I'm not sure I agree that success on the field is directly reflected in the ability to pay high wages.
Certainly, in the EPL, qualification to the Champions League guarantees millions in revenue. However, look at Leeds in the 3rd tier of English football attracting 30,000 supporters, while clubs like Swansea only get 6 or 7000.
If Man Utd somehow fell into the Championship, they would still get crowds of 40,000. Wigan in the EPL are struggling because they cannot afford the players they need because their attendances are so low (when they played Gillingham in the League 1 play offs at Wembley they only managed 20,000, whereas Gillingham took over 45,000. Wolves in the Championship on the other hand probably get 25,000 to their matches and have done for years, but they can't get out of the Championship.
Its a puzzle. But you have to say that this new breed of foreign Chairmen are assisting clubs to buy success. My fears are that when they all get bored and walk away from football, how on earth will clubs afford £135,000 per week salaries?
I've always believed players should be paid as much as they can get, but there should be a reaonable cap to that. I'd rather see JT earn £80,000 and see the other £55,000 filter down to the guys at Barnet and Hereford who work just as hard in much less plush surroundings. Yes I know talent should be rewarded, but surely £1 million a year plus any sponsorship deals should be enough for anyone?
Bakes, your right of course. If the clubs are going to pay those wages, why shouldn't the players ask for the money. I would just like to see more parity.
I spoke to a guy in the championship who started with Chelsea the same time as Frank Lampard. His wages were around £120,000 per year. He praised Lampard and applauded his talent. But he pointed out that Lampard was not 40 times better than him. Yes he should be paid more...perhaps even 10 times more, but 40 times more is extreme!