Post: My view on footballers pay wage
Options
08-28-2011, 09:20 AM
#1
vTiger.
Banned
Samuel Eto'o is playing for Anzhi Makhachkala in Dagestan. £1.458.333. Per month. £364.583. Per weekk. £52.083. Per day. £2.170. Per hour. £36.16. Per minute. 60p. Per Second. And for 6 of those days he's doing nothing and for the one day he does something its only for 90 minutes!
A regular British or American soldier works 7 days a week 24/7 and is risking there life and only earning around £267 a week in Phase 1 training, which rises to at least £17,265 a year depending on which Army job they do. Some roles get specialist pay, which can be worth at least an extra £19 per day.
There salary will increase annually as there career continues, regardless of promotion and extra responsibilities.
Within five years they could reach the rank of Sergeant and earn up to £32,756 a year where as Samuel Eto'o earns £1,749,999,6 a year and that would take The Sergeant more than 35000 years of his life to earn that kind of wage which is a sickening though thinking that he is fighting for his country nearly losing his life when a footballer is kicking a footbal around for 90 minutes getting paid them wages
So please quote me if you entirely agree that Soldiers should get paid more than footballers
R.I.P To All the fallen soldiers both American,British and all our other allies who lost there lives in war fighting for there country. :frown:
Eto'o Living a Happy Life
[ATTACH=CONFIG]11446[/ATTACH]
Eto'o at the end of the day with a nice car
[ATTACH=CONFIG]11449[/ATTACH]
British and American soldier on a normal days work
[ATTACH=CONFIG]11447[/ATTACH]
Outcome of the war they have to fight at the end of the day
[ATTACH=CONFIG]11448[/ATTACH]
08-29-2011, 12:45 AM
#29
E0000B6FAF25838
Nikolai Reznov
Originally posted by vTiger
Yeah a world without soldier there would be loads of people bombing us now think mate
A world without soldiers would mean there would be no soldiers to bomb us.
Originally posted by Dave
I've read through most of this thread and the posts, and I think it's ridiculous that you're all painting the footballers out to be the guilty party here. It's not their fault that their employers are choosing to pay them extortionate wages, which have become overly inflated by the likes of Manchester City who are paying incredible wages to attract talented footballers, when perhaps their prospects of winning trophies aren't enough to pull them in (although this scenario has changed with City now as they are competing for trophies).
Also, I don't see how a footballer's wage is in any way correlated to what someone from the army is paid. I disagree with footballer's being paid so much but for the sake of football, and the football clubs without a rich owner, not because someone from the army is paid less. Nobody needs the silly money they're paid, but you could argue that someone from the army deserves to be paid more - that's fine to suggest, but where is it going to come from? If they raised taxes I'm sure there'd be a less-than-pleased reaction because there are thousands who can't afford to pay more, barely scraping by.
People choose to join the army, fully knowing how much they are paid and what is at stake, I have a lot of respect for them because I know I would never have the courage to enlist, but I wouldn't say I feel sympathy for them because they're not paid as much as footballers. In an idealistic world they should be paid more, or the same, but footballer's work for their wages; whether they deserve that much is obviously questionable, but they're doing nothing wrong.
Also, I don't see how a footballer's wage is in any way correlated to what someone from the army is paid. I disagree with footballer's being paid so much but for the sake of football, and the football clubs without a rich owner, not because someone from the army is paid less. Nobody needs the silly money they're paid, but you could argue that someone from the army deserves to be paid more - that's fine to suggest, but where is it going to come from? If they raised taxes I'm sure there'd be a less-than-pleased reaction because there are thousands who can't afford to pay more, barely scraping by.
People choose to join the army, fully knowing how much they are paid and what is at stake, I have a lot of respect for them because I know I would never have the courage to enlist, but I wouldn't say I feel sympathy for them because they're not paid as much as footballers. In an idealistic world they should be paid more, or the same, but footballer's work for their wages; whether they deserve that much is obviously questionable, but they're doing nothing wrong.
I fully agree. However, the argument could be made that more athletes should give money to charity. Large sums of money. I see no plausible need for over a million dollars a year. I'd say cap all athletes' (and for that matter, actors'
salaries at 1 million and donate the overflow to charities of the persons' choice. A million a year is WAY MORE than enough for a comfortable lifestyle, it's not enough to build or buy huge mansions, but it's certainly a great sum more than your average worker's pay.
08-29-2011, 08:41 AM
#31
vTiger.
Banned
Originally posted by E0000B6FAF25838
A world without soldiers would mean there would be no soldiers to bomb us.I fully agree. However, the argument could be made that more athletes should give money to charity. Large sums of money. I see no plausible need for over a million dollars a year. I'd say cap all athletes' (and for that matter, actors'
salaries at 1 million and donate the overflow to charities of the persons' choice. A million a year is WAY MORE than enough for a comfortable lifestyle, it's not enough to build or buy huge mansions, but it's certainly a great sum more than your average worker's pay.
Soldiers dont bomb people im on about the al quada (taliban) who bomb use think about 911 that was done by the al quieda dont even know how to spell it and the soldiers are out there to fight them off!
08-29-2011, 10:31 PM
#33
E0000B6FAF25838
Nikolai Reznov
Originally posted by vTiger
Soldiers dont bomb people im on about the al quada (taliban) who bomb use think about 911 that was done by the al quieda dont even know how to spell it and the soldiers are out there to fight them off!
They did a great job of fighting off those planes on 9/11, didn't they? /sarcasm
Soldiers aren't out there to fight off Al Qaeda. They're out there to fight other soldiers. Sometimes they have an opportunity to hurt Al Qaeda, sure, but it's unlikely that that's their primary objective. Also, would Al Qaeda even be an enemy if it weren't for our troops?
Copyright © 2026, NextGenUpdate.
All Rights Reserved.
