Should player wages be public?

[Disco08]

Because the AFL is run so well?

Nah I don't know where you'd get that impression. I certainly didn't intend to make any comment about how well the AFL is run. That deserves a thread of it's own.

Whether it was Little Johnny smiling with pride last night because "The President" contacted him about Qld, or discussion about Krispy Kremes or people thinking cos something happens in Yankeeland it should happen here I'm just a bit sick of reading about them this week.

I simply don't think anyone has put up a decent enough argument about player salaries becoming public to convince me we need to follow America's suit.

Fair enough. I agree too much USA can be very tiresome. But some things they do very well and to disregard that out of hand isn't constructive IMO.

Do you think rorting of the salary caps would be more or less likely to happen if disclosed player contracts were introduced?

 

[Phar Ace]

we really need a game of footy around here

Best comment made Bring it on....................even if we struggle early. bring it on!

 

[Richmond United]

The details of a players wage do not belong in the public domain......irrespective of the justification used (refer to current privacy provisions). 

 

[nwonash]

Players salaries are personal and should remain personal. Would people like it if their wages were made private ?

If people knew what other players were on, it would cause many rifts and royality thrown out of the door.

It would make it much easier for other clubs to proach other players.

 

[Bill James]

Do those who think it's important to know player salaries because our memberships pay for them also think we should know what all club employees earn?

If its good enough for corporations to be required to disclose the packages of the key executives by name and the number of employees in various brackets over $100,000pa why not a football club. Personally I would be more interested in the football department salaries because they are not constrained by a salary cap.

 

[Scoop]

Gee this one really opened a can of worms.

I think that they should made public because it makes adminstrators more accountable for any deals that are done, thus giving members a better look at how good there adminstration is.

 

[Ian4]

Putting aside the legalities of disclosing salaries it could only be positive.

What's the worst that can happen, members and fans demand a high level of performance from players who are earning hundreds of thousands of dollars based on the same members/fans TV viewing habits, spending habits, attendance and membership investment.

Welcome to the real world.

Considering player payments are such a vital part of a clubs viability (not the fact they need to spend 92.5% as much as when they spend it - i.e. Carlton and Kouta) members and fans have a right to know their club (and the game at large) is investing wisely.

completely agree. rumour has it krak is on 250k. if it's true, he needs to be made accountable for that. and the richmond administration needs to justify it to the members...

 

[tigertough12]

Definately should NOT be made public.....All it will do is cause friction amongst team mates....

 

[Disco08]

I'd say most footballers would already have a pretty fair idea what eachother's contracts are.

 

[GoodOne]

Who cares what salaries players get, apart from novelty sake. All I want is for us to get the best players possible within the salary cap, to make us a success. Salaries need to be supplied to the authorative bodies for tax purposes, for salary cap purposes andso on, but why does the public need to know the exact salaries of players? How does it help, many players get endorsements in other areas, so salary is not a true indication anyway. And who are we to decide whether the club is paying too much or too little to a player? It's all a matter of opinion. The people who decide on performance of club adminstrator's have all the required information.

What real advantages are there in releasing player's wages? Nothing thats going to radically change the world of footy.

Cheers

 

[Tigerdog]

Personally speaking I don't think it is any of our business what they earn BUT I can understand that other people would.

A possible solution to appease both parties would be to place players in a salary bracket. This could be anything from 70k to 200k increments.

eg. Andrew Krakouer is publically listed as earning between 180 and 300k a year inclusive of any match payments.

That way the people who care get a rough idea of what a player is earning. The player maintains his privacy on the actual figure that he earns (or doesn't in some cases) and the rest of us who don't care carry on as usual. ;D

Problem solved. 8)

 

[Disco08]

Herald Sun reports he will be earning around 300k for the next 3 seasons.

Considering Krak is around that mark

If player wages are private, how is the above statement possible? If this sort of speculative reporting is going to become the norm (as it seems to be) why not make the true figures available?

And Tdog, a bit late, but your idea is pretty good.

 

[Ian4]

i heard krak is on 750k for 3 years. but i heard that on this website, who knows if it's true. if it is it's way too much.

 

[Scoop]

Does Humms wage change know he has been lifted on to the main list or is still a rookie wage?

 

[meltiger]

I would suggest he'd move to the mimimum payments available for a player of his age/experience, of course match payments on top of that.