Is it worth big clubs handing out long contracts?

Sunday, August 19th, 2012

Adebayor; Bridge, Berbatov, Kaka and Roque Santa Cruz, Xisco, what do they all have in common? Granted they are all great players (maybe not Xisco) but what makes them all alike is that they are all running down contracts with huge wages and not wanted by their clubs. They all have at least one year to run on their contracts and have a combined annual wage of £34 Million. Yes £34 Million and £18.2 M is on Man City’s wage bill alone.

Adebayor-£170,000 P/W (8.84 M) MCFC

Bridge-£90,000 P/W (4.68 M) MCFC

Berbatov-£110,000 P/W (5.72 M) MUFC

Kaka- £144,000 P/W (7.48 M) RM

Roque Santa Cruz- £90,000 P/W (4.68 M) MCFC

Xisco- £50,000 P/W (2.6 M) NUFC

 

They question is why? Why are they paying these unwanted stars so much just for them to go on loan or sit in the stands? All of these players have long 4/5 year contracts with the clubs powerless to stop the players from simply turning up to training and collecting their pay packets.

 

Surely in some cases it would be worth awarding players with shorter term contracts which are reviewed more frequently to tie down the player if they are performing and earning their wages. Of course you could argue that clubs sign players for millions of pounds and you need to ensure that they cannot move on for free, although you equally run the financial risk of running up huge wage bills for unwanted players, which sometimes even eclipse the transfer fee’s themselves.

 

In the case of the very top level clubs it makes more sense to sign players on 3 year contracts and review them annually, because in most cases if a player is playing well at a big club on high wages why would they want to move away.

 

Comments Welcome

Comments are closed.