Average salaries in L1

[carthesis]

Just seen this on the BBC:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-36884991

Ignore the nonsense about the testimonials. What's curious is the graphic half way down giving average salaries, which i will duplicate below in case the BBC change/pull the article:

How much do footballers earn?
Average basic annual salaries 2014-15

• £1.7m Premier League
  
  
• £324k Championship
  
  
• £70k League One
  
  
• £40k League Two
  
  
• £39k Average UK household income

Source: Mail on Sunday

As we can see, there's a *BIG* difference between L1 and Championship earnings - nearly a factor of five! If you assume we're one of the bigger payers in L1, it'll still be a huge difference in salary to the Championship. Makes it clear where a lot of the money has probably gone over the last few years.

 

[David Lee's first touch]

Just seen this on the BBC:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-36884991

Ignore the nonsense about the testimonials. What's curious is the graphic half way down giving average salaries, which i will duplicate below in case the BBC change/pull the article:

How much do footballers earn?
Average basic annual salaries 2014-15

• £1.7m Premier League
  
  
• £324k Championship
  
  
• £70k League One
  
  
• £40k League Two
  
  
• £39k Average UK household income

Source: Mail on Sunday

As we can see, there's a *BIG* difference between L1 and Championship earnings - nearly a factor of five! If you assume we're one of the bigger payers in L1, it'll still be a huge difference in salary to the Championship. Makes it clear where a lot of the money has probably gone over the last few years.

That's the reason Kev keeps us down here it's cheaper what a cunt

 

[Elsecar_Blade]

To be fair, I highly doubt many first team SUFC players over the past five years were earning £70k. I suspect we've dragged the number up somewhat.

After our first season down here, didn't it come out that we were limiting new contracts to £4k per week - around the time KMac resigned but Williamson rejected us? Even that is circa £200k a year and that's in a belt tightening phase. Whilst promotion would mean more wages for us to pay, I don't think it's as significant as increasing to above £300k a year. It'd just mean new signings might need that kind of money.

 

[Bladesway]

That's the reason Kev keeps us down here it's cheaper what a cunt

Whilst not missing the irony in your post you have to think that Kev and Prince and losing a lot less in League One than they would be in the Championship.

 

[David Lee's first touch]

Whilst not missing the irony in your post you have to think that Kev and Prince and losing a lot less in League One than they would be in the Championship.

We would also as a championship club earn a lot more, but wages are obviously higher. I just hope that this is the year we say goodbye to this shit league as the gap is only going to get bigger.

 

[BushBlade]

The figures are so skewed they're almost meaningless, particularly in the Championship where the former PL clubs with parachute money are paying a lot more than the average (which means some clubs are paying a hell of a lot less).

We really need to know the highest wage bill, the lowest, the mode and the median, for each division, to get a clearer picture.

 

[wizadry]

Just seen this on the BBC:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-36884991

Ignore the nonsense about the testimonials. What's curious is the graphic half way down giving average salaries, which i will duplicate below in case the BBC change/pull the article:

How much do footballers earn?
Average basic annual salaries 2014-15

• £1.7m Premier League
  
  
• £324k Championship
  
  
• £70k League One
  
  
• £40k League Two
  
  
• £39k Average UK household income

Source: Mail on Sunday

As we can see, there's a *BIG* difference between L1 and Championship earnings - nearly a factor of five! If you assume we're one of the bigger payers in L1, it'll still be a huge difference in salary to the Championship. Makes it clear where a lot of the money has probably gone over the last few years.

So if these figures were to be believed, just say we had 30 players on the average wage of £70k a year then that would make the wage bill just over £2m a year which would definitely ask big questions as to how we could possibly have had wages over 4 times that the other year? I've been generous with saying 30 players were on that much as well. There really has been some catastrophically bad decisions if these figures are true.

 

[Revolution]

The figures are so skewed they're almost meaningless, particularly in the Championship where the former PL clubs with parachute money are paying a lot more than the average (which means some clubs are paying a hell of a lot less).

We really need to know the highest wage bill, the lowest, the mode and the median, for each division, to get a clearer picture.

We do, but it's still interesting information.

It does tend to suggest that we are paying well over the odds.

 

[BushBlade]

We do, but it's still interesting information.

It does tend to suggest that we are paying well over the odds.

It's a combination of paying too much and signing too many players. Both of those things are ultimately within the control of the owners, or should be.

 

[carthesis]

The figures are so skewed they're almost meaningless, particularly in the Championship where the former PL clubs with parachute money are paying a lot more than the average (which means some clubs are paying a hell of a lot less).

We really need to know the highest wage bill, the lowest, the mode and the median, for each division, to get a clearer picture.

Actually, when you think that there could well be teams just promoted from League 1 (like Burton Albion) that are probably paying a lot less on basic + promotion bonuses, it probably evens out to some extent. Especially when you consider that the teams that come down are generally speaking the ones that went up.

Realistically, we'd want the standard deviation as well - mean minus two-sigma gives you a 95% confidence figure - in this case the lowest figure that 95% of footballers in each league would be paid. If the sigma is large, then there's a huge range of values. I suspect the sigma probably increases as you go up through the leagues.

 

[Reynoldo]

To be fair, I highly doubt many first team SUFC players over the past five years were earning £70k. I suspect we've dragged the number up somewhat.

After our first season down here, didn't it come out that we were limiting new contracts to £4k per week - around the time KMac resigned but Williamson rejected us? Even that is circa £200k a year and that's in a belt tightening phase. Whilst promotion would mean more wages for us to pay, I don't think it's as significant as increasing to above £300k a year. It'd just mean new signings might need that kind of money.

I know the likes of Ben Whiteman's latest contract was for £500 / week - there will be a huge range of salaries at Utd with the likes of Brayford and Sharpe earning multiple times the average stated.

 

[Silent Blade]

To be fair, I highly doubt many first team SUFC players over the past five years were earning £70k. I suspect we've dragged the number up somewhat.

After our first season down here, didn't it come out that we were limiting new contracts to £4k per week - around the time KMac resigned but Williamson rejected us? Even that is circa £200k a year and that's in a belt tightening phase. Whilst promotion would mean more wages for us to pay, I don't think it's as significant as increasing to above £300k a year. It'd just mean new signings might need that kind of money.

Last season we had at least 12 players earning £5K or more a week!

 

[Barry Blunt]

I know the likes of Ben Whiteman's latest contract was for £500 / week - there will be a huge range of salaries at Utd with the likes of Brayford and Sharpe earning multiple times the average stated.

And therein lies a part of your problem in recent years. The more consistent teams have had a bunch of close knit players, all on similar wages of £2k-£3k, so are all in it together with no big time Charlies.

 

[sheffielder]

And therein lies a part of your problem in recent years. The more consistent teams have had a bunch of close knit players, all on similar wages of £2k-£3k, so are all in it together with no big time Charlies.

Nothing against you personally and I don't know you, apart from you're a Walsall fan. But can I say the name you have picked winds the fuck out of me. I fucking hate being called Blunts.

 

[Barry Blunt]

Nothing against you personally and I don't know you, apart from you're a Walsall fan. But can I say the name you have picked winds the fuck out of me. I fucking hate being called Blunts.

Job done then.

 

[oldblade]

Nothing against you personally and I don't know you, apart from you're a Walsall fan. But can I say the name you have picked winds the fuck out of me. I fucking hate being called Blunts.

Could be worse. Imagine how bad it would be to be called Walsall

 

[David Lee's first touch]

Job done then.

Wanker

 

[PokerBlade]

What have they included in the figures? Does it take into account players like say Reed who had a pro contract at 17/18 or Adams who joined from non-league and would presumably have been on far lower wages than Sharp?

70k is lower than I expected, not that I have any sympathy.

 

[Barry Blunt]

Wanker

I've never known a board where everyone bites as muchh as on here.

I believe da kidz call it bantz. You must be a right miserable lot in t'pub. Do you allow yourself the odd joke, or do you just grumble about declining manufacturing and Margaret Thatcher like they do in Barnsley?

 

[Chali 2na]

I've never known a board where everyone bites as muchh as on here.

I believe da kidz call it bantz. You must be a right miserable lot in t'pub. Do you allow yourself the odd joke, or do you just grumble about declining manufacturing and Margaret Thatcher like they do in Barnsley?

 

[sitwell]

I've never known a board where everyone bites as muchh as on here.

I believe da kidz call it bantz. You must be a right miserable lot in t'pub. Do you allow yourself the odd joke, or do you just grumble about declining manufacturing and Margaret Thatcher like they do in Barnsley?

Isnt there anything better to do in Walsall than be a prick on another clubs forum ? Actually thinking about it there isn't is there.

 

[JohnDenver]

I've never known a board where everyone bites as muchh as on here.

I believe da kidz call it bantz. You must be a right miserable lot in t'pub. Do you allow yourself the odd joke, or do you just grumble about declining manufacturing and Margaret Thatcher like they do in Barnsley?

Yes, you're the archbishop of banterbury. A real bantersurus rex.

Which presumably is something to be proud of if you've never had sex with another human being.

 

[David Lee's first touch]

I've never known a board where everyone bites as muchh as on here.

I believe da kidz call it bantz. You must be a right miserable lot in t'pub. Do you allow yourself the odd joke, or do you just grumble about declining manufacturing and Margaret Thatcher like they do in Barnsley?

Not everyone has bitten you would know it if we had. I'll rephrase my earlier post you are a complete cunt fuck off.

 

[carthesis]

What have they included in the figures? Does it take into account players like say Reed who had a pro contract at 17/18 or Adams who joined from non-league and would presumably have been on far lower wages than Sharp?

70k is lower than I expected, not that I have any sympathy.

No idea. The original data is linked on the BBC, and as you can see it doesn't go into a lot of detail. The report they've lifted it from might contain more, if you can be bothered to Google for it (which I couldn't).

I'm guessing they simply took a bit of a survey of clubs, so it'll be a snapshot in time. As it's just an average, it will take those outliers into account, but unless there's a lot of them in the league at one end or the other, it shouldn't skew the mean too much - if it did, they wouldn't be outliers i suppose because there'd be lots of them! This is why I say in order to undertake any truly meaningful statistical analysis, you'd need the standard deviation as well.

My purpose in posting it was to demonstrate the big jump in average salaries to the Championship. If we're bringing in a lot of ex-Championship players either on permanent (e.g. Coutts, Brayford, Sharp), or on loan (Hammond, Baptiste, Davids), then you can see where the money might have gone on wages, hence the line about transfer fees not being available for recruitment. I make this statement casting no particular aspersions one way or the other - purely presenting the "facts".