Arsenal's wage structure

[yuvken]

There must have been some thread about it in ancient times, couldn't find it in recent archives though. We talk about related topics a whole lot, but this is strictly about one specific, and seemingly unique, Arsène/al choice regarding the wage structure - and "Arsenal way" in dividing the bounty among the players.

Arsène Wenger recently talked openly about how it is not a fluke that we pay our players roughly the same - they don't all get payed a-la communist manifesto, but it is certainly less market worth thing than other places. This done on purpose, and one likes to think it has a purpose.

What is it? does it get the purpose? are such considerations legit, or they border on "moral" considerations, and should be put to the side for pragmatic ones?
How much do you see experience as telling us things related (please avoid the temptation to be simplistic here. Yes, we all heard of the USSR, and that "capitalism won". Do try to say things that do mean something).

I'll allow a lot that has to do with the above list. I'll basically not let this go too far astray: it's about our "socialistic wage structure" - good, bad and ugly (or beautiful?). Stick to it. Enjoy yourselves, boys and girls and philosophers.

 

[and1rew]

I don't think anyone can possibly defend it. As far as I can tell the supposed advantages are that you have a squad with better morale and as a whole the size of the budget should be smaller. Neither of these have borne out in practice. The squad while they may be great mates now are no closer to winning a trophy and the wage bill is the 4th highest in the league.

The disadvantages of the system have been well discussed on here. Players who the manager has no intention of using at all are paid very handsomely and more frequently appearing players are arguably underpaid. This philosophy looks to have played a part in certain players leaving in recent times and continues to do so.

As someone said in another thread, not sure how Wenger can justify this philosophy when he is supposedly our far highest earner on 140K a week. It's arguable that a wage bill with less of a range could work in a club where the manager likes to rotate and appearances are more evenly shared but the very notion of it seems at complete odds with his management style.

 

[evoh_1]

Anything that prevents you from getting rid of players you don't need anymore and stops you being able to keep the top elite players long terms is screwed no matter how good it may be in its inception.

We'll never win anything under this wage structure and its is the number one thing holding us back even over the commercial what not.

 

[yuvken]

(Perhaps a good idea to list them, for reference and clarity - I'll try to edit/update as we go on):

Advantages (suggested)

Better squad morale

Smaller budget

Rotation is easier


Disadvantages

Dross inflated pay

Difficult to get rid of dross

Regulars underpaid

Players leaving/hard to keep elite

Manager doesn't fit the bill

Unfair/not reflecting true desert
(Fairness as a special angle for reg's underpaid/dross overpaid)

 

[yuvken]

I don't think anyone can possibly defend it

We'll never win anything under this wage structure and its is the number one thing holding us back

These are some very strong claims. AW is certainly thinking someone can defend this (himself...), and it being the number one factor - that's strong.

 

[GG8]

Correct me if im wrong, but didnt Ivan highlight this concern at a recent meeting with suppourters and confirmed, not only were the club aware of the problems surrounding the wage structure, but were actively implementing a move away from the the current system which would take time?

Edit: He did indeed - <a class="postlink" href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2155604/Ivan-Gazidis-proceed-plan-restructure-Arsenal-wage-help-Arsène-Wenger-transfer-market.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... arket.html</a>

 

[progman07]

I don't think anyone can possibly defend it

We'll never win anything under this wage structure and its is the number one thing holding us back

These are some very strong claims. AW is certainly thinking someone can defend this (himself...), and it being the number one factor - that's strong.

It is, though. It's a stupid waste of resources and I had a thread as well on the topic - we have much more money than you think, and some of this cash goes to overpaying most of our average squad.

You cannot pay Chamakh, Arshavin, Squilacci, Diaby, Djourou, Park "socialist" wages when they contribute next to zero to our squad, and that cash could be spent on world class players.

People would be surprised how big money we are wasting on bad decisions and how much it is costing us.

Selling Cesc - Robin - Nasri - Song ought to have enabled us to buy at least a Falcao, and freeing up Chamakh's, Arshavin's, Djourou's and Squilacci's wages could have allowed him a capitalist wage that could have helped us more than those 'socialist' wages.


People only don't believe we could go for a Falcao because Wenger makes them believe we couldn't. Yet we have the money for 5-10 Ramseys, Girouds, Gervinhos, and their wages. I'd much rather we had 1-2 Falcaos and more players like Miayichi and Bartley on the bench, they wouldn't do worse than Arshavin and Djourou. I'd rather have a tight squad full of world class players and many talented youngsters behind them, than a seemingly large squad full of useless players who the manager doesn't even trust, and some good players, no world class.

 

[and1rew]

Correct me if im wrong, but didnt Ivan highlight this concern at a recent meeting with suppourters and confirmed, not only were the club aware of the problems surrounding the wage structure, but were actively implementing a move away from the the current system which would take time?

Edit: He did indeed - <a class="postlink" href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2155604/Ivan-Gazidis-proceed-plan-restructure-Arsenal-wage-help-Ars" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... e-help-Ars</a>" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;ène-Wenger-transfer-market.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The thing is there is obviously a massive disconnect somewhere along the line. Wenger 3 days ago was talking up the 'socialist' wage structure and the PR stunt that was the British core contracts is a classic example of the current wage structure as far as I'm concerned. Those actions are not consistent with what Gazidis said.

 

[redwhiteAustrian]

There are many things which don't seem to fit in terms of what the Board says and what Wenger does, from an outsider's point of view.

 

[Segway]

Well I'm glad that Wenger comes out and explains the reasons behind his wage policy.

I can understand the reasons behind his philosophy. He has tried to even out the wages among the players to prevent potential friction and division between the players. Key players (high earners) in one group and low earners (fringe players) in another would obviously be bad for team chemistry. It correlates with Wenger's idea of taking up young players and play them together in the hope that they form some sort of bond and loyalty to each other and the club. The wages is another factor that was/is supposed to have the same effect.

So far it appears that the policy has been misguided or misimplemented if you will by Wenger. By handing out £50.000 pw contracts to dross like Squillaci and Chamakh, the money that should have gone to finance a signing like Juan Mata just hasn't been available which is the biggest deficiency in his philosophy.

The idea is right IMO, it should just have been carried out more carefully.

 

[GG8]

Correct me if im wrong, but didnt Ivan highlight this concern at a recent meeting with suppourters and confirmed, not only were the club aware of the problems surrounding the wage structure, but were actively implementing a move away from the the current system which would take time?

Edit: He did indeed - <a class="postlink" href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2155604/Ivan-Gazidis-proceed-plan-restructure-Arsenal-wage-help-Ars" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... e-help-Ars</a>" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;ène-Wenger-transfer-market.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The thing is there is obviously a massive disconnect somewhere along the line. Wenger 3 days ago was talking up the 'socialist' wage structure and the PR stunt that was the British core contracts is a classic example of the current wage structure as far as I'm concerned. Those actions are not consistent with what Gazidis said.

Ill admit I was surprised to hear Arsène coming out and speaking about the wage structure in the way that he did.

How can you call the PR stunt an example of our current wage structure without having a complete understanding of the wage levels and contract details? For all you know this could have been the first major step in implementing a new revised structure.

 

[evoh_1]

Well I'm glad that Wenger comes out and explains the reasons behind his wage policy.

I can understand the reasons behind his philosophy. He has tried to even out the wages among the players to prevent potential friction and division between the players. Key players (high earners) in one group and low earners (fringe players) in another would obviously be bad for team chemistry. It correlates with Wenger's idea of taking up young players and play them together in the hope that they form some sort of bond and loyalty to each other and the club. The wages is another factor that was/is supposed to have the same effect.

So far it appears that the policy has been misguided or misimplemented if you will by Wenger. By handing out £50.000 pw contracts to dross like Squillaci and Chamakh, the money that should have gone to finance a signing like Juan Mata just hasn't been available which is the biggest deficiency in his philosophy.

The idea is right IMO, it should just have been carried out more carefully.

Firstly do you think that the CEO of a company gets the same as say the salesmen on the ground? Does it mean they don't get along and each have a role to play which is paid commesurate with what they would get doing a similar job elsewhere. Another similar situation would be paying the best salesman only a small amount mroe than the worse even though he brings in 10x more money.

These sort of situations do not happen for a reason, they are unproductive and make no sense. We currently leave £20-30 mil on the table in wasted wages each year, that isn't good enough and although other clubs have this issue with older players we get it with relatively young players who are no longer needed.

The approach is flawed in its concept and the only way it would work is if everyone contributed roughly the same to performances and resutls which just isn't how it works in reality. Some players are more important than others often significantly so and its those players who are in high demand and can command huge wages. The rest of them are honestly ten a tenny which is why we can't move them on when ther are earning wages here which other clubs only give out to their top talents.

 

[Mastadon]

Its a failed structure and its proven by the amount of players we have that nobody will touch because of the insane wages being paid. We're more of a welfare club than a socialist one in that sense. At a certain point or age it becomes obvious that some players are simply better than others and therefore deserve higher wages. The difference in quality between players should be reflected in their wages this idea of keeping wages relatively equal cannot work because there is a huge difference in quality between players in the squad.

The fact that we struggle to move on unwanted players proves that we are paying over the market rate for low quality players while our inability to keep or attract top talent shows that we are paying below market rates for top level players. That is a truly f**ked up structure however you look at it.

 

[MDGoonah41]

its a failed premise.

as far as i can tell, walcott is the first player that it might potentially cost us, however.

i think nasri was sold because hes a ****.
cesc wanted to go home, more money wasnt going to keep him here.
judas left because hes a ****.

the question is how it impacts our recruitment. assuming someone like falcao wasn't going to cost £50m, would he really come here to only make £90k per week, when chelsea, psg, madrid, barca, citeh and united could all offer him a ton more?

 

[ArsenesNO1Fan]

Some players are paid over market rate, I don't think Chamakh was at the time we signed him. He was on a free and a top player in France at the time. 50k a week was about the right market rate to secure his signature, baring in mind there was no transfer fee.

 

[and1rew]

Ill admit I was surprised to hear Arsène coming out and speaking about the wage structure in the way that he did.

How can you call the PR stunt an example of our current wage structure without having a complete understanding of the wage levels and contract details? For all you know this could have been the first major step in implementing a new revised structure.

Call it an educated guess. Unless they signed for less money don't see how it can be a change in our wage structure. Wilshere was on a long term contract, as were Jenkinson and Chamberlain who we signed last year. Only Gibbs really required a new contract as he had 2 years left. The players definitely either increased their wage or increased the contract length, probably both, yet for 4 of them there has been absolutely no change in their status as players at our club and there contracts were not due for renewal.

Chamberlain is still a prospect as he was when we signed him, Jenkinson is still back-up RB as when we signed him, Wilshere has spent 14 of he last 17 months out injured and Ramsey has played less games this year than he did last year yet there all being rewarded and they were under no threat of leaving. How many clubs sign players to long term deals only to renew them barely 12 months later?

The thing is in the short term that may provide a egalitarian club society but what happens when these young players become older better players and actually need new contracts. Be surprised to see if they'll sign an extension for the same wage that they signed for when they were 19.

 

[and1rew]

Some players are paid over market rate, I don't think Chamakh was at the time we signed him. He was on a free and a top player in France at the time. 50k a week was about the right market rate to secure his signature, baring in mind there was no transfer fee.

Good point to be fair. Even though the likes of Chamakh, Arshavin and Squillaci are lumped in with critcism of this system they are not actually beneficiaries of it. Any amount of money spent on them is wastage if the manager thinks that are of no absolute use to the squad. The problem is that Wenger rated them previously and seemingly does not now at all. That could happen with any system. These players have only ever signed one contract at Arsenal and all of them could have potentially become key players and justified their wages as they were new.

The actual players who have benefited are players we bought young like Diaby, Denilson and Djourou who have signed multiple contract extensions with their wages increasing each time after a small run of games despite them not being able to command similar wages elsewhere.

 

[evoh_1]

Average wage at United has been estimated at £64,000 a week while at Arsenal it is claimed to be £61,000 a week.

Who has fostered a culture of winning and getting paid when you deliver and who has got a team full of chokers even when there was quality there?

Wenger has admitted he doesn't know how other clubs do it which is why we can never move players we don't need on and he makes statements like this:

" we want to pay something that makes sense and is defendable in front of every single player”

Can you defend paying someone like RVP of Cesc half of what they can get at another club and barely more than a guy who will spend his time on the bench and out on the town?

Those barely squad players will love it as they get paid for naff all while the best players will wonder why these lackies get paid for nought.

The club exists in a footballing world and can't just trive to create its own system of paying players when at the end of the day some of them will have to go out of the door. When that happens the stark differences between how our club pays players and teh rest of the world becomes clear, no one does it so we have perma loans for players where we get only a fraction of their wages covered. Ivan should be solid enough to stand up and tell wenger he doesn't know what he is doing with contracts and take control over the matter as its a business decision not a footballing one.

 

[musicmonkey]

I always think these wage threads get a bit pointless.

1) We all know the individuals who have been overpaid.
2) The club clearly wants rid and has publicly said multiple times we're restructuring.
3) Given the situation it's tough to remove the issue overnight like some seem to think it should be.

These threads just wind up with everyone pointing and complaining at a problem without the acknowledgement of the effort to move in the right direction or that they didn't have the hindsight we do now. I can understand debate on the youngsters who've just signed new deals and as to whether they're worth it or Theo's deal but this situation is so black and white that we're all just saying the same thing.

We want the over earning, under contributing out, so do the club who also want to change the structure, it's just a matter of how quickly it's possible.

 

[yuvken]

Good discussion, credit to you guys.

I added just one little thing to the initial list though (desert/fairness thing, which I took from mastadon's post). If anyone wants to add, or I missed anything new, please suggest it clearly (if you're not sure still pitch it, at worst it'll be left there).

One question that sort of hangs above all this is a bit more abstract/theoretical, but I think it is of massive importance in deciding on a policy of the wage structure: how does the ideal team structure look - either generally, as in "any team", or specifically what fits our team - our philosophy/style of play, etc.
Note that it is about how the real structure, i.e. actual quality distribution, and not how it is reflected in money allocation (which is a separate question, one which involves independent views).

Is the ideal team, say in the premiership of today, one that reaches optimal results with 8 good players and 3 super stars? does it take 5 and 6? are there clear categories in that respect, and if you're not one of the top 3 (presumably they can hope for such division), you're left with the lower options of 9-2, 10-1, or no super stars at all (and then just begin the same thought process, one level lower)?

I know it is almost ridiculous to expect a "formula", and probably there isn't one. Still, people have intuitions about the Messi/ Ronaldo's of this world, and about a team with VP+10 (or cesc, VP +9; or Thierry, Pires, Vieira, Bergkamp, Sol, TA - ok, I'll stop ) vs other team structures. If, for example, we tend to think that a team can only ever be a top team if it has a minimum of 2 true WC players, and then the other 9 (and squad) can do the job if they're decent/good; and if it is assumed that you cannot reasonably expect to get said level players without paying somewhere in the area of market price, then this, already at this very abstract level, gives us a real practical idea about our wage structure constraints.
If it is true you want to be a top club; and if it is true you can't do it without 2 players paid over 130/40/50 a week, then you know a wage structure that doesn't go above 100 a week is simply excluded from the off - forget real life, circumstances, special cases, adaptations to team logic.

Then there is the next level - how do we take that "true quality optimal structure", and make it reflect on the wage structure. What should we be thinking at this level: should we want to apply some egalitarian tweaks there (for any reason from the "advantages" list, etc.) - or do we just go all out in putting everything we have to ensure we cement that "real quality" demand?