earnings

[kurtinsc]

Yes I'm sure competitive eaters also must be great athletes too then?

Humans should never be that size and be considered true athletes.

Can you run a 40-yard dash in 5 seconds?

Look, they're pumped full of steroids, but they aren't fat slobs with no athleticism. They're pharmaceutically enhanced freaks who can do things athletically that are hard for people who are a normal size at 6'5"+ and 300+ pounds.

 

[avanti]

More significant than having a contract was having an agent to represent him. That's what changed it all.

I agree - that's what I meant by "contracts manager" - but you picked a better title. But I do recall that greg's father was involved also.

 

[kurtinsc]

Methinks your blinded by jealousy.

The players are the product in professional athletics. Without the players, there is no money for the owners.

With most large service based industries, wages and salaries for employees make up the vast majority of expenses. Hospitals pay out between 50 and 65% of revenues to salaries, wages and benefits.

Yeah, the NFL makes a TON of money. But it's a service industry based primarily on the services of the players we watch. Their salaries SHOULD eat up the bulk of the revenue.

For comparison... MLB teams made a total of 4.269 BILLION dollars in revenue in 2005. They spent 2.19 billion in player payroll.

Just about 50%.

I simply don't have a problem with players getting that size a chunk of revenue when they are the product being sold. I'm certainly not going to complain about their salary being 10 million a year when the owner is making 250 million a year. I don't want them cut down to 100,000 a year so the owner gets 450-500 million a year instead.

 

[The Hitch]

Methinks your blinded by jealousy.

The players are the product in professional athletics. Without the players, there is no money for the owners.

With most large service based industries, wages and salaries for employees make up the vast majority of expenses. Hospitals pay out between 50 and 65% of revenues to salaries, wages and benefits.

Yeah, the NFL makes a TON of money. But it's a service industry based primarily on the services of the players we watch. Their salaries SHOULD eat up the bulk of the revenue.

2 points. 1 about the jealousy claim – its cheap. 2 about the idea that footballers put “bums in seats”.

1 Say what you want, but as I said I think its cheap
“ you must be jealous”. No it cant be that I simply think its wrong. No. Jealousy it is.

I oppose murder too. But then again, im probably just jealous of the thrill those guys get when they put a bullet into someones head.

I identified exactly why I think its wrong. When banana farmers get more than 0.1 % of every banana they sell, and 10 year old ****stanis making shoes for nike, get more than 10p out of every $100 pair sold, then you can lecture me that millionaires deserve more 50% of their companies earnings.

Oh and I really would like to see you try to tell one of those poor African farmers that they must be jealous of the fact that there are rich brats in Europe and Hollywood with enough money to buy their country. Its not just athletes. I think the same of singers and actors.

2 I am certainatly not of the opinion that the footballers are the ones who bring the people there. If it wasn’t for the trainers, the facilities, who build them up, the guys who give them the steroids, and most importantly the advertisers who make nfl seem important in the first place. That is the key variable here. Why do nfl players get more than cyclists, soccer players more than volleyballers, sprinters more than marathoners? Why do Basketballers get more money than rugby players in spain, but the other way round in France?

Because the media has been able to convince more people that category a is more important. No matter how good the players, their teams woulnd not be getting a tenth of that 4 billion, if the media wasn’t doing its job advertising the games, screening them, putting them up on ppv, writing about it in the newspapers.

On the face of it it may seem that its all footballers. But behind the scenes there is more to it than that.

The ceos don’t deserve the billion dollars either. But under no circumstances to athletes deserve millions. Never. They just don’t.

 

[Ryo Hazuki]

I disagree strongly.

In any sport, the atheletes need to get at least half of what's left after other expenses. If in the NFL the owners of teams would make a billion dollars in profit after all their non-player salary expenses, then player salaries should be at least 500 million for that year.

If they aren't, then the atheletes are getting screwed.


It's about percentage, not total compensation. Why should the people we actually pay to watch get less so a billionare owner can get more? It's not going to be cheaper for us, it just means the players get a smaller cut. That's not right.

look at all the decoder ****. look at how expensive it is to broadcast football, especially championsleagues, these need to go down seriously as well as commercialisation of sports. it's ridiculous why does everything need a sponsor?? so sporter x can make 3 million dollars?? he would do just fine with 300.000 dollars

 

[Ryo Hazuki]

I have never been able to understand competitive eating but some of them arent fat at all...

i think the low wages in cycling support doping as well... because riders need that win to gain more salary and pay for their family and their mortgage... when one gets in trouble they might think doping is one of their options

yeah like you can buy epo or cera when you make 40.000 a year

 

[El Pistolero]

yeah like you can buy epo or cera when you make 40.000 a year

Your team leader can.

 

[skidmark]

The ceos don’t deserve the billion dollars either. But under no circumstances to athletes deserve millions. Never. They just don’t.

okay, so based on your argument that advertising puts bums in the seats, are you saying you think advertisers deserve the millions?

or that nobody does? If that's the case, it would be interesting to see what that kind of sport could look like...

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

okay, so based on your argument that advertising puts bums in the seats, are you saying you think advertisers deserve the millions? ....or that nobody does? If that's the case, it would be interesting to see what that kind of sport could look like...

I vaguely recall there was something called amateur sports back in the old days.....jes saying

 

[The Hitch]

okay, so based on your argument that advertising puts bums in the seats, are you saying you think advertisers deserve the millions?

or that nobody does? If that's the case, it would be interesting to see what that kind of sport could look like...

No. the point about the advertising was that Kurtinic claimed it was the players who brought in the masses and hence deserve a certain share of the money for it. ANd my responce was that if you take that logic, the players do not deserve as big a share as he thinks.

The players wouldnt be getting the masses in to the seats if the masses didnt think the sport was important, which is the responsibility of advertisers, journalists etc.

Personally im opposed to anybody getting easy millions, while half the world lives in poverty, and im reminding kurtinic and others, that theres something unjust about claiming millionare footballers should more money based of their contribution to a company, when the rest of the world doesnt abide by these standards.

I kinow its not going to happen (a world were sports "stars" get less), but that wont stop me from hoping it, and enjoying the displeasure of athletes (ie when they cry after losing) in the proccess.

Like may middle class students before me, i take up the cause of those less fortunate, knowing that i can justify a lot of things by pointing to their misfortune.

 

[pmcg76]

I think everyone needs to consider that American sports are managed and run very differently than most other sports events. To compare American football with Soccer for example is like comparing apples and oranges, totally different.

US Sports are more about entertainment and profit than actual sport,this is where US and European ideas about sport diverge. Take American football, its based around advertising, thus it takes 3hrs to play a 1hr game. Do they really need a break after each kick-off, the 2 minute warning etc. For Europeans brought up on Soccer, Rugby etc, its complete bull**** but that is how US Sports pull in so much money, they are tailored for television.

US Sports are also closed shops, no prmotion/relegation just the same amount of teams unless for expansion etc. No worries about losing money, if a team are not happy somewhere, they can just move the franchsie(within reason of course) If money is the main concern, then the US Sports format is the ideal structure and this is what F1 has done and what the UCI are trying to achieve with the ProTour.

Do I think US Sportstars are grossly overpaid, of course bus as pointed out that how their system works. However I totally understand what Hitch is saying but I think reproaching soccer would be more realistic. Here we have clubs who pay fortunes to their players but are in debt all the time. Real Madrid are in debt, Barcelona are in debt, countless big teams in England are in debt. If a rule was brought in today that all clubs had to be debt free, most Soccer clubs would be screwed and nobody cares apart form UEFA president Michele Platini who is trying to bring in such a rule. The Champions legaue is starting to become like US Sports with the same teams all the time.

The plethora of super rich owners who **** money down the drain just to have a play thing is what is most perverse, guys like Abramovich, the Sheiks etc who could run countless poor countries on what they waste on football but I guess thats capitalism for ya.

 

[The Hitch]

I think everyone needs to consider that American sports are managed and run very differently than most other sports events. To compare American football with Soccer for example is like comparing apples and oranges, totally different.

US Sports are more about entertainment and profit than actual sport,this is where US and European ideas about sport diverge. Take American football, its based around advertising, thus it takes 3hrs to play a 1hr game. Do they really need a break after each kick-off, the 2 minute warning etc. For Europeans brought up on Soccer, Rugby etc, its complete bull**** but that is how US Sports pull in so much money, they are tailored for television.

US Sports are also closed shops, no prmotion/relegation just the same amount of teams unless for expansion etc. No worries about losing money, if a team are not happy somewhere, they can just move the franchsie(within reason of course) If money is the main concern, then the US Sports format is the ideal structure and this is what F1 has done and what the UCI are trying to achieve with the ProTour.
.

I disagree that euro sports are less about money. Well soccer at least.

It is becoming increasingly difficult to even see a football match without paying £50 ($75) a month for sky. For many families, that is impossible. You cant pay that much for tv. It certainatly isnt a sport for the people. And if you want to watch it live. Chelsea season ticket is over 1 grand a year. Thats for 18 matches. You have to pay more for anything else.

So you cant actually watch it without paying money. And when you do, your bombarded by ads. They stick ads into every little corner of every stadium. Then they started making the ads electronic, so they changed every few seconds and you had to pay more to get your brand name there. Every team has multi million dollar sponsorship deals. In the case of Barca, Man utd, AC we are talking about sums approaching a billion dollars for a ten year deal.
But its not just with a sports company - nike, addidas etc. No thats just the top right hand corner. In the middle theres a second sponsor which too pays about 15 mil a year to have their name on the shirt.

And the stadiums as well. Just like the "toronto sky dome" (great name) became the "rogers centre", teams are starting to name their stadiums after sponsors. It sure as hell isnt a love for the UAE that made arsenal name their home the "Emirates stadium".

And those are just the team sponsors. Just like snickers or whatever sponsor the superbowl, they do the same for the champions league. Coca colas has "win a signed inter shirt" competitions etc etc etc.

You might say that they dont have breaks during games based around sponsors. Your right, but they dont have to. Actually its being considered. Itv had a " accident" in the world cup when a break just happened to come on during play. They are talking about quick breaks while players are recieving on pitch treatment, and subliminal messages during play. and they get more than enough from all the other stuff.

And remember, when the new york giants or the new orleans saints play, the fans dont see a big sign saying "samsung" or "Coca cola" or wahtever, on their shirts. When chelsea play real madrid, they do.

 

[flicker]

I disagree that euro sports are less about money. Well soccer at least.

It is becoming increasingly difficult to even see a football match without paying £50 ($75) a month for sky. For many families, that is impossible. You cant pay that much for tv. It certainatly isnt a sport for the people. And if you want to watch it live. Chelsea season ticket is over 1 grand a year. Thats for 18 matches. You have to pay more for anything else.

So you cant actually watch it without paying money. And when you do, your bombarded by ads. They stick ads into every little corner of every stadium. Then they started making the ads electronic, so they changed every few seconds and you had to pay more to get your brand name there. Every team has multi million dollar sponsorship deals. In the case of Barca, Man utd, AC we are talking about sums approaching a billion dollars for a ten year deal.
But its not just with a sports company - nike, addidas etc. No thats just the top right hand corner. In the middle theres a second sponsor which too pays about 15 mil a year to have their name on the shirt.

And the stadiums as well. Just like the "toronto sky dome" (great name) became the "rogers centre", teams are starting to name their stadiums after sponsors. It sure as hell isnt a love for the UAE that made arsenal name their home the "Emirates stadium".

And those are just the team sponsors. Just like snickers or whatever sponsor the superbowl, they do the same for the champions league. Coca colas has "win a signed inter shirt" competitions etc etc etc.

You might say that they dont have breaks during games based around sponsors. Your right, but they dont have to. Actually its being considered. Itv had a " accident" in the world cup when a break just happened to come on during play. They are talking about quick breaks while players are recieving on pitch treatment, and subliminal messages during play. and they get more than enough from all the other stuff.

And remember, when the new york giants or the new orleans saints play, the fans dont see a big sign saying "samsung" or "Coca cola" or wahtever, on their shirts. When chelsea play real madrid, they do.

American football is way more expensive, don't complain. Soccer is a much better healthier sport. I wouldn't want my kids around those english football louts though. American fans are much more respectful and less drunk. English pro matches, well I am old enough and wise enough to stay away, me lifes to valuable mate! I do not know about the coke adds though.

 

[hwyrngr]

American football is way more expensive, don't complain. Soccer is a much better healthier sport. I wouldn't want my kids around those english football louts though. American fans are much more respectful and less drunk. English pro matches, well I am old enough and wise enough to stay away, me lifes to valuable mate! I do not know about the coke adds though.

You need to go to an Oakland Raiders game.

 

[pedaling squares]

That's a waste of money if you ask me.

Not sure I agree there. Hushovd brings a lot of exposure to his sponsors, is competitive in some of the biggest races of the year, and avoids controversy. Not a bad investment.

Makes me sad though what a NFL player makes just by being overweight and blocking somebody. Their job is to be a human wall for goodness sake.

Kurt's already discussed their athleticism. Consider also that their career average is about 5 yrs, and many deal with wrecked bodies, concussive syndromes, and other problems by their 'retirement' years aka their 30's. All that to bring in a fraction of what the money men on the teams make.

good point. I think you are right.
I wonder why that is.....

I think because endurance sports are not made for TV, which inevitably affects revenues. We forumites are huge fans of the sport and yet on many of the race threads the comments made in real time are about how boring and controlled the race is. View this from the perspective of a less experienced fan. Sports like soccer, hockey etc offer more in terms of unexpected, fast-paced action. Made for TV. They generate more revenue, thus higher salaries.

What other businesses treat their workers this fairly?

Certainly not businesses whose employees don't provide a skill set possessed by less than 0.00001% of the population. That's about the level of skill that professional athletes possess. The teams cannot generate the same revenues if they replaced their players with second-tier players, so they generally share a percentage of revenues with the players associations.

 

[skidmark]

No. the point about the advertising was that Kurtinic claimed it was the players who brought in the masses and hence deserve a certain share of the money for it. ANd my responce was that if you take that logic, the players do not deserve as big a share as he thinks.

The players wouldnt be getting the masses in to the seats if the masses didnt think the sport was important, which is the responsibility of advertisers, journalists etc.

Personally im opposed to anybody getting easy millions, while half the world lives in poverty, and im reminding kurtinic and others, that theres something unjust about claiming millionare footballers should more money based of their contribution to a company, when the rest of the world doesnt abide by these standards.

I kinow its not going to happen (a world were sports "stars" get less), but that wont stop me from hoping it, and enjoying the displeasure of athletes (ie when they cry after losing) in the proccess.

Like may middle class students before me, i take up the cause of those less fortunate, knowing that i can justify a lot of things by pointing to their misfortune.

Right. I have the same viewpoint, although from a labour perspective, I feel like generally I'm more sympathetic to the employees than the employers, so I feel like big American pro sports, on that level, are a successful case of labour struggle. At the same time, I feel the whole thing is a huge sham and the 'success' of the 'struggle' has little to do with the effort of the employees/athletes, and much to do with how much leverage they get from being in their fortunate position in the spotlight, able to influence public opinion in a way that no factory worker can realistically do. It actually makes it more of a shame that most millionaire athletes don't seem to recognize that aspect of things, because they seem like they'd be in an ideal position to make people aware of those labour dynamics, and make people realize the unfairness that dominates most things. But of course, Derek Jeter probably isn't versed in soft Marxist critique of the labour system.

Your point about advertising, as well as the comment above it by another poster about amateur sport, hits on what I was trying to get at - pro sports is a ridiculous monster. Just look at the Olympics. Even when I was a kid (I'm 30 now), it was strictly a showcase of 'amateur' sport. And then once it built up its own hype as the pinnacle of human physical excellence (as well as a barf-inducingly banal metaphor for global unity), it realized its revenue potential and boom, it is where it is now, pro basketball players, cyclists, tennis players, hockey, whatever, not to mention exclusive advertising deals and stories like how some stores in Beijing were forced to take down ads for soft drinks that weren't coke or whatever... marketing is so huge for the Olympics, it can treat global capital cities as it's economic schoolyard with it as the bully. The fact that many of these participants, in what is supposed to be a celebration of sport for the sake of sport, make more money than any middle-class individual in North America can even imagine what to do with just undermines the whole thing, in my opinion. And that's largely due to hype and advertising, both on the salary and olympic participation sides.

Anyway - to summarize in a way that's on topic(ish) - salaries in pro sports, I feel, are part of that skewed system that, in my opinion, totally sucks. That said, pro cyclist salaries of 24k euros or whatever are pretty crazy low for the amount of sacrifice someone has to put in to be a pro racer. Not a bad amount to take home, but you don't really have the opportunity/time to build a household to take it home to.

 

[flicker]

You need to go to an Oakland Raiders game.

I came from the CITY SF. I work construction I know those louts in Oakland, actually nice hard working stiffs.

What I am saying is there is an eriee sense of darkness in the one match of Real Football I attended in Littlehampton like a dark sharpened razor. Skinheads. Dark, you could not visit a pub in the town there was a reason.

Not like Oakland, I have been around the Angels there, you show respect you get respect, in England different, at the matches.

 

[pmcg76]

I disagree that euro sports are less about money. Well soccer at least.

It is becoming increasingly difficult to even see a football match without paying £50 ($75) a month for sky. For many families, that is impossible. You cant pay that much for tv. It certainatly isnt a sport for the people. And if you want to watch it live. Chelsea season ticket is over 1 grand a year. Thats for 18 matches. You have to pay more for anything else.

So you cant actually watch it without paying money. And when you do, your bombarded by ads. They stick ads into every little corner of every stadium. Then they started making the ads electronic, so they changed every few seconds and you had to pay more to get your brand name there. Every team has multi million dollar sponsorship deals. In the case of Barca, Man utd, AC we are talking about sums approaching a billion dollars for a ten year deal.
But its not just with a sports company - nike, addidas etc. No thats just the top right hand corner. In the middle theres a second sponsor which too pays about 15 mil a year to have their name on the shirt.

And the stadiums as well. Just like the "toronto sky dome" (great name) became the "rogers centre", teams are starting to name their stadiums after sponsors. It sure as hell isnt a love for the UAE that made arsenal name their home the "Emirates stadium".

And those are just the team sponsors. Just like snickers or whatever sponsor the superbowl, they do the same for the champions league. Coca colas has "win a signed inter shirt" competitions etc etc etc.

You might say that they dont have breaks during games based around sponsors. Your right, but they dont have to. Actually its being considered. Itv had a " accident" in the world cup when a break just happened to come on during play. They are talking about quick breaks while players are recieving on pitch treatment, and subliminal messages during play. and they get more than enough from all the other stuff.

And remember, when the new york giants or the new orleans saints play, the fans dont see a big sign saying "samsung" or "Coca cola" or wahtever, on their shirts. When chelsea play real madrid, they do.

I agree, of course advertising is big bucks in Soccer but its miniscule in comparison to US Sports, how many big European clubs who have big advertising deals are turning a profit, none to very few. If it werent for the rich sugar dads, clubs like Real Madrid, Inter, Barcelona, Chelsea, Man City would be dead in the water. My point is the American sports structure allows franchsies to be more profitable that European Soccer clubs.

On admission prices to games, I think American sports are actually more expensive to attend, I have been to Soccer games in all the major European leagues and they vary, Engalnd is a rip-off, I went to see a second level game a few years ago and it was more expenive than going to see Milan in the San Siro, I got into a Spanish top fight game for €15 which is very cheap I think.

American sports have bigger fan bases also, take New England Patriots for example, New England is made up of six states where technically most people will follow the Pats, thats one team for the whole region. That would be like having one team in the UK or Switzerland or wherever in Europe so everyone follows that one team whether in Northern Maine or Rhode Island, they are more like national teams.

In summary, American sports can afford to pay their players big moneys whilst European Soccer clubs pay their players big money(small in compariosn to US) but usually are in debt doing so. Believe me, I think they are all paid too much as well, its criminal when compared with normal working people. I would like to see it change but most sports look at the US structure in envy which is why many sports are heading down the US route, i.e Champions league, ProTour.

I dont think the US structure is the way to go but its better than having teams in debt paying out huge money to players when they cant afford to. Overall, Pro Sport is so warped that I find it difficult to empathise with the sports I loved when growing up. Maybe I should just stick with the good old amateur ethos of Gaelic games in Ireland.

 

[The Hitch]

In summary, American sports can afford to pay their players big moneys whilst European Soccer clubs pay their players big money(small in compariosn to US) .

Amall compared to the us?

How much do NFL guys get? Because in europe a top league player (so spains top league, englands top league, itlaies top league etc) gets an average of £60 000 ($90 000) a week. Bare in mind that each of these leagues has about 600 players. The second leagues are also making millionares. To put it another way, in a sport like tennis, if you are not in the world top 100 you dont get the millions. In european soccer, the world number 2000 is getting millions.

American sports have bigger fan bases also,

I really doubt that. First of all, accross england the big teams have fans all over the country. Most of the people i knew growing up in london were manchester utd fans even though theyd never been near the place.

But more importantly, the big teams, man utd and chelsea, are true multinational corporations. They expand all they can into the third world. In nigeria people were killed in fan clashes last time Man utd played chelsea 3000 miles away. Manchester make sure to make a tour of asia now and again, then boast that they have millions of fans in asia. I read an article last week, where the author was really proud of how in etheopia, that fixture (man utd v chelsea) is a national holliday.

Whenever the news or documentaries show africa, half the people are always wearing a arsenal or ac milan or liverpool shirt.

In fact if you want to talk about sports being built around money, consider that just 20 years ago, all Premiership league matches took place on a saturday 3 pm. Now they take place over saturday sunday and monday at various times, so that more of them can be televised on ppv, and so that foreign markets can screen them at a convient time too.

The fact that many of these participants, in what is supposed to be a celebration of sport for the sake of sport, make more money than any middle-class individual in North America can even imagine what to do with just undermines the whole thing, in my opinion.

this i hate most.

Exhibit a: "Never mix sports with politics". - never tell us we earn too much money, thats mixing sport with politics. Never tell us we cant ban people from attending based on their nationality, race etc , thats mixing sport with politics. And dont dare say a word about human rights abuses in North Korea, while they are at the world cup. Unless you want us to accuse you of that crime, you should support their national team, because we are in the proccess of uniting the world.

Exhibit b: "However politically we are a benevolent force in the world". We unite the world, we are a message for peace. Politicians are evil, us athletes and ioc/fifa board members are benevolent. When you let us into politics, we help you.


The biggest hypocricy in the history of mankind

 

[nobilis]

Just like most other pro sports, most people don't make very much.

I think that riders salary doesn't follow a bell-shaped normal distribution, it's definitely skewed to the right due to the few cyclists who earn millions a year while most of the others being in the range 25000-50000 Euros

 

[Mambo95]

How much do NFL guys get? Because in europe a top league player (so spains top league, englands top league, itlaies top league etc) gets an average of £60 000 ($90 000) a week.

You're over exaggerating the earnings of premier league players there. But not in relation to NFL players.

The average salary for various leagues are:

NBA - £2.62m
MLB - £1.82m
Premier League - £1.46m (£28,000 per week)
NFL - £1.2

But the highest salaries in the US leagues aren't matched by the highest salaries in English football (not even the ridiculous wages of Tevez and Toure)

Interstingly, per week, the Indian Premier League (cricket) is second only to the NBA, but it only lasts six weeks.

Source:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/news/7530789/Premiership-stars-are-poor-men-of-sport.html

 

[craig1985]

I think everyone needs to consider that American sports are managed and run very differently than most other sports events. To compare American football with Soccer for example is like comparing apples and oranges, totally different.

US Sports are more about entertainment and profit than actual sport,this is where US and European ideas about sport diverge. Take American football, its based around advertising, thus it takes 3hrs to play a 1hr game. Do they really need a break after each kick-off, the 2 minute warning etc. For Europeans brought up on Soccer, Rugby etc, its complete bull**** but that is how US Sports pull in so much money, they are tailored for television.

US Sports are also closed shops, no prmotion/relegation just the same amount of teams unless for expansion etc. No worries about losing money, if a team are not happy somewhere, they can just move the franchsie(within reason of course) If money is the main concern, then the US Sports format is the ideal structure and this is what F1 has done and what the UCI are trying to achieve with the ProTour.

Do I think US Sportstars are grossly overpaid, of course bus as pointed out that how their system works. However I totally understand what Hitch is saying but I think reproaching soccer would be more realistic. Here we have clubs who pay fortunes to their players but are in debt all the time. Real Madrid are in debt, Barcelona are in debt, countless big teams in England are in debt. If a rule was brought in today that all clubs had to be debt free, most Soccer clubs would be screwed and nobody cares apart form UEFA president Michele Platini who is trying to bring in such a rule. The Champions legaue is starting to become like US Sports with the same teams all the time.

The plethora of super rich owners who **** money down the drain just to have a play thing is what is most perverse, guys like Abramovich, the Sheiks etc who could run countless poor countries on what they waste on football but I guess thats capitalism for ya.

Those rules are a load of crap. I mean Barcelona lost more then 70m euro, and there is no way in hell UEFA would have the balls to exclude them from the Champions League.