Isn't there a separate budget for such events, with salaried staff being paid supplements ? It could be my mistake, but I'm sure that's how it used to work.
Well, Hansen's salary has not been officially disclosed to the public.
But I strongly suspect that IF it is £1.5m that it would include Euros and World Cup.
However we obviously can't know for certain either way.
My point is that it's an absolutely fundamental component of what they do. We're talking about literally the very most important sports content on the whole of BBC TV and some of the most important content on the BBC across any genre.
IF the BBC didn't have these events there would be a complete reappraisal of football "talent" requirements / pay etc.
For the record the Euros are actually 3 weeks and 3 days. Including travelling back and forth it would be pretty well 4 weeks solid work.
Of course others are involved but Lineker presents just about every live show and Hansen would appear on the vast majority.
The last one was 22 days. It takes two hours to fly to Switzerland. I would imagine they stay in very nice hotels. They sit, watch and chat about football matches. It ain't exactly reporting from the front in Kabul.
Even if the BBC pundits aren't paid anything extra for the international tournaments (which seems dubious in 2012 when it hasn't even been formally announced if the BBC will have the rights) I would still contend that if the reported salary figures for Hansen and Andy Gray are correct, given their respective work loads, Hansen is significantly overpaid.
The last one was 22 days. It takes two hours to fly to Switzerland. I would imagine they stay in very nice hotels. They sit, watch and chat about football matches. It ain't exactly reporting from the front in Kabul.
Even if the BBC pundits aren't paid anything extra for the international tournaments (which seems dubious in 2012 when it hasn't even been formally announced if the BBC will have the rights) I would still contend that if the reported salary figures for Hansen and Andy Gray are correct, given their respective work loads, Hansen is significantly overpaid.
I made clear in my original post that I was not commenting on whether I thought the salaries were appropriate or not.
All I'm saying is that he will be involved for just about 4 weeks on the Euros. Look at the timetable. He would certainly need to fly out on Thurs 7 June at the latest (and possibly earlier for preparatory work) and he will fly home on Monday 2 July. That's 26 days minimum. (I am aware there are rest days with no matches but he will be away, with the BBC, throughout the period).
The world cup lasts for a month, the Euros are three weeks. Seven weeks every four years, so a little less than two weeks a year on average. The Beeb have loads of studio pundits to share the work load at these tournaments, it's not as though it's just Hansen and Lineker.
So then the Mail would complain about too many people "on a free holiday" covering the World Cup. I suspect the newspapers have used a figure from a year when there was a lot happening, added on their hotel and travelling expenses then anything else they could think of.
Isn't there a separate budget for such events, with salaried staff being paid supplements ? It could be my mistake, but I'm sure that's how it used to work.
The people mentioned are unlikely to be salaried BBC employees.
The last one was 22 days. It takes two hours to fly to Switzerland. I would imagine they stay in very nice hotels. They sit, watch and chat about football matches. It ain't exactly reporting from the front in Kabul.
Even if the BBC pundits aren't paid anything extra for the international tournaments (which seems dubious in 2012 when it hasn't even been formally announced if the BBC will have the rights) I would still contend that if the reported salary figures for Hansen and Andy Gray are correct, given their respective work loads, Hansen is significantly overpaid.
There will be planning meetings beforehand, if they are freelance then they will have to be paid for attending any meetings. There could be some prerecorded items done before going out to wherever the matches take place, all to be paid for.
The last one was 22 days. It takes two hours to fly to Switzerland. I would imagine they stay in very nice hotels. They sit, watch and chat about football matches. It ain't exactly reporting from the front in Kabul.
Even if the BBC pundits aren't paid anything extra for the international tournaments (which seems dubious in 2012 when it hasn't even been formally announced if the BBC will have the rights) I would still contend that if the reported salary figures for Hansen and Andy Gray are correct, given their respective work loads, Hansen is significantly overpaid.
But that has no bearing on wages though does it? I sit at a desk all day, playing with User Interfaces and designing stuff in Photoshop....I get paid quite well. The labourer in the building site across the road works a lot harder than me and in worse conditions. He gets paid less.
It's crazy. The important people on this planet, cleaners and bin men who stop sickness and death, doctors, nurses and teachers who really make a difference, they should be on this type of money. These idiots don't. How they can take this sort of pay knowing it is hard working licence payers who fund it, I don't know :-(
It's crazy. The important people on this planet, cleaners and bin men who stop sickness and death, doctors, nurses and teachers who really make a difference, they should be on this type of money. These idiots don't. How they can take this sort of pay knowing it is hard working licence payers who fund it, I don't know :-(
PJ
Standard Daily Mailesque response...."give soldiers, doctors and nurses footballers wages". Not feasible, not possible and whilst, yes I agree and I would love to give them all £1.5m a year but the facts of the matter are that there is a lot of money in football and those at the highest level will earn ridiculous money....it's basic economics. Obviously Hansen isn't a footballer, but he is in the industry.
But that has no bearing on wages though does it? I sit at a desk all day, playing with User Interfaces and designing stuff in Photoshop....I get paid quite well. The labourer in the building site across the road works a lot harder than me and in worse conditions. He gets paid less.
What has a bearing is how much other people doing a similar job get paid. If it is correct that Andy Gray was on about what Hansen earns before he got fired by Sky, then given the respective amount of work each provided for their employer, it seems to me that Hansen is significantly overpaid.
Well, Hansen's salary has not been officially disclosed to the public.
But I strongly suspect that IF it is £1.5m that it would include Euros and World Cup.
However we obviously can't know for certain either way.
My point is that it's an absolutely fundamental component of what they do. We're talking about literally the very most important sports content on the whole of BBC TV and some of the most important content on the BBC across any genre.
IF the BBC didn't have these events there would be a complete reappraisal of football "talent" requirements / pay etc.
You're right- we're just left to guess/make assumptions.
Crikey- talk about splitting hairs. OK, contracted (not necessarily exclusively) for a specified period and paid annually.
The issue still remains: are the tournaments separately budgeted/are the main pundits paid extra for tournaments ?
It is not splitting hairs. A salaried BBC employee doing the same job could be assigned to cover weekly football matches, World Cup or some minor league match and they will be paid their standard salary (and any overtime / extra hours payment). A freelancer will likely have a contract with payment by the amount of work and perhaps different payments for different types of work. They will probably get travelling and hotel expenses but those might not be included within the UK, they will also have to pay their own pension and NI payments as well.
Let's be 100% clear, It's not 'Tax payers' money... fairly or otherwise, the BBC + C4 (to a degree) is funded by a licence that;s needed to watch broadcast TV.
I think pressure needs to be kept on the BBC, to ensure that licence fee payers are getting value for money.... and that you'd perhaps expect BBC salaries to be under someone's expected market rate, for the freedom / prestige it allows.
But let's not kid ourselves that MoTD could be easily be run on the wage budget similar to a community radio station, no matter what it's competitors / the media groups might say.
My point is that the BBC and other organisations that are funded on what amounts in real terms to a compulsory basis either through the license fee or taxes are not entitled to waste those contributions,in this case on overpaid pundits and of course I agree that MOTD has to cost money but not because presenters have to be over paid.
To Chris1964 : Because the license fee is the level it is does not justify over paying BBC presenters and there would be no case for the fee remaining so high if sensible salaries were introduced across the board......after all EVERYONE can't go and work for Sky.
Hansen will be neither salaried nor on a freelance contract. He is a "performer" and as such will be paid a talent fee. (Which almost certainly comes out of a central pot rather than the MOTD budget).
If he's really on £1.4m a year, then he would be the highest paid (by a single organisation) football pundit on UK television. Even Andy Gray wasn't on that much.
It looks as though someone has come up, rightly or wrongly, with a £1.5m figure, and then divided it by 38 (the number of Premier League fixture rounds) to make £40,000, forgetting about the major summer tournaments (as mlt mentioned), and other bits and pieces such as the League Cup semis and final.
It is not splitting hairs. A salaried BBC employee doing the same job could be assigned to cover weekly football matches, World Cup or some minor league match and they will be paid their standard salary (and any overtime / extra hours payment). A freelancer will likely have a contract with payment by the amount of work and perhaps different payments for different types of work. They will probably get travelling and hotel expenses but those might not be included within the UK, they will also have to pay their own pension and NI payments as well.
What I meant by you splitting hairs was that I was using the word "salaried" in a ballpark manner while focusing on the crux at that particular point- the issue of whether tournaments are dealt with separately (which we don't seem to know). Remember: we don't actually know the terms of employment of the people under discussion either. (I do recognise the differences that you point out.)
If he's really on £1.4m a year, then he would be the highest paid (by a single organisation) football pundit on UK television. Even Andy Gray wasn't on that much.
Gray was widely reported to be on £1.7m per year, eg:
The OP seems to have sourced this story from the Telegraph over the weekend.
And oddly the entire story and associated comments were removed from the website entirely yesterday afternoon, like it never existed.
That, generally, suggests to me that any figures quoted were total horseshit. Especially given Hansen writes for the Telegraph.
Phazer
If he writes for the Telegraph, I'm even more glad that I don't buy it.
Can't stand these football pundits. I don't do football and I'd be quite pleased if ITV (which I don't watch) paid him instead of the BBC, <clear throat> sorry, I mean licence payer. It would be wrong of the BBC to stop football altogether, but I really don't think these pundits add any value.
If he writes for the Telegraph, I'm even more glad that I don't buy it.
Can't stand these football pundits. I don't do football and I'd be quite pleased if ITV (which I don't watch) paid him instead of the BBC, <clear throat> sorry, I mean licence payer. It would be wrong of the BBC to stop football altogether, but I really don't think these pundits add any value.
How do you suggest the BBC cover football then?! Just start the programme with the teams coming out, show the match with no commentary (seeing as the pundits don't add any value), few promotional pieces at half time advertising future programmes, second half with no commentary, end programme? I'm sure the rights holders would love that.
The Mail has jumped on the bandwagon but don't seem to have any more information that the Telegraph and just refer to his "reporter" £1.5 million. There are some quotes from the DG but he does not directly comment how much Hansen gets.
I wonder if it is what often happens in cases like this with a contract over several years being reported in the press as an annual "salary"?
Turns out the OP had put a bit of a spin on it. Yes, he apparently earns £40k an episode. But that works out at a salary of £1.5mil. Which, to be honest, I think is probably not particularly extortionate for that kind of role.
It’s simply market forces. The role needs to be filled by someone who has 1) Expert historic knowledge of football 2) Is well known in football 3) Is good in front of the camera. If there was even 50 people across the country who met such a criteria, the pay might be equivalent to the average city salary. Since there’s likely only a handful, the supply / demand (and the agent) bumps up the cost. No getting away from it, unless you want a show that would be a big turn off to most viewers.
On a related topic , it will be interesting to see what happens with Radio1’s Chris Moyles in 2 years time, when it’s expected he will leave the R1 breakfast show. He’s long been a target of supposed BBC excess in terms of his pay, but I think the BBC would be *very* lucky to lose even just a 1/3rd of his audience with any replacement... and in which case, it would more than justify any premium beyond the pay of the average BBC radio DJ.
When it comes to 2nd-tier talent like Hansen then it isn't market forces as much as a desire by the BBC to hang onto something that is "working" for them.
If you pay significantly over the odds it's a barrier to a person either being poached (by Sky/ITV) or quitting to sail around the world or whatever.
The BBC did lose their entire "One Show" presenting team recently after all, probably because they really couldn't offer such mental sums any more. Too closely watched.
Alan Hansen on £250k/year might jump ship or just decide to do something less boring. But if offered 4 times your worth who would say no?
Comments
Well, Hansen's salary has not been officially disclosed to the public.
But I strongly suspect that IF it is £1.5m that it would include Euros and World Cup.
However we obviously can't know for certain either way.
My point is that it's an absolutely fundamental component of what they do. We're talking about literally the very most important sports content on the whole of BBC TV and some of the most important content on the BBC across any genre.
IF the BBC didn't have these events there would be a complete reappraisal of football "talent" requirements / pay etc.
The last one was 22 days. It takes two hours to fly to Switzerland. I would imagine they stay in very nice hotels. They sit, watch and chat about football matches. It ain't exactly reporting from the front in Kabul.
Even if the BBC pundits aren't paid anything extra for the international tournaments (which seems dubious in 2012 when it hasn't even been formally announced if the BBC will have the rights) I would still contend that if the reported salary figures for Hansen and Andy Gray are correct, given their respective work loads, Hansen is significantly overpaid.
I made clear in my original post that I was not commenting on whether I thought the salaries were appropriate or not.
All I'm saying is that he will be involved for just about 4 weeks on the Euros. Look at the timetable. He would certainly need to fly out on Thurs 7 June at the latest (and possibly earlier for preparatory work) and he will fly home on Monday 2 July. That's 26 days minimum. (I am aware there are rest days with no matches but he will be away, with the BBC, throughout the period).
http://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/Publications/competitions/Publications/01/54/34/12/1543412_DOWNLOAD.pdf
So then the Mail would complain about too many people "on a free holiday" covering the World Cup. I suspect the newspapers have used a figure from a year when there was a lot happening, added on their hotel and travelling expenses then anything else they could think of.
The people mentioned are unlikely to be salaried BBC employees.
There will be planning meetings beforehand, if they are freelance then they will have to be paid for attending any meetings. There could be some prerecorded items done before going out to wherever the matches take place, all to be paid for.
But that has no bearing on wages though does it? I sit at a desk all day, playing with User Interfaces and designing stuff in Photoshop....I get paid quite well. The labourer in the building site across the road works a lot harder than me and in worse conditions. He gets paid less.
PJ
Standard Daily Mailesque response...."give soldiers, doctors and nurses footballers wages". Not feasible, not possible and whilst, yes I agree and I would love to give them all £1.5m a year but the facts of the matter are that there is a lot of money in football and those at the highest level will earn ridiculous money....it's basic economics. Obviously Hansen isn't a footballer, but he is in the industry.
What has a bearing is how much other people doing a similar job get paid. If it is correct that Andy Gray was on about what Hansen earns before he got fired by Sky, then given the respective amount of work each provided for their employer, it seems to me that Hansen is significantly overpaid.
Crikey- talk about splitting hairs. OK, contracted (not necessarily exclusively) for a specified period and paid annually.
The issue still remains: are the tournaments separately budgeted/are the main pundits paid extra for tournaments ?
You're right- we're just left to guess/make assumptions.
It is not splitting hairs. A salaried BBC employee doing the same job could be assigned to cover weekly football matches, World Cup or some minor league match and they will be paid their standard salary (and any overtime / extra hours payment). A freelancer will likely have a contract with payment by the amount of work and perhaps different payments for different types of work. They will probably get travelling and hotel expenses but those might not be included within the UK, they will also have to pay their own pension and NI payments as well.
My point is that the BBC and other organisations that are funded on what amounts in real terms to a compulsory basis either through the license fee or taxes are not entitled to waste those contributions,in this case on overpaid pundits and of course I agree that MOTD has to cost money but not because presenters have to be over paid.
To Chris1964 : Because the license fee is the level it is does not justify over paying BBC presenters and there would be no case for the fee remaining so high if sensible salaries were introduced across the board......after all EVERYONE can't go and work for Sky.
If he's really on £1.4m a year, then he would be the highest paid (by a single organisation) football pundit on UK television. Even Andy Gray wasn't on that much.
What I meant by you splitting hairs was that I was using the word "salaried" in a ballpark manner while focusing on the crux at that particular point- the issue of whether tournaments are dealt with separately (which we don't seem to know). Remember: we don't actually know the terms of employment of the people under discussion either. (I do recognise the differences that you point out.)
Gray was widely reported to be on £1.7m per year, eg:
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23917434-andy-gray-calls-in-lawyers-over-sky-sexism-sacking-as-new-footage-emerges-of-richard-keys-calling-woman-it.do
And there are numerous other similar reports.
If he writes for the Telegraph, I'm even more glad that I don't buy it.
Can't stand these football pundits. I don't do football and I'd be quite pleased if ITV (which I don't watch) paid him instead of the BBC, <clear throat> sorry, I mean licence payer. It would be wrong of the BBC to stop football altogether, but I really don't think these pundits add any value.
How do you suggest the BBC cover football then?! Just start the programme with the teams coming out, show the match with no commentary (seeing as the pundits don't add any value), few promotional pieces at half time advertising future programmes, second half with no commentary, end programme? I'm sure the rights holders would love that.
I wonder if it is what often happens in cases like this with a contract over several years being reported in the press as an annual "salary"?
WHAT!!!!!!!!!!!
On a related topic , it will be interesting to see what happens with Radio1’s Chris Moyles in 2 years time, when it’s expected he will leave the R1 breakfast show. He’s long been a target of supposed BBC excess in terms of his pay, but I think the BBC would be *very* lucky to lose even just a 1/3rd of his audience with any replacement... and in which case, it would more than justify any premium beyond the pay of the average BBC radio DJ.
What I said. Clearly....or I wouldn't have said it.
If you pay significantly over the odds it's a barrier to a person either being poached (by Sky/ITV) or quitting to sail around the world or whatever.
The BBC did lose their entire "One Show" presenting team recently after all, probably because they really couldn't offer such mental sums any more. Too closely watched.
Alan Hansen on £250k/year might jump ship or just decide to do something less boring. But if offered 4 times your worth who would say no?
The BBC execs don't care, it's not their money.