World Cup Football Players being payed Vs Not

[Sammael]

This is a discussion on Football players in the world cup being payed for it.

In my opinion it should be a honor to play for your country i dont think they should be payed for it.

what do you think?

[Juliette]

And what would you have them do to earn a living?
Sit in an office, 40 hours a week, and use their spare time for training?

There's a reason there is professional football. That reason is simple. If they have to be bakers, butchers, shop owners and do all sort of jobs just to stay alive, would you really expect them to be able to make time to train?


Now, if you propose the countries pay their footballers themselves.. i.e. some sort of collective donation.. you are grossly underestimating the effort it takes to be a top sportsman all year round (which they are, if they come out at the WC), or overestimating the 'generosity' of the people.



No, the current system is good, for various reasons. It ensures that the top players of each country play at the World Cup, it ensures they play as opposed to just going through the motions, it ensures that if Uruguay and the USA make it to the same round, a player from Uruguay gets the same amount of money as the USA player; and it allows the national associations freedom to bestow the premium to the players in any form or figure they want. FIFA says "Your effort was worth this ## amount of £," and the national association receives those funds. They then pay the players. Or not (as is the case in France).

[Sammael]

well it wasnt like this 40 years ago no world cup player was played, they where payed for playing for the clubs but not for the country they thought it more of an honor to be picked for there country, as it should stand.

Many of the world cup players get payed stupid ammount of money for playing. you say they have to make a living.

the top payed player in the world cup is Lionel Messi on $43.4 MILLION now how can anyone live on that amount and if they didnt get payed 90% of these players get payed 10's of thousands of pounds a Week and some get payed 100's thousands of pounds a week, i think 1 month of playing for the Country wont put them in the poor house.

[LegendaryA]

The problem I see with players being paid in world cup when they play with national team is that they can be interested more into the €€ than in playing for the team. If it wasn't paid, the greedy ones would magically disappear from world cups and just stay playing in clubs. It would perhaps get rid of "parasites" from world cups and that wouldn't be a bad thing.
However the wages vary quite a bit, and a substitute unknown Honduras player isn't paid in club as much as would be a brazilian forward. But most of times the "poor" players don't go as far as the "rich" in the competition.

[Nigatsu_Aka]

Good points raised by everyone.

My opinion is that FIFA makes plenty of money by organising these events, money that aren't going to be spent to every cent on promoting the sport in the poor countries. So, they bring back some of the money to the football federations according to their rankings, federations that pay the players for their performances.

The playing for the country argument is not available for everyone or for every nation. There are still poorer federations and championships participating in the world cup, who have players that are not making insane ammounts of money. Remember, that a football player has 10-15 years to make money, after which they have to live with what they made in those years... Therefore, the players MUST be paid.

[Juliette]

well it wasnt like this 40 years ago no world cup player was played, they where payed for playing for the clubs but not for the country they thought it more of an honor to be picked for there country, as it should stand.

Many of the world cup players get payed stupid ammount of money for playing. you say they have to make a living.

the top payed player in the world cup is Lionel Messi on $43.4 MILLION now how can anyone live on that amount and if they didnt get payed 90% of these players get payed 10's of thousands of pounds a Week and some get payed 100's thousands of pounds a week, i think 1 month of playing for the Country wont put them in the poor house.

You have to understand that there are more people who have the capacity (talent, contacts and dedication) to become a bank director than people who have the capacity to play football at the level of Messi and Cristiano Ronaldo.

Sure, we can all play brilliant football once in a while. These guys do it 2 times every week, and train their butts off to get there.


In any case, back to my original point; both bank director and professional football player are apex jobs. There's a small percentage of the world's population capable of becoming a big bank director, and there are even less who could become a star football player.
Of course you could argue that the way people become a football player differs from becoming a big banker, and you would be right, but the fact remains that there isn't anyone who could do it better with the capacity of getting there. An Inuit in Nunavut, to name one, might be a hell of a lot better than Messi. However, he's not in the position to become a professional football player. Missed chance. I could be a pro basketball player. That's not a big sport here in the Netherlands, so I joined a football club for a few years instead. Missed chance? Perhaps.


So, in my opinion, the exclusivity of the job warrants a big paycheck. And I recommend you not use outliers to prove your point, Messi's salary is not representative of the sport. (Basketball is 'worse' -or at least more extreme-, in that regard. )

[MEZZANINE]

Olympic athletes dont get paid, and these footballers already earn obscene amounts of money at club level so IMO NO they should not be paid for being in the World Cup, if they are only in it for the money they can always refuse to play.


As I said they get paid obscene amounts at club level and IMO that should also stop, I also think a club team should have minimum 90% of it's players from the area it claims to represent, after all what the point in supporting say Liverpool FC if none of the players are from Liverpool.

Silly game anyway, better still play Rugby instead

[[KMA]Avenger]

Olympic athletes dont get paid, and these footballers already earn obscene amounts of money at club level so IMO NO they should not be paid for being in the World Cup, if they are only in it for the money they can always refuse to play.

^+1, not much more i could add to that.

As I said they get paid obscene amounts at club level and IMO that should also stop, I also think a club team should have minimum 90% of it's players from the area it claims to represent, after all what the point in supporting say Liverpool FC if none of the players are from Liverpool.

the way things have gone its a waste of time trying to change it. the clubs want the best players and so have to offer the sorts of money they do, both in wages and transfer fees and they clearly have no conscience in doing so...even if it sinks the club...à la Portsmouth, Manure united, Sunkpool and others of similar stink. the fans moan but are still paying the "obscene" amounts it takes to watch their club-tells the same story, they have no problem with it...not saying its right, simply saying its gone to far and will cause absolute pandemonium if tampered with to much now....


UP THE GUNNERS!

THE INVINCIBLES!!!


the owner of the most dangerous footballing brain EVER!!!

Silly game anyway, better still play Rugby instead

rugby without doubt is the single most boring and stupid game i have ever watched grown men play...


!!!!!

[Thriller]

No i wouldn't pay someone directly to play for my nation. Canada doesn't pay it's hockey players at the olympics.

Well we pay for the room and board... other living expenses... trainers... doctors... That should be enough.

They already make lost of money playing for their "for profit "teams. A free trip to support your nation should be enough. If it's not... i don't want that person on my countries team.

[KnowLedge]

Firstly, clubs games pay more then world cup games, the players have no reason to come in and play, so technically they are playing for pride and not money.

Secondly, you are assuming that the players all have clubs that they go back to. BUT in some countries, international team is the only thing that there is. There are no nation wide leagues. Therefore for some players, this is the only source of income in those tiny countries. this is how it has been for cricket in countries around the world.

Thirdly, in bigger countries, if you dont pay the players, then they wont come out and play because there is n no need for it. the talent will be wasted and we dont want that therefore there should be a source of income for these players.

[Thriller]

Do you guys think the national sporting events like the olympics, world cup.. and others should be "for profit" or about national cooperation through sport?

Maybe another theme you think is better?

[Hitchkok]

rugby without doubt is the single most boring and stupid game i have ever watched grown men play...


!!!!!

Don't watch much baseball, do you?

[[KMA]Avenger]

yank sports remind me of Newcastle football club and its fans...its only big in the states, just as Newcastle is only a big team within the confines of its own fish-bowl.

[Mister Sandman]

Money is just a number......


does it matter whether they get paid large wages or not?

No.

It all amounts to 0 in the end. And you cannot buy everything.

[~Thamuz~]

I agree with you sammael, fooballers get paid more than enough to play club football and earn alot from advertising deals and shouldn't earn a penny playing for there country as yes its an honour to do so. ~T~