty good way to test a player's character. If he wants to join a 'safe' club that pays out a standard amount with little variation then it says a lot about them. They're not willing to take a risk or they aren't confident of reaching a high standard. e.g. suppose Van Persie is out of contract ( ) and Barca offers him £4m a year regardless of what he does, and Real madrid offer him £3m a year (+£100k for every goal he scores). If he thinks he'll score 30 goals, he'll go to Real Madrid...assuming his decision is largely motivated by money - which is the case for many footballers (and most people in general, really).

There are many variations of performance-criteria that can be used in the contract so that each club can benefit. Clubs will want to do it. That's not an issue. Once we're in a world of performance-related pay in football, everything's fine. But the problem is getting there - since no club will want to be the first to do it. I can't think of a rule but there are ways to design shit like this. Happens all the time. Someone will figure it out.

It's not a new idea. I'm sure clubs already do have some sort of performance-related pay. I'd be shocked if Van Persie didn't get some extra pocket money for his form over the past year. But the challenge is now to increase it.

I’m not sure you can base payment on performance in a team game. For overall achievement as a unit there should be a bonus much like any job but unlike a vast majority of jobs, you cannot quantify a sportsman’s performance within a team purely on stats, as you would a salesman for example. On top of that you have incidents that are completely out of the control of the player, such as injuries, bad decisions by team mates that dictate and influence his performance as well as just pure bad luck. In every other job it is down to the individual who will not have to deal with these circumstances (bar long term illness) so it is hard to marry the two ideals.

[Joker]

With forwards performance related pay may work (although as football's a team game, there are still problems) but what about the sort of midfielder who hasn't necessarily assisted a lot, but has contributed a lot to the team positively? For example, Wilshere was on the whole excellent last season, but if you look at his goals/assists statistics, they aren't great. Moreover, Koscielny has been excellent this season, but has been part of a very leaky defence. It may even be the case that we've conceded more goals per game when Koscielny's been playing than not, even though he's been head and shoulders better than someone like Vermaelen.

[Syn]

I’m not sure you can base payment on performance in a team game. For overall achievement as a unit there should be a bonus much like any job but unlike a vast majority of jobs, you cannot quantify a sportsman’s performance within a team purely on stats, as you would a salesman for example. On top of that you have incidents that are completely out of the control of the player, such as injuries, bad decisions by team mates that dictate and influence his performance as well as just pure bad luck. In every other job it is down to the individual who will not have to deal with these circumstances (bar long term illness) so it is hard to marry the two ideals.

The 'out of your hand' incidents, I don't see a problem with that. There are external factors in most high paying jobs too; you're often dependent on other members of the team performing well. As I said, you can be 'unlucky' but that's life; everyone faces that and footballers should be no different. If RVP you lose out on a team bonus because your teammates play shit, again, tough luck. You win together and you lose together. But as I've said you can still hold on to your star players by offering greater individual incentives. I accept it's harder to find player-specific performance proxies for a Modric, say, but there are ways of balancing it to achieve the optimal outcome. e.g. the back four get x for a clean sheet, the midfield get y for a cleansheet and the strikers get z for a clean sheet. If you weight it properly, you ensure that everyone finds it worthwhile to put a shift in.

We're obviously not talking about a world of exclusively performance-related pay. Players will always get a base wage regardless of performance and even regardless of whether they play. That should be fair enough for them.

[Syn]

With forwards performance related pay may work (although as football's a team game, there are still problems) but what about the sort of midfielder who hasn't necessarily assisted a lot, but has contributed a lot to the team positively? For example, Wilshere was on the whole excellent last season, but if you look at his goals/assists statistics, they aren't great. Moreover, Koscielny has been excellent this season, but has been part of a very leaky defence. It may even be the case that we've conceded more goals per game when Koscielny's been playing than not, even though he's been head and shoulders better than someone like Vermaelen.

If the manager feels that Wilshere and Koscielny have shown enough consistency to suggest they will continue on that trend, they would be rewarded with a higher base rate salary...which is exactly what happens right now - so you don't lose out from switching the system. But see what I've said above - I can't do it but I'm sure there are people around who could weight it all perfectly so that star performers in an average unit would be rewarded. That is the essence of performance-related pay anyway.

[Kano]

The 'out of your hand' incidents, I don't see a problem with that. There are external factors in most high paying jobs too; you're often dependent on other members of the team performing well. As I said, you can be 'unlucky' but that's life; everyone faces that and footballers should be no different. If RVP you lose out on a team bonus because your teammates play shit, again, tough luck. You win together and you lose together. But as I've said you can still hold on to your star players by offering greater individual incentives. I accept it's harder to find player-specific performance proxies for a Modric, say, but there are ways of balancing it to achieve the optimal outcome. e.g. the back four get x for a clean sheet, the midfield get y for a cleansheet and the strikers get z for a clean sheet. If you weight it properly, you ensure that everyone finds it worthwhile to put a shift in.

We're obviously not talking about a world of exclusively performance-related pay. Players will always get a base wage regardless of performance and even regardless of whether they play. That should be fair enough for them.

other high paying roles do mean you have to manage the team correctly in order to get the results that will benefit you, that is a stipulation of the job role, not something that players on the field are asked to do - obviously it is the mangers job to do that.

team sports players would suffer under the hand of 'bad luck' far more than corporate roles for example, as injuries etc come under that too, let alone the events out of their control on a football field.

players already have this system in place that is supposed to incentivise them. i'm pretty sure it was always in place, some time before wages went through the roof, yet the performance levels would still be as unequal as they are now in the main, because of human nature. in an office, you are usually dealing and talking about figures quite a lot so the money carrot is never far from the mind but on a football pitch, i'm not sure you would correlate your performance with what it would bring either before or after a ball is kicked.

[Syn]

other high paying roles do mean you have to manage the team correctly in order to get the results that will benefit you, that is a stipulation of the job role, not something that players on the field are asked to do - obviously it is the mangers job to do that.

No, I don't mean managerial roles. I mean that there are sub-groups and teams that have to achieve something and they share the rewards. In academic circles, it'd be competing for research grants. In specialist consulting roles, it'd be winning a potential client. If the people you're working with are dicks, you lose out.

team sports players would suffer under the hand of 'bad luck' far more than corporate roles for example, as injuries etc come under that too, let alone the events out of their control on a football field.

players already have this system in place that is supposed to incentivise them. i'm pretty sure it was always in place, some time before wages went through the roof, yet the performance levels would still be as unequal as they are now in the main, because of human nature. in an office, you are usually dealing and talking about figures quite a lot so the money carrot is never far from the mind but on a football pitch, i'm not sure you would correlate your performance with what it would bring either before or after a ball is kicked.

I think it's exactly the reverse; I think a team's performance on the pitch correlates more with the result. We're not talking about your average office role because the money involved is not comparable. For the very high-paying roles - which are usually involve dealing with a lot of risk anyway - external shocks has a massive impact. You can do everything right and still not get the rewards.

I do understand the point about extracting a player's performance from a team game is difficult. It does happen in other jobs - and it should happen in football also IMO - but it's difficult (and probably costly) to work out and enforce. I think once we're there, it'd be fine - players wouldn't complain and clubs wouldn't change. But getting there is the problem.