View Full Version : Wages
Dee4life
28-10-2007, 09:01
Does anyone know the average wage for Permiership referees?
I'm sure it's like 70 grand a year.. I can't find out on Google :(
boro_boy
28-10-2007, 09:36
70k, thats a lot isn't it for refereeing.
Simonutd
28-10-2007, 09:38
not considering how hard it is to get to that stage and compare it to how much a footballer earns
boro_boy
28-10-2007, 09:39
Not really a demanding job though, 90min of making quick decisions and running about. I could do that, for about 5 min.
Simonutd
28-10-2007, 09:55
they have to train and keep in shape, they got to run around all game
Im doing my referees courses soon. :D
notts ref
28-10-2007, 19:42
Right, well after having limited info from a SG Ref, the basic wage is around £30,000. Then expenses for each match at around £1,000. Obviously more if you referee in Europe.
However nearly all SG Referees will have another job on the side, just to get away from football.
TheManInBlack
28-10-2007, 20:23
Not really a demanding job though, 90min of making quick decisions and running about. I could do that, for about 5 min.
And playing is a demanding job? Compared to doctors, nurses, police, etc who have a role in saving lives?
A Premiership referee will earn in a year what some footballers will in 3 days. Now I don't have a problem with that, but I wouldn't say their wage is excessive considering what comes with the job, being slated in the press, berated by managers etc for making honest decisions.
It'll take a Prem ref about 10 years to get to that stage, essentially it seems an easy job, so why don't many people do it? That is why the wage at the top is a fairly high bracket, but nothing compared to most in such high profile jobs.
The wage had to be relatively high as when the SG was first formed in 2002, many of the refs were in their late 30s, early 40s, so probably had built themselves to being relatively successful in their own careers, it needed some commitment to give that up (or at least let go a bit) to be full time. Though, as Notts ref has said, most still have part time jobs to keep occupied.
wednesday4life
28-10-2007, 22:17
70k's not really that much when you consider it's now full-time and they are forced to retire at what, 48?
Middlesbrough No1 Fan
28-10-2007, 22:18
70k, thats a lot isn't it for refereeing.
well considering wherever they go, every one will hate their guts.. :nodyes:
triniboi101
28-10-2007, 22:54
70k's not really that much when you consider it's now full-time and they are forced to retire at what, 48?
Nope. They're forced to retire from FIFA at 45 but can stay on in the premiership until they please. For example Dermot Gallagher retired last season at 52.
wednesday4life
28-10-2007, 23:02
is that the same dermott gallagher that still hasn't reached 52?
and is it also the first one that was granted an extension beyond the domestic retirement age of 48 since 1994?
see- if i felt like doing research to start with i wouldn't have needed to make it a question
triniboi101
28-10-2007, 23:37
Bloody hell. Would you like my head now??
Yes playing is a demanding job. I hate it when people say doctors and nurses should be on as much as footballers, its got nout to do with footballers how much doctors and nurses are on, thats Gordon Browns problem.
Of corse footballers should get a share in the millions of pounds they make for their club.
And playing is a demanding job? Compared to doctors, nurses, police, etc who have a role in saving lives?
A Premiership referee will earn in a year what some footballers will in 3 days. Now I don't have a problem with that, but I wouldn't say their wage is excessive considering what comes with the job, being slated in the press, berated by managers etc for making honest decisions.
It'll take a Prem ref about 10 years to get to that stage, essentially it seems an easy job, so why don't many people do it? That is why the wage at the top is a fairly high bracket, but nothing compared to most in such high profile jobs.
The wage had to be relatively high as when the SG was first formed in 2002, many of the refs were in their late 30s, early 40s, so probably had built themselves to being relatively successful in their own careers, it needed some commitment to give that up (or at least let go a bit) to be full time. Though, as Notts ref has said, most still have part time jobs to keep occupied.
wednesday4life
29-10-2007, 09:26
since when is it the players that make the club money?
tv will pay no matter whose playing and fans turn up because it's their club- players have make very little difference to income
Are you being serious?
Would the TV pay the club money if they had no players?
Would Liverpool get like 50m if the players didn't get them the champions leauge final?
Would you pay for a season ticket to go and watch no players?
Would you buy a shirt for a football team that had no players?
since when is it the players that make the club money?
tv will pay no matter whose playing and fans turn up because it's their club- players have make very little difference to income
wednesday4life
29-10-2007, 10:32
no, but i would happily pay for a season ticket if we told everyone demanding millions to **** off and replaced them with someone on a normal wage
tv companies would still pay for rights as people who couldn't make games would still want to watch
if you really think players make the club money you are wrong- the clubs would make just as much playing with 11 aging builders on a saturday
I can't believe you're saying players don't make the club money. If a team was full of builders, they wouldn't be in the football leuge. They would just be a Sunday leauge team paying the club so much a week as subs.
no, but i would happily pay for a season ticket if we told everyone demanding millions to **** off and replaced them with someone on a normal wage
tv companies would still pay for rights as people who couldn't make games would still want to watch
if you really think players make the club money you are wrong- the clubs would make just as much playing with 11 aging builders on a saturday
poolie_chick
29-10-2007, 13:35
Scoring goals that win clubs the silverware and promotion etc... making the club money.
wednesday4life
29-10-2007, 13:56
I can't believe you're saying players don't make the club money. If a team was full of builders, they wouldn't be in the football leuge. They would just be a Sunday leauge team paying the club so much a week as subs.
the majority of money at the majority of clubs comes from the fans. the majority of fans at the majority of clubs would pay to go anyway no matter who played, who was manager etc.
if every team got rid of it's millionaires to pay builders £200 per week then they would obviously still be in the same league thay are in now, and fans would still go
clubs make money from fans, players have little to no influence on it (even money going into the club that can be directly accredited to a player for a promotion winning goal etc. is generally out straight away paying bonuses to the squad)
But thats not the case, atm players make the club money as I said earlyer. It will always be that way.
You talk about people going to watch builders ect who get paid £200 a week. I live in a village called Marske (It's near Middlesbrough) and we have a local team called Marske United which is a pub tem but i's still our local team.. It has loads of drunks and yes, I'm sure some of them are builders.. There is never more then 20 people who turn up to watch the football match (for free).
Anyway, what is with your unhealthy obsession of builders?! :P
the majority of money at the majority of clubs comes from the fans. the majority of fans at the majority of clubs would pay to go anyway no matter who played, who was manager etc.
if every team got rid of it's millionaires to pay builders £200 per week then they would obviously still be in the same league thay are in now, and fans would still go
clubs make money from fans, players have little to no influence on it (even money going into the club that can be directly accredited to a player for a promotion winning goal etc. is generally out straight away paying bonuses to the squad)
wednesday4life
29-10-2007, 16:08
builders is an example
are you saying that people would stop atending games in the football league because they replaced their entire squad and manager? if you are then you're wrong, the money would go in no matter who plays (remember i'm talking about replacing a team of millionaires with random players, not the amount of people who watch sunday league)
clubs make money from fans who go to watch their club, not the players- different players doesn't mean different club and fans would still turn up, therefore the players are not the ones making money for the club, the only time a player really makes a club money is when he is sold and i really don't think anyone would agree to them being given a share of that
Well I don't know about you but I go to a football match to watch the players play entertaining football. If I didn't enjoy the football, I wouldn't go.
builders is an example
are you saying that people would stop atending games in the football league because they replaced their entire squad and manager? if you are then you're wrong, the money would go in no matter who plays (remember i'm talking about replacing a team of millionaires with random players, not the amount of people who watch sunday league)
clubs make money from fans who go to watch their club, not the players- different players doesn't mean different club and fans would still turn up, therefore the players are not the ones making money for the club, the only time a player really makes a club money is when he is sold and i really don't think anyone would agree to them being given a share of that
poolie_chick
29-10-2007, 16:22
Good point, although I can see where both sides are coming from.
The players attract the fans (hence the likes of glory hunters)
Fans pay the money.
It's a win-win situation really :D
wednesday4life
29-10-2007, 16:38
Well I don't know about you but I go to a football match to watch the players play entertaining football. If I didn't enjoy the football, I wouldn't go.in that case you are not a fan, you are merely a supporter
as fans outnumber supporters at most clubs it wouldn't make a difference whether the football was good, bad or indifferent, it also doesn't matter who the players are- fans will carry on going, like they have for generations
i think you need to look up the meaning of fan :)
in that case you are not a fan, you are merely a supporter
as fans outnumber supporters at most clubs it wouldn't make a difference whether the football was good, bad or indifferent, it also doesn't matter who the players are- fans will carry on going, like they have for generations
wednesday4life
30-10-2007, 00:49
fans would not care who played for their club, only supporters do
RedRabbit
30-10-2007, 00:52
fans would not care who played for their club, only supporters do
great point!!
(and btw Happy Birthday!!:thumbup1:)
RedRabbit
30-10-2007, 00:54
wasn't Collina (the best referee ever!) an accountant?
notts ref
30-10-2007, 07:11
I think so yeah, something that's sophisticated (sp?)
fans would not care who played for their club, only supporters do
of course fans would care who played for their club, i think you would be less of a fan if you didn't.
wednesday4life
30-10-2007, 13:43
supporters only go because x,y and z play and the teams doing well, fans turn up no matter who plays and no matter how good/bad they're doing
therefore players make the club nothing and deserve paying for the extremely easy job they do in line with other peopl who provide a public service (postmen, teachers etc.)
I can't be arsed to argue anymore lol, we both have an opinion and I believe mine is right.
Adios!
supporters only go because x,y and z play and the teams doing well, fans turn up no matter who plays and no matter how good/bad they're doing
therefore players make the club nothing and deserve paying for the extremely easy job they do in line with other peopl who provide a public service (postmen, teachers etc.)
vBulletin® v3.7.2, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.