Agree others earn more but they usually have to win to earn as in tennis, golf etc. Bale could play shit every week and still earn over £1,000,000 per month.
He could be injured!
Hmmm...50p a second whilst recuperating on a beach in the Bahamas. Very acceptable.
To put it in perspective, he will earn more in a week than
- the Prime Minister will earn in 2 years - A GP will earn in five years - An Army Sargeant will earn in ten years.
And he might not have a game that week....
According to a few CL posters, politicians just do the job to feather their own nest...it suddenly doesn't look much money in comparison. I've heard the hours are longer too.
It's all about economies of scale - footballers don't have to put in any extra effort whether their game is played for the benefit of a couple of thousand fans at the stadium only, or for a few hundred million watching on TV. However as they move up in the game, the revenues their effort generates (and to which they feel 'entitled' to their share) grows exponentially.
This simple analogy explains why film actors (high economies of scale) earn fortunes and theatre actors (low economies of scale) don't. Likewise a successful estate agent (high) will earn more than a successful dentist (low), even though the former requires considerably less qualifications than the latter (the average dentist will earn more though).
Bale is an extreme case however - to use a Charlton player as a more realistic analogy, it's worth noting that whilst they may earn very meaningful sums today, the volatility around those earnings is very high (hundreds of players remain without a club) and their career is very short. On a lifetime basis, their earnings would likely not look especially impressive given that most people's earning power is rising nicely at 35 whilst theirs drops to zero overnight in many cases (all of which makes you wonder why on earth they drive the cars they do etc.).
It's all about economies of scale - footballers don't have to put in any extra effort whether their game is played for the benefit of a couple of thousand fans at the stadium only, or for a few hundred million watching on TV. However as they move up in the game, the revenues their effort generates (and to which they feel 'entitled' to their share) grows exponentially.
This simple analogy explains why film actors (high economies of scale) earn fortunes and theatre actors (low economies of scale) don't. Likewise a successful estate agent (high) will earn more than a successful dentist (low), even though the former requires considerably less qualifications than the latter (the average dentist will earn more though).
Bale is an extreme case however - to use a Charlton player as a more realistic analogy, it's worth noting that whilst they may earn very meaningful sums today, the volatility around those earnings is very high (hundreds of players remain without a club) and their career is very short. On a lifetime basis, their earnings would likely not look especially impressive given that most people's earning power is rising nicely at 35 whilst theirs drops to zero overnight in many cases (all of which makes you wonder why on earth they drive the cars they do etc.).
Thing with footballers is everyone makes this big deal about it being a short career. Well who has a right to expect to retire in your thirties .You dont become leper when you stop playing football. Join the real world and try and get another job like everyone else.
Even in his day Matt was the exception not the rule. Most pundits were incredulous that he "wasted" his career at Sothampton, when he could have gone on and earned more league and international honours at "bigger" clubs.
I heard a rumour that he signed for a London club (thought to be Spurs) but the next day had second thoughts and cancelled the contract.
I don't think he wasted his career at Southampton, but he often looked a tad overweight and unfit and this is a case where stepping out of his comfort zone and being pushed a bit harder would have made him achieve more. In 1998 Hoddle left him out of the WC squad - given his ability to take pens (I think he only ever missed one in his career) I would have taken him for that reason alone but again allegedly Hoddle thought he wasn't fit enough to play two competitive internationals a week.
It's all about economies of scale - footballers don't have to put in any extra effort whether their game is played for the benefit of a couple of thousand fans at the stadium only, or for a few hundred million watching on TV. However as they move up in the game, the revenues their effort generates (and to which they feel 'entitled' to their share) grows exponentially.
This simple analogy explains why film actors (high economies of scale) earn fortunes and theatre actors (low economies of scale) don't. Likewise a successful estate agent (high) will earn more than a successful dentist (low), even though the former requires considerably less qualifications than the latter (the average dentist will earn more though).
Bale is an extreme case however - to use a Charlton player as a more realistic analogy, it's worth noting that whilst they may earn very meaningful sums today, the volatility around those earnings is very high (hundreds of players remain without a club) and their career is very short. On a lifetime basis, their earnings would likely not look especially impressive given that most people's earning power is rising nicely at 35 whilst theirs drops to zero overnight in many cases (all of which makes you wonder why on earth they drive the cars they do etc.).
Thing with footballers is everyone makes this big deal about it being a short career. Well who has a right to expect to retire in your thirties .You dont become leper when you stop playing football. Join the real world and try and get another job like everyone else.
I agree although any player who plays a few seasons in the Premiership and has a modicum of financial nous should be well set for the rest of their lives regardless of their ability to earn a living the traditional way after retirement.
However there are clearly some players below the Premiership who nonetheless spend money (judging by their cars etc.) like they will permanently be earning substantial sums rather than see their earnings fall off a cliff at aged 35 or sooner. Moreover given that most people have families by that age, the minimum amount you need to earn outside the game to sustain a decent quality of life (let alone the one to which you have probably become accustomed) is significantly higher than it is for most people who join the world of work at 16, 18 or 21.
I think there's a good reason by the way why many players choose to play at semi-professional level rather than full-time in say League 1 or 2 (even though good enough), because by doing so they can earn some money from the sport whilst concurrently pursuing another career which doesn't suffer from the same earnings 'cliff'.
Spot on from Le tissier sounds like a man that cares.
Bale on £300,000 a week is disgusting, it's completely soulless and unjustified.
Of course that was the amount offered to bale via Real Madrid. Where the blame lies is the people that are willing to pay the man that amount.
It's all pure greed via agents and the big egos of football, or rich business men that just want to buy success like it's a toy or computer game.
Footballers wages should be capped off a maximum of £10,000 a week. You would then see footballers for what they really are, the game would be alot more healthy in every aspect.
Privately owned companies can do what they like I suppose but part of it ruins the game and can't say I'm really interested as how bale gets on at Madrid based on that figure.
^^^^^ a quote from Jack Charlton after he watched Scott Parker doing keepy uppy and various tricks for the McDonalds adverts: 'that's all very well, but can he play football ?'
It's all about economies of scale - footballers don't have to put in any extra effort whether their game is played for the benefit of a couple of thousand fans at the stadium only, or for a few hundred million watching on TV. However as they move up in the game, the revenues their effort generates (and to which they feel 'entitled' to their share) grows exponentially.
This simple analogy explains why film actors (high economies of scale) earn fortunes and theatre actors (low economies of scale) don't. Likewise a successful estate agent (high) will earn more than a successful dentist (low), even though the former requires considerably less qualifications than the latter (the average dentist will earn more though).
Bale is an extreme case however - to use a Charlton player as a more realistic analogy, it's worth noting that whilst they may earn very meaningful sums today, the volatility around those earnings is very high (hundreds of players remain without a club) and their career is very short. On a lifetime basis, their earnings would likely not look especially impressive given that most people's earning power is rising nicely at 35 whilst theirs drops to zero overnight in many cases (all of which makes you wonder why on earth they drive the cars they do etc.).
Thing with footballers is everyone makes this big deal about it being a short career. Well who has a right to expect to retire in your thirties .You dont become leper when you stop playing football. Join the real world and try and get another job like everyone else.
many footballers leave school at 16, have spent their entire lives obsessing over playing football. It's the only thing they know how to do and have any qualifications of doing. You go from playing in front of thousands of adoring fans doing something you were put on the planet to do to having nothing at all to do. Must mess with your head.
As for Matt le tiss having no ambition, so you're telling me if you were the lynchpin of Charlton Athletic and are a wizard with the ball you would eagerly leave for more money and potentially more fame? I'd stay put, honestly. Playing for England and Charlton was the thing i daydreamed about throughout my childhood. But maybe i'm less "ambitious" than you are....
As for Matt le tiss having no ambition, so you're telling me if you were the lynchpin of Charlton Athletic and are a wizard with the ball you would eagerly leave for more money and potentially more fame? I'd stay put, honestly. Playing for England and Charlton was the thing i daydreamed about throughout my childhood. But maybe i'm less "ambitious" than you are....
Far from having no ambition, that is actually the epitome of ambition: wanting to achieve something on your own terms rather than through other people. I used to get really annoyed when the silverware obsessed media commentators used to have digs at LeTissier for lacking ambition whilst adoring other players went around whoring themselves to the highest bidder. Players who want to achieve whatever they can for the club that they love and stay there to do that understand far more about ambition than those that want "success" through association.
What i find disgusting is watching people like le tiss getting all creamy pants over their beloved club in the prem knowing full well that they screwed many people including those that idolised him by claiming admin only to be bought out by a multi millionaire and not pay a penny to those people
His comments on bale mean nothing if he doesnt talk out against clubs doing that to communities
Another gutless footballer looking to sound like a decent bloke
As for Matt le tiss having no ambition, so you're telling me if you were the lynchpin of Charlton Athletic and are a wizard with the ball you would eagerly leave for more money and potentially more fame? I'd stay put, honestly. Playing for England and Charlton was the thing i daydreamed about throughout my childhood. But maybe i'm less "ambitious" than you are....
Far from having no ambition, that is actually the epitome of ambition: wanting to achieve something on your own terms rather than through other people. I used to get really annoyed when the silverware obsessed media commentators used to have digs at LeTissier for lacking ambition whilst adoring other players went around whoring themselves to the highest bidder. Players who want to achieve whatever they can for the club that they love and stay there to do that understand far more about ambition than those that want "success" through association.
Good point, you could make the same argument about Wolves legend Steve Bull.
I saw an interview with him once where he said he had agreed to go to Coventry but having agreed verbally he then realized he really did not want to play for anyone else other than Wolves so turned down the move.
He had never actually asked for a move in the first place it was simply Graham Taylor trying to sell him to raise money for new players.
This is exactly correct. The salaries -- just the salaries -- for three major league baseball players this season (Alex Rodriguez, Johan Santana, and Cliff Lee) exceed what Bale will earn annually at Real Madrid. ARod is ARod. Santana hasn't played in a single one of the Mets' 137 games this season.
I don't understand what Bale is supposed to do, tell RM to give the money to Spurs instead? Tell RM to keep it within the club so they can p*ss it away on something else?
I think I get some of the outrage at the excess, but the flipside is much, much worse. As long as there is a growing international audience for world class football, then the revenue is going to keep increasing. Where should that revenue go? What seems to be bandied about in protest is a system that would look like the American collegiate system of "amateur" athletes, where administrators and coaches make huge amounts of money while players put their health and welfare at substantial risk for a free education and some entirely bogus myth of the purity of competition.
I can remember on Soccer Saturday , people being outraged at the time , because Roy Keane was getting 52k a week , Rodney Marsh (before he got booted off for an inappropriate late night comment) said , it won't be long before we get a player earning 100k a week , and i thought , no that'll never happen , well i bet in my lifetime the wages go up to 1 million a week, fareplay to the players if people are daft enough to pay it.
Not many British players go to play abroad anymore , whether its the money or just the fact they are simply not good enough and not wanted enough by other clubs is probably part of the reason , i hope Bale will return , and i do think he will return to the Premier League , in at least the next 3-4 years, i hope he does well at Madrid , and will watch Spanish footie on a Sunday night , with a bit more interest.
I reckon Lewis Hamilton is on similar wages and I've never known anyone to complain about his wage. For what its worth I think there should be a special rate tax of say 60% for people earning more than £3 million p.a. These high earners can help the economy and still live the life of luxury.
I reckon Lewis Hamilton is on similar wages and I've never known anyone to complain about his wage. For what its worth I think there should be a special rate tax of say 60% for people earning more than £3 million p.a. These high earners can help the economy and still live the life of luxury.
Lewis Hamilton moved to Switzerland some years ago - apparently for the privacy although coincidentally he did move to a Canton that offers residency for a small downpayment of £30k or so a year and no income taxes.
I reckon Lewis Hamilton is on similar wages and I've never known anyone to complain about his wage. For what its worth I think there should be a special rate tax of say 60% for people earning more than £3 million p.a. These high earners can help the economy and still live the life of luxury.
Hamilton is not quite in the same position as a footballer. If the car he drives is a winning car, that can generate millions in sales for McLaren, Red Bull, Mercedes whoever. Many more millions I would suggest that can be generated by a football club no matter how successful. Hamilton is much more in the 'advertising business' than most pro footballers, and yes, many footballers earn big time from outside advertising of everything from sticky panini cards to shampoo and clothing. Also, there are only a few GP drivers, whereas there are scores of footballers earning very high salaries. And lastly, although the safety record of motor racing is vastly better that what it was, GP driving is still potentially a very dangerous business. Hamilton is paid a lot of danger money
governments should take over and stop it. if clubs have got money to burn, get them to donate, so that the world can have sanitation, clean water to drink and food in their stomach's, every day.
This is exactly correct. The salaries -- just the salaries -- for three major league baseball players this season (Alex Rodriguez, Johan Santana, and Cliff Lee) exceed what Bale will earn annually at Real Madrid. ARod is ARod. Santana hasn't played in a single one of the Mets' 137 games this season.
I don't understand what Bale is supposed to do, tell RM to give the money to Spurs instead? Tell RM to keep it within the club so they can p*ss it away on something else?
I think I get some of the outrage at the excess, but the flipside is much, much worse. As long as there is a growing international audience for world class football, then the revenue is going to keep increasing. Where should that revenue go? What seems to be bandied about in protest is a system that would look like the American collegiate system of "amateur" athletes, where administrators and coaches make huge amounts of money while players put their health and welfare at substantial risk for a free education and some entirely bogus myth of the purity of competition.
How many of the MLB, NFL or NBA teams in the US are losing $100 million plus every year? Not many, I would wager!
Man City and Chelsea have driven prices of players and wages through the roof because they DON'T CARE about a sustainable financial model, that's NOT why they are in the game.
Roman Abrahmovich wants protection from the Kremlin and the Qataris want to use Man City to help their country become a tourism hub so they have no interest in a sustainable business model.
The same applies to Real Madrid and Barcelona, they pay NO TAXES to the bankrupt Spanish government but CAN pay $100 million for a footballer - that is a fucking piss take of the highest order.
So, let's get this straight, the Germans run both their economy AND football properly in a sustainable manner and then get asked to bail out the Spanish economy AND watch as the non tax paying Spanish giants sign the best footballers in the world.
If football had a sustainable financial model then I would NOT CARE what players were getting paid but the fact is that the model is unsustainable and everyone knows that, you cannot have clubs paying 110% of revenues as wages, that's totally crazy.
FFS, in the 2011/2012 season the Premier League clubs had an average debt of 120 MILLION QUID EACH!!! That's despite having an income pool of over 2.4 billion quid.
Of course, that average is skewed by the Chelsea debt of nearly 900 MILLION quid but even clubs like Sunderland are in the hole for around 100 million.
Its a disgrace but while all the pigs are so busily feeding at the trough then absolutely nothing whatsoever will be done about it.
Even if you don't like how that revenue is spent or object to the debt carried by Real Madrid, the overall net impact of RM's activities has to be a net positive on the Spanish economy. In other words, how would Spain (or Germany) be better off by inhibiting the club from pursuing strategies to further enhance revenue? Isn't everyone in Europe better off if Americans and the Chinese (and the rest of the world) are buying up even more ridiculous Real Madrid shirts?
My point about the MLB player salaries is that American athletes are routinely paid wages that are apparently an affront to English sensibilities. And with the exception of basketball, there is limited global market penetration for these sports. The bulk of the revenue -- I'm guessing -- is generated within just our market. The same doesn't seem to be true for football, where the reach and potential seem to be even greater. Tonight, the Seattle Sounders played before a home crowd of 38,000 + in a midweek match, their smallest attendance for this season. As appreciation for the professional sport grows by leaps and bounds here, the opportunities for European clubs also grow without them having to do anything dramatically different.
Salaries will continue to increase, but as long as revenue increases, what is the concern? If it is all about bad management of some clubs within this construct, well, overall, the new financial fair play rules are reported to have reduced collective club debt by over a third between 2011 and 2012:
UEFA General Secretary Gianni Infantino said Aug. 30 the rules helped slash combined club debt by 35 percent to 1.1 billion euros in 2012, from 1.7 billion euros a year earlier.
This is exactly correct. The salaries -- just the salaries -- for three major league baseball players this season (Alex Rodriguez, Johan Santana, and Cliff Lee) exceed what Bale will earn annually at Real Madrid. ARod is ARod. Santana hasn't played in a single one of the Mets' 137 games this season.
I don't understand what Bale is supposed to do, tell RM to give the money to Spurs instead? Tell RM to keep it within the club so they can p*ss it away on something else?
I think I get some of the outrage at the excess, but the flipside is much, much worse. As long as there is a growing international audience for world class football, then the revenue is going to keep increasing. Where should that revenue go? What seems to be bandied about in protest is a system that would look like the American collegiate system of "amateur" athletes, where administrators and coaches make huge amounts of money while players put their health and welfare at substantial risk for a free education and some entirely bogus myth of the purity of competition.
How many of the MLB, NFL or NBA teams in the US are losing $100 million plus every year? Not many, I would wager!
Man City and Chelsea have driven prices of players and wages through the roof because they DON'T CARE about a sustainable financial model, that's NOT why they are in the game.
Roman Abrahmovich wants protection from the Kremlin and the Qataris want to use Man City to help their country become a tourism hub so they have no interest in a sustainable business model.
The same applies to Real Madrid and Barcelona, they pay NO TAXES to the bankrupt Spanish government but CAN pay $100 million for a footballer - that is a fucking piss take of the highest order.
So, let's get this straight, the Germans run both their economy AND football properly in a sustainable manner and then get asked to bail out the Spanish economy AND watch as the non tax paying Spanish giants sign the best footballers in the world.
If football had a sustainable financial model then I would NOT CARE what players were getting paid but the fact is that the model is unsustainable and everyone knows that, you cannot have clubs paying 110% of revenues as wages, that's totally crazy.
FFS, in the 2011/2012 season the Premier League clubs had an average debt of 120 MILLION QUID EACH!!! That's despite having an income pool of over 2.4 billion quid.
Of course, that average is skewed by the Chelsea debt of nearly 900 MILLION quid but even clubs like Sunderland are in the hole for around 100 million.
Its a disgrace but while all the pigs are so busily feeding at the trough then absolutely nothing whatsoever will be done about it.
Just one minor correction; it's Abu Dhabi that owns Man City, not Qatar. Abu Dhabi has limited interest in tourism, it has SO much oil money that it is just looking for ways to spend its cash & to boost its global image.
Comments
This simple analogy explains why film actors (high economies of scale) earn fortunes and theatre actors (low economies of scale) don't. Likewise a successful estate agent (high) will earn more than a successful dentist (low), even though the former requires considerably less qualifications than the latter (the average dentist will earn more though).
Bale is an extreme case however - to use a Charlton player as a more realistic analogy, it's worth noting that whilst they may earn very meaningful sums today, the volatility around those earnings is very high (hundreds of players remain without a club) and their career is very short. On a lifetime basis, their earnings would likely not look especially impressive given that most people's earning power is rising nicely at 35 whilst theirs drops to zero overnight in many cases (all of which makes you wonder why on earth they drive the cars they do etc.).
I don't think he wasted his career at Southampton, but he often looked a tad overweight and unfit and this is a case where stepping out of his comfort zone and being pushed a bit harder would have made him achieve more. In 1998 Hoddle left him out of the WC squad - given his ability to take pens (I think he only ever missed one in his career) I would have taken him for that reason alone but again allegedly Hoddle thought he wasn't fit enough to play two competitive internationals a week.
nowadays a full time GP averages around £90-100,000 p.a. ..
However there are clearly some players below the Premiership who nonetheless spend money (judging by their cars etc.) like they will permanently be earning substantial sums rather than see their earnings fall off a cliff at aged 35 or sooner. Moreover given that most people have families by that age, the minimum amount you need to earn outside the game to sustain a decent quality of life (let alone the one to which you have probably become accustomed) is significantly higher than it is for most people who join the world of work at 16, 18 or 21.
I think there's a good reason by the way why many players choose to play at semi-professional level rather than full-time in say League 1 or 2 (even though good enough), because by doing so they can earn some money from the sport whilst concurrently pursuing another career which doesn't suffer from the same earnings 'cliff'.
Bale on £300,000 a week is disgusting, it's completely soulless and unjustified.
Of course that was the amount offered to bale via Real Madrid. Where the blame lies is the people that are willing to pay the man that amount.
It's all pure greed via agents and the big egos of football, or rich business men that just want to buy success like it's a toy or computer game.
Footballers wages should be capped off a maximum of £10,000 a week. You would then see footballers for what they really are, the game would be alot more healthy in every aspect.
Privately owned companies can do what they like I suppose but part of it ruins the game and can't say I'm really interested as how bale gets on at Madrid based on that figure.
As for Matt le tiss having no ambition, so you're telling me if you were the lynchpin of Charlton Athletic and are a wizard with the ball you would eagerly leave for more money and potentially more fame? I'd stay put, honestly. Playing for England and Charlton was the thing i daydreamed about throughout my childhood. But maybe i'm less "ambitious" than you are....
Agents etc. earn a fu====g fortune from these moves and will really turn the screws on players to make sure they leave.
It has been suggested that Paul Stretford has a massive influence on Rooney and is the source of most of his troubles.
His comments on bale mean nothing if he doesnt talk out against clubs doing that to communities
Another gutless footballer looking to sound like a decent bloke
I saw an interview with him once where he said he had agreed to go to Coventry but having agreed verbally he then realized he really did not want to play for anyone else other than Wolves so turned down the move.
He had never actually asked for a move in the first place it was simply Graham Taylor trying to sell him to raise money for new players.
I don't understand what Bale is supposed to do, tell RM to give the money to Spurs instead? Tell RM to keep it within the club so they can p*ss it away on something else?
I think I get some of the outrage at the excess, but the flipside is much, much worse. As long as there is a growing international audience for world class football, then the revenue is going to keep increasing. Where should that revenue go? What seems to be bandied about in protest is a system that would look like the American collegiate system of "amateur" athletes, where administrators and coaches make huge amounts of money while players put their health and welfare at substantial risk for a free education and some entirely bogus myth of the purity of competition.
Not many British players go to play abroad anymore , whether its the money or just the fact they are simply not good enough and not wanted enough by other clubs is probably part of the reason , i hope Bale will return , and i do think he will return to the Premier League , in at least the next 3-4 years, i hope he does well at Madrid , and will watch Spanish footie on a Sunday night , with a bit more interest.
Why such people are stiff referred to as British is a mystery.
Also, there are only a few GP drivers, whereas there are scores of footballers earning very high salaries. And lastly, although the safety record of motor racing is vastly better that what it was, GP driving is still potentially a very dangerous business. Hamilton is paid a lot of danger money
governments should take over and stop it. if clubs have got money to burn, get them to donate, so that the world can have sanitation, clean water to drink and food in their stomach's, every day.
Man City and Chelsea have driven prices of players and wages through the roof because they DON'T CARE about a sustainable financial model, that's NOT why they are in the game.
Roman Abrahmovich wants protection from the Kremlin and the Qataris want to use Man City to help their country become a tourism hub so they have no interest in a sustainable business model.
The same applies to Real Madrid and Barcelona, they pay NO TAXES to the bankrupt Spanish government but CAN pay $100 million for a footballer - that is a fucking piss take of the highest order.
So, let's get this straight, the Germans run both their economy AND football properly in a sustainable manner and then get asked to bail out the Spanish economy AND watch as the non tax paying Spanish giants sign the best footballers in the world.
If football had a sustainable financial model then I would NOT CARE what players were getting paid but the fact is that the model is unsustainable and everyone knows that, you cannot have clubs paying 110% of revenues as wages, that's totally crazy.
FFS, in the 2011/2012 season the Premier League clubs had an average debt of 120 MILLION QUID EACH!!! That's despite having an income pool of over 2.4 billion quid.
Of course, that average is skewed by the Chelsea debt of nearly 900 MILLION quid but even clubs like Sunderland are in the hole for around 100 million.
Its a disgrace but while all the pigs are so busily feeding at the trough then absolutely nothing whatsoever will be done about it.
Even if you don't like how that revenue is spent or object to the debt carried by Real Madrid, the overall net impact of RM's activities has to be a net positive on the Spanish economy. In other words, how would Spain (or Germany) be better off by inhibiting the club from pursuing strategies to further enhance revenue? Isn't everyone in Europe better off if Americans and the Chinese (and the rest of the world) are buying up even more ridiculous Real Madrid shirts?
My point about the MLB player salaries is that American athletes are routinely paid wages that are apparently an affront to English sensibilities. And with the exception of basketball, there is limited global market penetration for these sports. The bulk of the revenue -- I'm guessing -- is generated within just our market. The same doesn't seem to be true for football, where the reach and potential seem to be even greater. Tonight, the Seattle Sounders played before a home crowd of 38,000 + in a midweek match, their smallest attendance for this season. As appreciation for the professional sport grows by leaps and bounds here, the opportunities for European clubs also grow without them having to do anything dramatically different.
Salaries will continue to increase, but as long as revenue increases, what is the concern? If it is all about bad management of some clubs within this construct, well, overall, the new financial fair play rules are reported to have reduced collective club debt by over a third between 2011 and 2012: