Liverpool FC Forum

by **stmichael** » Thu Oct 06, 2005 12:01 pm

was listening to my local football phone in last night and they got onto talking about a really interesting subject which can be related to liverpool, in particular, harry kewell.

newcastle fans were phoning in and basically airing their discontent at kieron dyer being injured yet again. now as i'm sure you're aware, dyer is another one of these so called football mercenaries who is picking up ridiculous wages (infact he just got a new four year contract and a £20,000 a week rise) to be constantly injured. it reminded me of kewell, who is on a reported £66,000 a week and has hardly played in the last year. i understand that kewell has flown out with australia this week so that their medical team can have a look at him and see if he will be fit to play some part against blackburn so here's hoping.

anyway on to the main point. do you think that players should get paid their full wage packet whilst they are out with a long term injury? can you justify a player getting paid £80,000 a week for being injured? surely there has got to be a way around this. surely whilst out injured, their wage packet should be reduced somewhat.

i only ask because i'm sure that if any of you who are in normal day to day jobs have ever suffered an injury in the workplace, you must have got sick pay or something along those lines. now i bet that this was no greater that £60-70 a week or something like that.

why should footballers be any different to everybody else?

by **DrTNT** » Thu Oct 06, 2005 5:19 pm

Excellent post St Mic. You have raised a good question and I personally think that some of their wages should be reduced by around 20-25% at the very least. Although it would be very hard to get players to agree to this.

by **84-1106852058** » Thu Oct 06, 2005 5:36 pm

I know what you are saying St.Mike,but you cant really compare footballers terms and conditions with the average working man.Not many earn that type of money,and its not often you see a footballer running down to the solicitors when he has injured himself at work.Its just one of those things,personally it gauls me to see Kewell getting payed when he is playing.

What should be looked at,is the unfair procedure of a club being responsible for a players wages when injured on international duty.

by **66-1120597113** » Thu Oct 06, 2005 5:59 pm

Great post !!
I think its a tough one though.
Say Kewell had have been on 50% income you'd bet your motgage he'd have worked a alot harder to come back to full fitness! In his case it would have been a great idea!

But take for example Carra,say he suffered an injury like Cisse had last year(heaven forbid)!! I'd be gutted that such a player who plays for the shirt every time was on half pay!! Ok he'd hardly struggle to pay the mortgage and put spuds on the table but it just would'nt seem fair!!

I guess the safest and fairest way would be to to discuss the situation when signing contracts!!
But then all clubs would say full pay when injured to get the player they want surely!!
Sticky subject this!!

by **stmichael** » Thu Oct 06, 2005 6:18 pm

The Red Baron wrote:personally it gauls me to see Kewell getting payed when he is playing.

by **JC_81** » Thu Oct 06, 2005 9:19 pm

Bit of a pointless argument I think.

A decision to reduce a player's pay when he is injured would be a matter for the club to decide when they are drawing up the contract initially. It would not be a decision that would be made by the FA or UEFA or whoever, it would definitely be a club matter as they can pay players whatever they want.

Therefore, clubs that decided not to reduce wages when the players were injured would get all the best players, simple as. No player will sign for a club that reduces their wages when they're injured when they can sign for another club that will pay them their wages either way. All clubs would end up having to do the latter to attract players anyway and we'd be back to square one.

by **drummerphil** » Fri Oct 07, 2005 7:56 pm

no quite frankly.......i,m off from work since i had a cancer operation 14 weeks ago......getting £60 aweek...... :censored:

joke

by **Lando_Griffin** » Sun Oct 09, 2005 2:45 am

In fairness, if a player is injured while doing the job they were signed for, is it fair for them to lose money? I don't think it is. It would lead to players ducking out of challenges, whether they be full-blooded sliding tackles, or just jumping for headers.
I agree that players injured on International duty should have their wages paid by the FA concerned.

by **112-1077774096** » Sun Oct 09, 2005 5:25 am

also where do you draw the line? wil it be restricetd to premier league players? to be fair i earn more tan a lot of players i the lower leagues already as i am sure most of you do.

we can quite easily get insurance to make sure our bills are paid when we are ill (income replacement), i am sure footballers could get this also but you need to be off work for 3 months before it kicks in, a lot of footballers are injured for one game or two games, also who will decide if the player is injured.

it can lead to players who are not fully fit still wanting to play in the lower leagues, like we say the premier league players can afford it but fred bloggs at MK Dons cant afford to be off, he can make his injury worse.

another question is where does the fault lie anyway over excessive wages? is it the palyers fault? i know i would want as much as i can get of is it the clus fault for giving it?

by **Judge** » Mon Oct 10, 2005 8:16 am

stmichael wrote:
The Red Baron wrote:personally it gauls me to see Kewell getting payed when he is playing.

i agree, hes better left out. weve more chance of losing when he plays. So perhaps we are paying him to stay at home. woohoo :laugh:

Liverpool FC Forum

Should footballers be on full wages when injured?

Who is online