The case for performance-based contracts

[Cornish Steve]

I've always been a big supporter of performance-based contracts for players (and managers). Instead of paying someone tens of thousands a week regardless of how they or the team performs, ensure that a good percentage of their income comes from agreed performance metrics. For example, instead of paying a forward $60,000 a week regardless, pay them based on performance: $20,000 unconditional, nothing extra for a loss, $20,000 for a draw, $40,000 for a win, and $10,000 for each goal or assist. There might be equivalent metrics for other position. Maybe players get an amount for making it to the bench, or being a starter, or being a sub - taking proper account for injuries, etc. They could get an end-of-year bonus based on the final points tally of the team, too.

 

For sure, something needs to be done to encourage players to put their all into otherwise meaningless games at the end of the season. Their lack of effort is an insult to fans, their money, and their intelligence.

[Matt]

I've wanted something like this for years

[Aidan]

I've always been a big supporter of performance-based contracts for players (and managers). Instead of paying someone tens of thousands a week regardless of how they or the team performs, ensure that a good percentage of their income comes from agreed performance metrics. For example, instead of paying a forward $60,000 a week regardless, pay them based on performance: $20,000 unconditional, nothing extra for a loss, $20,000 for a draw, $40,000 for a win, and $10,000 for each goal or assist. There might be equivalent metrics for other position. Maybe players get an amount for making it to the bench, or being a starter, or being a sub - taking proper account for injuries, etc. They could get an end-of-year bonus based on the final points tally of the team, too.

 

For sure, something needs to be done to encourage players to put their all into otherwise meaningless games at the end of the season. Their lack of effort is an insult to fans, their money, and their intelligence.

Don't you mean £'s steve? ?? Edited May 6, 2017 by AidanLewis

[Cornish Steve]

Don't you mean £'s steve?

 

Yes, but I don't have a pound key on my keyboard.

[Cornish Steve]

It'd have to come from the very top. FIFA would have to enforce it, otherwise players would just go to the team paying a higher basic salary.

 

But I totally agree with the principal. Too many players are happy to sit on the bench on long lucrative contracts. There needs to be more incentive to actually play and play well than to just be content as a Chelsea reserve player going out on loan for 3 years.

 

But my bet is that teams that use a performance-based salary approach would attract hungrier players. As a result, they would finish above those teams that pay regardless of performance. Capitalism is successful because it harnesses and rewards selfishness, not laziness. Apply that principle to football.

[Aidan]

 

Yes, but I don't have a pound key on my keyboard.

Haha I'm only messing with you

[Makis]

Well, they actually do have those bonuses already. Plus many other kinds.

 

http://www.planetfootball.com/in-depth/transfer-really-happens-contract-looks-secret-footballer/

[chalkpie]

I've always been a big supporter of performance-based contracts for players (and managers). Instead of paying someone tens of thousands a week regardless of how they or the team performs, ensure that a good percentage of their income comes from agreed performance metrics. For example, instead of paying a forward $60,000 a week regardless, pay them based on performance: $20,000 unconditional, nothing extra for a loss, $20,000 for a draw, $40,000 for a win, and $10,000 for each goal or assist. There might be equivalent metrics for other position. Maybe players get an amount for making it to the bench, or being a starter, or being a sub - taking proper account for injuries, etc. They could get an end-of-year bonus based on the final points tally of the team, too.

 

For sure, something needs to be done to encourage players to put their all into otherwise meaningless games at the end of the season. Their lack of effort is an insult to fans, their money, and their intelligence.

Great idea, sign me up. But I'm a nobody.

[JoeQuince]

There has to be a solid wage floor, at the very least. This could create new problems, too. There are eleven players on the field at any given time. How much of each player's performance is down to them, at an individual level? How does one measure the performance of players in positions that don't create a lot of statistics? How does this guarantee better overall team play and not create individualistic divisions within the team? Team-based performance incentives might be better. But, this could create new tensions in the locker room and could place managers into an even trickier position vis-a-vis players and place them under even more scrutiny than they are already under.

 

I think the best thing would be for football to regulate agents and the perverse incentive structure they have. So much of what goes on has to do with agents trying to cash in and make huge profits off of player sales. It keeps players' heads turned and sucks up so much overhead cost from clubs and players alike. Something could be done about this.

[Newty82]

Don't players already have extra incentives in their contracts? Depending on position...goals scored, clean sheets, assists, survival, cups won etc etc. There are loads of extras in contracts based on individual and team performance already.

 

Then of course if you are a 'Worldie' player...you have extras from merchandise use, image rights and all that.

 

They are employees at the end of the day. Covered by the same laws as someone who does a minimum wage job.

 

The value they get paid is the value of the game in that given country.

 

It's like any trade...if the demand is there, the money flows with it.

[markjazzbassist]

No chance this happens. Agents make more off the guaranteed contracts now, so do players. They would both lose money on this.

[Cornish Steve]

For things to change, one team would have to go the whole hog in this direction. Then we would see how it works. Yes, some players do have incentives today, but they tend to be small bonus amount and not a majority of what they earn. I'm talking about making 50% or more dependent on achieving agreed goals.

 

I'm in sales, and a good percentage of my compensation relates to how much revenue I bring in each year. If the company wants more new customers, they increase the amount I can earn in this area. If they want recurring revenue, they increase incentives in this area. The compensation of everyone in the company is designed in such a way that we all pull together. This is what carefully crafted incentives can do.

 

The same should be true of a football team. You want more goals, then significantly increase compensation related to scoring goals - either for individual players or for the team as a whole. You want a better pass completion percentage, or more passes moving us forward, then reward improvements in this area. It takes thought and coordination, but it works.

[pete0]

This already happens. The base salary is still monstrous.

[Makis]

That sounds really stupid. Imagine being on that sort of salary and one of your teammates f*ks up and your team looses -> no bonus -> really good for team morale? It would probably cause strife and bickering in the locker room. And what if the tactics are just all wrong and while you do win a good number of games they are low-scoring?

 

Plus plenty of studies show that money really isn't that good a motivator for most people in the long run. They can work for a short while (like give a team incentives to finish a project early).

 

Just how would it improve the team if players for instance started playing against the manager's plans to score more goals? Because that's the only one I can imagine how this sort of incentives could affect. If you want more goals, the tactics have to reflect that. Players want to score them, but if the incentives are wrong, players will shoot from wrong positions rather than passing to a teammate.

 

Now winning is another matter, in games like the ones we have seen in the last few rounds incentives might have given a small boost. But again, basing that much of wages in bonuses causes all sorts of issues.

 

Plus finally, clubs would love to do it like this. They try to minimize the base salaries but agents are having none of that. So what sort of players would you end up? Players who are happy with half the salary than what others have. I.e. you don't get the best possible players. I doubt just paying average players huge winning bonuses will turn them into top players.

[Shukes]

With Makis on this one. Bad idea!

Would further segregate the richer clubs from below.

[StevO]

Been reading SAFs book, Leading, he says in there that player bonuses are pretty much non existent in premier league players contracts now.

He said they earn that much money that a bonus doesn't motivate them anymore, all about the glory, so bonuses have faded out.

[Cornish Steve]

Been reading SAFs book, Leading, he says in there that player bonuses are pretty much non existent in premier league players contracts now.

He said they earn that much money that a bonus doesn't motivate them anymore, all about the glory, so bonuses have faded out.

 

Which is the whole point Bonus payments should be a majority of their pay, not a nice little extra.

 

As for agents having the power to stop the bonus model, who do they think they are? They don't run the game!

[StevO]

Who said agents stopped bonuses?

But they do play a major part in negotiations.

[Makis]

Pro football is not like selling shoes. It's a team effort. The same reason huge bonuses and small basic wages don't work in most areas.

[JoeQuince]

http://m.bbc.com/sport/football/39882054

 

I believe I mentioned agents' overhead fees and power in the game being the bigger issue the other day.

 

There's nothing I detest more than middlemen.

[markjazzbassist]

http://m.bbc.com/sport/football/39882054

 

I believe I mentioned agents' overhead fees and power in the game being the bigger issue the other day.

 

There's nothing I detest more than middlemen.

41m? Crikey (as the aussies say).

[Cornish Steve]

I can tell you for sure that, in any other industry, paying an agent that type of money would result in a lawsuit. It's a form of bribery: "you get the business (player) only if you pay me a kickback of x%." (Indeed, I witnessed such a conversation once in another country and was flabbergasted at the demand - it was blatant and the fee was in the millions. Of course, the fee was not paid. It takes a lifetime to build a reputation and an instant to ruin it.) Why don't the basic commercial rules of other industries apply to football?

[Makis]

http://m.bbc.com/sport/football/39882054

 

I believe I mentioned agents' overhead fees and power in the game being the bigger issue the other day.

 

There's nothing I detest more than middlemen.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2011/feb/12/the-secret-footballer-agents

[JoeQuince]

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2011/feb/12/the-secret-footballer-agents

Yes, agents are necessary to some extent. Of course. Or else clubs would fuck the players. But, allowing them to extort players and clubs is too much.

[StevO]

Clubs have let this happen, they now use agents as much as agents use the club.

[Newty82]

I think clubs are more than willing to pay agents because they tap up players via the agents first before approaching the players club.

 

In this way, the agent has the club well and truly bent over.