22 Jan 2017 13:21:04
I've thought this for a while but would be interested to hear others and Ed's opinion on this idea.

I realise it's very simple and would need further detail but I think all football would benefit from it and raise the standard of the game.

For senior players;

If you make the first 11 that week - you receive 100% of your wages.

If you make the bench - you receive 75% of your wages that week.

If you don't make the match day squad but are willing to play for the U23's that week - you receive 75% of your wages.

If you don't make the match day squad and are unwilling to play for the U23's - you receive only 50% of your wage that week.

It would need rolling out across all teams in the UK if not Europe for it to work. However I've always thought it would be a good idea to ensure players aren't just happy to sit on the bench and collect their weekly wage for doing nothing.

Cheers

{Ed025's Note - there is no way that players or agents would go for that toon, its a good idea in principal mate but unworkable im afraid..

1.) 22 Jan 2017
22 Jan 2017 13:34:27
That's what I feared, Ed.

The only way it could work is if it was enforced by the FA or UEFA to keep a cap on wages.

{Ed025's Note - i would have them all on zero hours contracts if it was up to me toon mate.. :)

2.) 22 Jan 2017
22 Jan 2017 13:56:29
Terrible idea mate, seriously is.

3.) 22 Jan 2017
22 Jan 2017 14:08:16
Would you agree to 100% pay only for productive time and not for tea/ coffee break, bio break, lunch break.

very unrealistic idea.

4.) 22 Jan 2017
22 Jan 2017 14:11:08
Why you think so DownRater?

5.) 22 Jan 2017
22 Jan 2017 14:22:49
I think most clubs have their own individual systems which are bonus related in that the more you play, score, win bonus etc.
But to generalise a system throughout UEFA would be impossible to enforce and would lead to disruption at every team selection.
Every individual player is different so if your happy not to be involved and to sit on the bench then that's a character fault and is the job of manager or transfer committee to have spotted this.
A great example of this was when City were buying up all the young talent like Rodwell, sinclair etc.
Them lads took the money but in my opinion showed a fault in their make up that has subsequently damaged their careers.
Remember Scott Parker at Chelsea he could not stand not playing and walked away from the money to play at another club. With even Morenio calling him a model professional.
Which example is professional?

6.) 22 Jan 2017
22 Jan 2017 14:37:09
As I say, it was an idea. If you don't think it's a good one, fine, but maybe make another suggestion instead of just shooting it down.

The boys are all incredibly well paid, but there is no incentive to flog their guts out week in week out in training if they know they are picking up 100% of their stratospheric salary no matter what. Therefore, potentially lowering the standard of the game across the board.

I agree entirely that it is unrealistic due to the complications and the undoubted uprising from footballers potential to be on the breadline.

7.) 22 Jan 2017
22 Jan 2017 15:42:09
I also couldn't see this working. However, I'll explain my reasons. Players' agents would just be instructed to ask for assurances on playing time and wages doubled in case a player is on the bench.
Also, as we have seen with Origi and Sturridges rotation in certain games and others, different games call for different tactics/ types of player. I'm pretty sure having Sturridge, and this is an example as I have no idea what he is earning, on £100,000 a week every week is better than having Sturridge on £200,000 a week and sometimes £100,000 a week when he is on the bench.
What would happen with substitutions? It's very much a 14 man team at the weekend.
Also, you could have extremely hard workers earning half their wages when there are better options with maybe less of a work ethic taking their place and wages.
I could only see massive disruption of morale within teams squads

8.) 22 Jan 2017
22 Jan 2017 15:46:57
This only works if we regard playing football as different from other forms of work. The reality is playing football is a job - albeit an overpaid, lucrative job - but a job none the less and the same labour rules that apply for all us regular joe's also apply to football clubs and the things they can or can not do with their employees. If it was suggested that people who weren't on the most productive team in their office recieve 75% salary only there would be (rightly in my opinion) outcry. Footballers are very privileged and few seem to realise it - but the job has to be treated like other jobs and similar sorts of rules relating to workers rights should and must be enforced.

You get idlers in every type of job - you cannot start stripping peoples pay because of this though as it would harm lots of decent, hard-working people. Even taking football as an example yes there are some players happy to collect there wage and sit on the bench - but there are also hard working professionals who, for whatever reason, are usually on the bench as this is their role. I don't think penalising players financially for being on the bench makes sense or is even fair - add to this the fact that it is the manager who decides who does and doesn't play and it becomes an even bigger minefield.

9.) 22 Jan 2017
22 Jan 2017 19:14:30
ive also thought that if a team does not win then the players shold not get paid, imagine the difference with some players and in some games were we have seen the players playing like they don't care it will never happen and just a dream by me but it happens already in some jobs where people only get paid on commission, years ago the players never got payed that much to todays wages but believe me there was some very good players who neverwent down holding their face when they got touched in the leg, years ago the players were proper men