Over the years, the astronomical earnings of top-flight footballers have been widely talked about. Considering, on average, a Premier League footballer earns 100 times more in a week than a UK employee – it’s easy to see why there is an underlying controversy.
This debate inspired TicketGum.com to identify 25 England players who are in contention for the World Cup 2018 squad and see how long it would take a person with the same name in the working world to earn their footballing namesake's considerable weekly wage.
To accomplish this, TicketGum.com utilised Adzuna’s ‘ValueMyName’ tool, which analysed over 500,000 CV’s to reveal the average salary for 1,200 first names. Although the first names of England’s two most prominent players (Raheem Sterling and Dele Alli) could not be found on Adzuna’s system, the findings were astonishing.
Experienced goalkeeper Joe Hart has the highest weekly wage out of all the considered footballers. This ironically translates to an average Joe working the longest amount of time at an exact 4 years, 7 months, 1 week and 3 days to earn the £175,000 made by the shot stopper. Thereafter, a normal Kyle would have to work the second most at 4 years, 3 months and 5 days to achieve the £130,000 weekly income of high-flying right-back Kyle Walker.
Individuals called Phil, on average earn the most in the workplace at £1,071.30 per week. Consequently, anyone with the first name Phil must work 10 months, 3 weeks and 2 days to make the weekly wage of centre back Phil Jones (£50,000). Contrastingly, individuals called Jordan earn the least in the workplace at £529.83 per week. This means they would need to work 3 years, 7 months, 2 weeks and 2 days to match the weekly wage of dynamic centre midfielder Jordan Henderson (£100,000).
Putting the spotlight on England’s star player Harry Kane – he not only earns 163 times more in a week than a regular Harry but it would take the regular Harry 3 years, 1 month, 2 weeks and 2 days of work to reach the hefty £100,000 made by the free scoring talisman on a weekly basis.
On the other end of the scale, goalkeeper Tom Heaton has the lowest weekly wage (£15,000) from the included English players. Therefore, a working Tom would have to work the shortest duration of time at 4 months, 2 weeks and 2 days to attain the same sum. Slightly above Tom is Marcus, who would need to work 8 months and 3 weeks to get the weekly £30,000 paid out to the young and exciting Marcus Rashford.
Adam Taylor, a spokesperson from TicketGum.com commented: “Over the years, the disparity between the earnings of footballers and that of normal people has further widened. To show the extent to which that has been the case in a measurable context, this research precisely highlighted the amount of time regular Joes would take to earn their footballing namesake’s weekly wage. The findings demonstrate that most individuals would need to work excess of one to four years just to make the one-week wage of England’s most prolific players – which is truly astounding.”
(Source: TicketGum)
To many casual observers, this Summer’s football transfer window appears to have left the realms of reality. Transfer fees for players have broken records and the total spend in the English Premier League alone stands at an incredible £1.17 billion and with deals still being thrashed out in boardrooms around Europe, that figure is likely to increase.
Even the managers are aghast, with Arsene Wenger deriding the £200 million transfer of Brazillian superstar Neymar Jr to French club Paris St. Germain claiming that the club “cannot justify the investment.” But are the transfer fees actually the ‘crazy money’ that Chelsea manager Antonio Conte has claimed?
As the three-month Summer Transfer Window winds down, it’s easy to look at the figures that clubs seem to be casually throwing around in player transfers and agree with Wenger and Conte, but there is a data to suggest that clubs are actually spending responsibly and well within their means compared to revenue. Despite the fact that Premier League clubs have already broken the record £1.16 billion spent in 2016, the league remains the richest in the world. It has recently begun its new TV deal with Sky and BT which earning the clubs £5.19 billion, and, in addition to this domestic arrangement, TV Deals from overseas will also contribute £1.07 billion a year currently, with contracts already signed to increase these payments from 2019 to as much as £3.2 billion. If you consider from the last full published accounts of all Premier League teams that there was also another £1.74 billion in revenue from merchandise, gate receipts and prize money, the pot of money available becomes larger, allowing for greater investment as it would in any business. The fact is that these figures demonstrate that the £1.17 billion spent in this transfer market does not even reach 20% of the businesses’ yearly revenue.
The graphic above shows that Manchester United have invested 22% of their yearly revenue into players this summer, which breaches that 20% threshold clubs like to adhere to, however it’s important to note that the clubs do not view the outlay as a short-term investment. So a £50 million transfer fee may grab a headline and incite mass hysteria on Twitter, but it will be spread out over the duration of the players contract which in most cases is 4-5 years. In some instances the payments are not just lump sums, but are subject to performance and add-ons dependent on the team’s success, which in turn will bring in increased revenues, sponsorship and ideally prize money meaning that the transfer fee may increase from the outside, but in actuality will constitute a lesser percentage of the clubs revenue for that year.
Many clubs have put in place specific player analysis teams to ensure all transfers are in line with the club’s growth projections and business models. Players are investments, so beyond the obvious on-pitch contribution, clubs have developed models to assist in defining the likelihood of creating a significant return on investment that would make the fee worthwhile.
This is also the case in the world record breaking transfer of Neymar widely derided by press, public and football managers alike. If Paris St. Germain were adhering to the standard and historically accepted 20% of revenue ceiling for player transfers, then Neymar should not have been signed as it exceeds that figure by £50 million. But the analysis predicts that Neymar should add over 6 points to PSG’s season tally, which may be enough to re-capture the league title they ceded to Monaco last year, and increase the chances of further progression in the coveted Champions League. Six points and a good cup run is not all Neymar will be improving. PSG have stated that the signing of Neymar Jr is on a five-year contract with the player spending his peak years both on the pitch and as an advertising and merchandise magnet which is likely to increase the revenue of PSG significantly. Whether it will be significant to cover the investment over 5 years remains to be seen, but it's certainly not as outlandish as it first appears.
The reality is that despite the hysteria and whingeing from opposing managers, the majority of clubs are investing in a way that would be perfectly acceptable in other sectors. And although in the future we will undoubtedly see the first billion pound transfer splashed across the headlines, it will only be when the revenue allows.
Data released in Creditsafe’s Credit Worthiness Premier League, has revealed that Chelsea is set to be relegated from the 2017 Premier League – if the final standings were based on company credit ratings.
Despite having a turnover of over £335million, the football club finds itself with the third worst credit score in the Premier League, with a poor debt/asset ratio and an average of paying invoices 28 days beyond the agreed payment terms, contributing to the club’s low credit rating (45).
The credit scores have been calculated using Creditsafe’s rating model. It combines financial variables including trade payment information, financial ratios, industry sector analysis and director history to assess the risk of insolvency. The algorithm then provides a rating between 0-100 – the higher rating, the better the score.
The teams joining the 2016/17 Premier League champions in the relegation zone are Premier League new boys Newcastle United and Brighton Hove Albion, who have a credit rating of 27 and 21 respectfully.
At the other end of the table, Manchester City (96) is crowned champions just ahead of Leicester City (93), who were the champions of last year’s Credit Worthiness Premier League, with the same credit score. Manchester City who finished 6th in last year’s table with a score of 89, has taken the title this year while enjoying a second successive year of profit and a strong debt/asset ratio which has helped its credit score increase.
Rachel Mainwaring, Operations Director at Creditsafe UK said: “Unfortunately the success of Chelsea last season has not been reflected in its position in our alternative Premier League, as they slip in to the relegation zone, down from 13th in last year’s table.
“As we have seen through the release of clubs’ financial reports and the transfer fees being paid this summer, football clubs are now dealing in extremely large sums of money. With this being a trend set to continue, having a credible credit record will enable Premier League clubs to demonstrate solvency, secure funding and deliver success to the fans.”
