09/01/2013 05:42 GMT | Updated 04/03/2013 05:12 GMT


It has been a topic of debate for a good few years now and is becoming more apparent every season. Is the money involved in football justified?

There are different sides to the view, as in any argument. We have the anti-football demographic, the type who regards modern day wages to be an aberration of modern democracy. They believe the money earned by these sportsmen is completely unjust and should be capped to a level they deem more appropriate. Then you've got the football lovers, the fans, the pundits, the delegates, I've even managed to get my Dad to enjoy it now. However, this group tends to shy away from the subject, showing no opinion and when forced to respond, uses the old adage of ends justifying means. For them, the ends do justify the means, tenfold.

There is no doubt that fans, however, would prefer to be paying a more reasonable amount to watch their team play. Some season tickets at Arsenal have tipped over the thousand pound mark, which can be used to assist the argument against the amount of money in football.

An academic tutor last year juxtaposed a footballer's salary and a public sector salary: she suggested the vast difference was not justified, claiming these public sector workers 'serve an actual purpose'. I rained on her 'everyone work for the state' parade with the facts that football is mostly a private funded venture, certainly where the real money lies, anyway. The money in football is generated through football, whether this is by merchandise, gate receipts or private investments, the money is mostly brought in by personnel directly involved in football. Other than National investments (Burton Centre of Excellence etc.) there is a constant in football: money only leaves the game one-way, to the Taxman.

Carlos Tevez recently had his pay-slip broadcasted across the Internet, showing the amount Manchester City pays him every week. Granted this is a huge amount, one that can be questioned, but one that certainly can't be questioned from the public sector. Maybe the public sector workers deserve more money; you can say they probably do. They put their lives on the line, save lives, stop crime, educate the population and the rest, but look at the pay-slip of Carlos Tevez again and specifically at the amount of tax paid. Is football responsible for the public sectors relatively low wages, or is football playing a part in raising the public sector workers' general salary?

The figures put together by Deloitte claim that for the 2010/11 Barclays Premiership season, wages topped £1.4billion, most of which will be taxed on the high earners tax-rate. Considering the rise of Manchester City and general growth of the league, you could estimate the total wage to be around £2.5billion by now. This equates to around £1billion in tax money. Money put towards the Governments grand plan of democracy.

It appears football is being used as a scapegoat for the poor economic position the country is in and following through with investment limitations now would be further hazardous to the state of the nation.