I agree and a fair bit of snipping from previous file stories too. It looks like a cut and paste piece of lazy 'journalism' to me,
As for the pay I have always thought it unfair that the dance pros are paid in the second tier. They should be the highest paid on the show. They do the vast majority of the work and it is only through their skill that the show happens at all.. The hours of teaching, the live shows, the pro dances, not to mention the years of effort and training that enables them to be able to do all of the above. I think they should be paid more than the judges, the presenters and the contestants. I don't know why dancers are valued so much less than other performers.
It is a "buyers market" and the BBC is supposed to get "best value for money" for us as the licence payers.
Like it or not - Pro dancers from any EU country can work in the UK, and we all know that Eastern European pay is way lower than the pay in the UK for ANY job.
I think a similar thing happened some years ago with Pantos when hugely popular Aussie soap stars who are paid peanuts back home for making the soaps, suddenly found they could get (relatively) big money for a few weeks Panto work in the UK.
Suddenly the British ex soap star and Pop stars who were doing Panto saw their pay fall, as producers could get bigger stars for much less money.
As for the judges, Craig Bruno and Arlene are choreographers/ Directors so would have to be paid at a level that made it attractive for them to turn down their regular work to do Strictly. Darcy probably would have similar earning power in her field.
Len, as the ballroom expert, would expect to be paid a similar wedge to his fellow judges.
For the people saying she was taken out of context and journalists are mis-quoting etc. I can't imagine the Mirror would print anything Ola or her team didn't want them to print...
If you haven't noticed over the last 2 / 3 years EVERYTHING the Jordan's have to say always goes through the Mirror Group (that includes the People). Do a search and see for yourselves. All the Jordan stories originate at the Mirror and their subs, most of the time with direct quotes.
All those exclusives and big cat fight reveals, anything they want to say / backstage gossip that can only possibly come from one source. It don't take a genius to figure it out.
I totally agree with this post. Without the pro dancers, there is no show.The BBC should give them the respect they deserve and pay them better
No they should pay them a decent and sensible wage like everyone else gets. We aren't tuning in to watch the professional dancers. We're tuning in for the Celebrities. That's the spectacle, as it will always be. The Pro dancers with the big followings detract from that, they detract from the celebraties. No celeb wants that.
Btw I don't class 30k for a couple of months work as sensible either. The self promotion, and platform, is worth 5 x that. They should get what reality stars get and that's generous at a couple of hundred a week.
I'm surprised that Karen's comment is still vexing Ola (so it seems). Seemed to me mild at the time and not worth the scene it created. But it must have been scarring if Ola is still smarting. Worse things happen hourly in my life!
But yes, they're underpaid and under-appreciated. Maybe some of the Bruce salary savings can be redistributed.
I don't think we generally watch just SCD just for the celebrities, Shine On. It's the whole process of learning to dance that's fascinating and in that the pros are equal to the contestants. Sounds like a poll waiting to happen... Do you watch SCD for the contestants/the pros/the presenters' witticisms/the judges' pronouncements/all of the above
I'm surprised that Karen's comment is still vexing Ola (so it seems). Seemed to me mild at the time and not worth the scene it created. But it must have been scarring if Ola is still smarting. Worse things happen hourly in my life!
To be fair, if someone told you you were a rubbish dancer, I think you'd get over it. ;-):)
If someone said that to me (where it's an bit of an obsessive hobby), I think I would be quite upset and it would take me some time to forget.:(
If a rival dancer said that to another serious competitive dancer then they would be very >:(>:( and very :(. It is their life. Obviously it depends on how secure and self confident the dancer is. But generally only coaches are allowed that privilege.
BUT,....... we don't know what exactly was said and in what tone. Or what went before. So it's difficult to take a view. I wouldn't leap to blame Karen.
I think the professionals moan too much about money. Strictly provides a springboard for other ventures and so can be very lucrative. However £200 a week as suggested by Shine_on is a bit harsh. They are not reality show contestants (the celebs are). They are employed by the BBC to support the reality show and put in a lot of hours to do so as well as putting other work on hold.
I don't agree with the underpaid thing. I really don't. Any dancer complaining about what they earn from Strictly should be booted for being a whiny idiot. I say that with the greatest of respect to the pro's , but they would have to be morons to turn down what the BBC offer.
They get 33k for 2 months and a bits worth of work which is incredible for a professional dancer. Then the name/face recognition from the show sets them up for the next couple of years. Every one of them would be getting atleast close to 6 figures over the course of the year from the PA's, Cruises, dance troupe touring, promo, tv appearances, merchandising and the rest. That's not including other avenues that open up to them on a professional and even a personal level.
If this year the BBC offered the pro's a contract with a fraction of the pay the ink wouldn't even be dry before the agencies had their clients sign it.
Does anyone honestly think someone would buy Ola's god awful calendars that look like they've been airbrushed by a 3 year old that's never seen photoshop before if she wasn't on Strictly? No, it's all down to the show and the show is all about the celebrities and their journey. The Judges add credibility so of course they're going to be paid a little more.
I agree that they massively over paid Bruce and many, many others. The pro dancer fee's are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to how the old boys club that run the BBC squander the license fee money. Anyone whose watched the committee meetings regarding BBC executive pay offs can only conclude that the place is run by absolute morons who are only interested in giving their born with a silver spoon mates a way to make a fantastic living off of the state when they weren't fit for anywhere else.
To be fair, if someone told you you were a rubbish dancer, I think you'd get over it. ;-):)
If someone said that to me (where it's an bit of an obsessive hobby), I think I would be quite upset and it would take me some time to forget.:(
If a rival dancer said that to another serious competitive dancer then they would be very >:(>:( and very :(. It is their life. Obviously it depends on how secure and self confident the dancer is. But generally only coaches are allowed that privilege.
BUT,....... we don't know what exactly was said and in what tone. Or what went before. So it's difficult to take a view. I wouldn't leap to blame Karen.
I think the professionals moan too much about money. Strictly provides a springboard for other ventures and so can be very lucrative. However £200 a week as suggested by Shine_on is a bit harsh. They are not reality show contestants (the celebs are). They are employed by the BBC to support the reality show and put in a lot of hours to do so as well as putting other work on hold.
True, you're right. I wasn't thinking myself into her place and those different contexts would change things (though I don't seem to be vulnerable to personal comments, prob due to growing up with a lot of abuse from a family member who was mentally ill. Words tend to roll off me, especially the hasty ones.) But you're right. Everyone has their personal breaking points that could breed permanent bad feeling, and I can think of situations that might seem slight to others but which can stir resentful feelings years later.
I'll let Ola off. Was halfway to thinking she was over-dramatising. But then, at the same time I feel if it's big in Ola's mind, that's to do with Ola's own inner stuff (probably) rather than Karen's original comment.
The pay thing is a difficult one. On one level it's a good chunk of money for a few months work and it creates further opportunities etc. But on the other, it's a short career and others on the show get paid more for less. And I have a bolshie streak that likes carrying round placards demanding this and that for the worker
ETA you've made me re-think Anya being asked to do the choreography this year. Maybe someone who comes out of the group of dancers will be able to understand those personal feelings and keep things simple. The whole 'asked to dance at the back'-ness of things. I'm going to miss Anya as a Professional (she was my clear favourite last year) but she's an intelligent and even-tempered seeming woman as well as a brill choreographer and this might be a great role for her.
For the people saying she was taken out of context and journalists are mis-quoting etc. I can't imagine the Mirror would print anything Ola or her team didn't want them to print...
If you haven't noticed over the last 2 / 3 years EVERYTHING the Jordan's have to say always goes through the Mirror Group (that includes the People). Do a search and see for yourselves. All the Jordan stories originate at the Mirror and their subs, most of the time with direct quotes.
All those exclusives and big cat fight reveals, anything they want to say / backstage gossip that can only possibly come from one source. It don't take a genius to figure it out.
I can't imagine Ola or her team controlling what the Mirror writes.
I can imagine papers like the Mirror and Daily Mail printing stuff that is exaggerated, their interpretation of what someone said etc.
The Mirror stuff does not read to me like it was the result of a discussion intended to result in the article.
Some of the Daily Mail one reads like there has been some direct communication with Ola.
I can't imagine Ola or her team controlling what the Mirror writes.
I can imagine papers like the Mirror and Daily Mail printing stuff that is exaggerated, their interpretation of what someone said etc.
The Mirror stuff does not read to me like it was the result of a discussion intended to result in the article.
Some of the Daily Mail one reads like there has been some direct communication with Ola.
Think your instincts are spot on here. The Mirror thing reads like a re-heat. The Mail has more continuousness of thought. Not generally! I mean that article in particular.
The Mirror is using direct quotes and is not a "re-heat" their article was published on the 27th. The Mail article was published on the 28th, it directly quotes the Mirror AND gives them credit as the source in the article for it.
"She told the Daily Mirror of Arlene's departure: 'They were wrong to get rid of her. Alesha only did four months and suddenly she became a judge, a bit unfair. I mean, what does she know about dancing?"
James and Ola always use the Mirror group. The Mirror aren't going to annoy their main source of Strictly exclusives by miss-quoting her and sending her to the Sun. That's not how the tabloids work. You give exclusives, they give you cash.
The article wasn't to promote her calendar either. I suspect it was far more petty than that in that I would think it was because Karen gave an interview to the Daily Star.
It is a "buyers market" and the BBC is supposed to get "best value for money" for us as the licence payers.
Like it or not - Pro dancers from any EU country can work in the UK, and we all know that Eastern European pay is way lower than the pay in the UK for ANY job.
I think a similar thing happened some years ago with Pantos when hugely popular Aussie soap stars who are paid peanuts back home for making the soaps, suddenly found they could get (relatively) big money for a few weeks Panto work in the UK.
Suddenly the British ex soap star and Pop stars who were doing Panto saw their pay fall, as producers could get bigger stars for much less money.
As for the judges, Craig Bruno and Arlene are choreographers/ Directors so would have to be paid at a level that made it attractive for them to turn down their regular work to do Strictly. Darcy probably would have similar earning power in her field.
Len, as the ballroom expert, would expect to be paid a similar wedge to his fellow judges.
This is a fact of life in the EU these days.
I agree that it's a buyers market to some degree, but think putting it at the door of the EU is a bit of a swerve. I may be wrong, but don't think any of the Eastern European dancers came to Strictly from their home 'markets'. They all seem to be based in the US or in the UK or travelling the world with Burn the Floor.
As for the buyers market, it only seems to apply to some of the cast. Darcey I can accept. Craig, perhaps, but I'm intrigued to know what you think people like Bruno or Len would have been earning in their 'normal' lives if Strictly hadn't happened to them .
Btw I don't class 30k for a couple of months work as sensible either. The self promotion, and platform, is worth 5 x that. They should get what reality stars get and that's generous at a couple of hundred a week.
BIB So why not apply the same logic to the judges and presenters? For that matter, since the 'celebrities' are getting three months of expert dance tuition and a massive opportunity to boost their profile on prime time BBC 1, I think they should be paying the BBC for the priviledge
If this year the BBC offered the pro's a contract with a fraction of the pay the ink wouldn't even be dry before the agencies had their clients sign it.
(QUOTE)They should get what reality stars get and that's generous at a couple of hundred a week.[/QUOTE]
You wouldn't get any Pro doing the show for that. You may not know how expensive lessons are...top pro's earn " a couple of hundred" in just 1 or 2 lessons.
You wouldn't get any Pro doing the show for that. You may not know how expensive lessons are...top pro's earn " a couple of hundred" in just 1 or 2 lessons.
The "couple of hundred" a week is a symbolic gesture. You can put it down as a pound if you like. So they can get 2000% more doing a lesson than they would doing a week on the show, but it still wouldn't be even remotely comparable to how much they would earn by appearing on the show at a single pound a week.
It wouldn't? Why wouldn't it be right? You realize the national average wage for the year is 65% of what they get for 2 and a half months of work, right? Then they have the temerity to whine about it. If they gave them what reality stars generally get (a couple of hundred a week while filming) they would still be earning a vast amount more than the average guy/gal on the streets purely due to the exposure of being in a prime time show on a tv channel funded by the public.
It wouldn't? Why wouldn't it be right? You realize the national average wage for the year is 65% of what they get for 2 and a half months of work, right? Then they have the temerity to whine about it. If they gave them what reality stars generally get (a couple of hundred a week while filming) they would still be earning a vast amount more than the average guy/gal on the streets purely due to the exposure of being in a prime time show on a tv channel funded by the public.
I haven't commented on the amount they're paid. My remark is aimed at your logic: pay someone as little as you can get away with because they will be grateful for the exposure. It's a form of blackmail and exploitation. They should be paid a sum appropriate to their qualifications, experience, talent and hard work - I can't say what that is, but to compare them to reality show participants (who bring none of the above) is plain silly.
I don't understand why your indignation is reserved for the dancers. Half the 'talent' on TV probably makes more money through ads, endorsements, appearances etc than they earn from the work that gives them their profile, but these dancers should graft for the glory and the spin-offs?! Tell that to Wayne Rooney and co!
As to how 'telly wages' relates to the average person's income and comparative 'value' in the real world - don't get me started! .... but that isn't what's being discussed here .
I haven't commented on the amount they're paid. My remark is aimed at your logic: pay someone as little as you can get away with because they will be grateful for the exposure. It's a form of blackmail and exploitation. They should be paid a sum appropriate to their qualifications, experience, talent and hard work - I can't say what that is, but to compare them to reality show participants (who bring none of the above) is plain silly.
I don't understand why your indignation is reserved for the dancers. Half the 'talent' on TV probably makes more money through ads, endorsements, appearances etc than they earn from the work that gives them their profile, but these dancers should graft for the glory and the spin-offs?! Tell that to Wayne Rooney and co!
As to how 'telly wages' relates to the average person's income and comparative 'value' in the real world - don't get me started! .... but that isn't what's being discussed here .
The Pros are way underpaid compared to the judges and presenters .
The judges have only to put in a few hours work on a sat, whereas the Pros real work is the many hours they spend with the celebs during the week teaching .
I don't know is there any contract between the Pros and the BBC about the number of hours they must put in teaching . Depending on the celeb some put in a great deal of hours from 6-8 hours a day for 6/7 days .
Maybe all the Pros should agree on 2hours a day as sufficient for what they're being paid.
The Pros are way underpaid compared to the judges and presenters .
The judges have only to put in a few hours work on a sat, whereas the Pros real work is the many hours they spend with the celebs during the week teaching .
I don't know is there any contract between the Pros and the BBC about the number of hours they must put in teaching . Depending on the celeb some put in a great deal of hours from 6-8 hours a day for 6/7 days .
Maybe all the Pros should agree on 2hours a day as sufficient for what they're being paid.
When Jerry Hall did Strictly, she claimed that they had to train for a minimum of 12 hours a week.
Even without the teaching hours the pros put in though, they have the choreography to prepare and pro dances to rehearse too.
It dosen't strike anyone as odd that Ola' speaking out comes right after James Jordan being given the shove? Perhaps someone orchestrated Ola's outburst?
I haven't commented on the amount they're paid. My remark is aimed at your logic: pay someone as little as you can get away with because they will be grateful for the exposure. It's a form of blackmail and exploitation. They should be paid a sum appropriate to their qualifications, experience, talent and hard work - I can't say what that is, but to compare them to reality show participants (who bring none of the above) is plain silly.
I don't understand why your indignation is reserved for the dancers. Half the 'talent' on TV probably makes more money through ads, endorsements, appearances etc than they earn from the work that gives them their profile, but these dancers should graft for the glory and the spin-offs?! Tell that to Wayne Rooney and co!
As to how 'telly wages' relates to the average person's income and comparative 'value' in the real world - don't get me started! .... but that isn't what's being discussed here .
My indignation isn't reserved for just the dancers, didn't you see my whole bit about the BBC? As I said then, the dancers are just the tip of the iceberg. As for your point regarding the celebrities, judges and presenter fee's. They are the faces of the show, it's credibility and the celebs are the reason the vast majority watch. Very few people tune in to see Artem, James or Pasha or whatever their names are. So no they shouldn't be paid more and they shouldn't be bleating about what they do get paid.
As for Wayne Rooney and co, who should get the money if they aren't getting it?
Comments
It is a "buyers market" and the BBC is supposed to get "best value for money" for us as the licence payers.
Like it or not - Pro dancers from any EU country can work in the UK, and we all know that Eastern European pay is way lower than the pay in the UK for ANY job.
I think a similar thing happened some years ago with Pantos when hugely popular Aussie soap stars who are paid peanuts back home for making the soaps, suddenly found they could get (relatively) big money for a few weeks Panto work in the UK.
Suddenly the British ex soap star and Pop stars who were doing Panto saw their pay fall, as producers could get bigger stars for much less money.
As for the judges, Craig Bruno and Arlene are choreographers/ Directors so would have to be paid at a level that made it attractive for them to turn down their regular work to do Strictly. Darcy probably would have similar earning power in her field.
Len, as the ballroom expert, would expect to be paid a similar wedge to his fellow judges.
This is a fact of life in the EU these days.
At least we know they clearly aren't recycling quotes. In these interviews. Mores the pity.
If you haven't noticed over the last 2 / 3 years EVERYTHING the Jordan's have to say always goes through the Mirror Group (that includes the People). Do a search and see for yourselves. All the Jordan stories originate at the Mirror and their subs, most of the time with direct quotes.
All those exclusives and big cat fight reveals, anything they want to say / backstage gossip that can only possibly come from one source. It don't take a genius to figure it out.
No they should pay them a decent and sensible wage like everyone else gets. We aren't tuning in to watch the professional dancers. We're tuning in for the Celebrities. That's the spectacle, as it will always be. The Pro dancers with the big followings detract from that, they detract from the celebraties. No celeb wants that.
Btw I don't class 30k for a couple of months work as sensible either. The self promotion, and platform, is worth 5 x that. They should get what reality stars get and that's generous at a couple of hundred a week.
But yes, they're underpaid and under-appreciated. Maybe some of the Bruce salary savings can be redistributed.
I don't think we generally watch just SCD just for the celebrities, Shine On. It's the whole process of learning to dance that's fascinating and in that the pros are equal to the contestants. Sounds like a poll waiting to happen... Do you watch SCD for the contestants/the pros/the presenters' witticisms/the judges' pronouncements/all of the above
To be fair, if someone told you you were a rubbish dancer, I think you'd get over it. ;-):)
If someone said that to me (where it's an bit of an obsessive hobby), I think I would be quite upset and it would take me some time to forget.:(
If a rival dancer said that to another serious competitive dancer then they would be very >:(>:( and very
BUT,....... we don't know what exactly was said and in what tone. Or what went before. So it's difficult to take a view. I wouldn't leap to blame Karen.
I think the professionals moan too much about money. Strictly provides a springboard for other ventures and so can be very lucrative. However £200 a week as suggested by Shine_on is a bit harsh. They are not reality show contestants (the celebs are). They are employed by the BBC to support the reality show and put in a lot of hours to do so as well as putting other work on hold.
They get 33k for 2 months and a bits worth of work which is incredible for a professional dancer. Then the name/face recognition from the show sets them up for the next couple of years. Every one of them would be getting atleast close to 6 figures over the course of the year from the PA's, Cruises, dance troupe touring, promo, tv appearances, merchandising and the rest. That's not including other avenues that open up to them on a professional and even a personal level.
If this year the BBC offered the pro's a contract with a fraction of the pay the ink wouldn't even be dry before the agencies had their clients sign it.
Does anyone honestly think someone would buy Ola's god awful calendars that look like they've been airbrushed by a 3 year old that's never seen photoshop before if she wasn't on Strictly? No, it's all down to the show and the show is all about the celebrities and their journey. The Judges add credibility so of course they're going to be paid a little more.
I agree that they massively over paid Bruce and many, many others. The pro dancer fee's are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to how the old boys club that run the BBC squander the license fee money. Anyone whose watched the committee meetings regarding BBC executive pay offs can only conclude that the place is run by absolute morons who are only interested in giving their born with a silver spoon mates a way to make a fantastic living off of the state when they weren't fit for anywhere else.
True, you're right. I wasn't thinking myself into her place and those different contexts would change things (though I don't seem to be vulnerable to personal comments, prob due to growing up with a lot of abuse from a family member who was mentally ill. Words tend to roll off me, especially the hasty ones.) But you're right. Everyone has their personal breaking points that could breed permanent bad feeling, and I can think of situations that might seem slight to others but which can stir resentful feelings years later.
I'll let Ola off.
The pay thing is a difficult one. On one level it's a good chunk of money for a few months work and it creates further opportunities etc. But on the other, it's a short career and others on the show get paid more for less. And I have a bolshie streak that likes carrying round placards demanding this and that for the worker
ETA you've made me re-think Anya being asked to do the choreography this year. Maybe someone who comes out of the group of dancers will be able to understand those personal feelings and keep things simple. The whole 'asked to dance at the back'-ness of things. I'm going to miss Anya as a Professional (she was my clear favourite last year) but she's an intelligent and even-tempered seeming woman as well as a brill choreographer and this might be a great role for her.
I can't imagine Ola or her team controlling what the Mirror writes.
I can imagine papers like the Mirror and Daily Mail printing stuff that is exaggerated, their interpretation of what someone said etc.
The Mirror stuff does not read to me like it was the result of a discussion intended to result in the article.
Some of the Daily Mail one reads like there has been some direct communication with Ola.
Think your instincts are spot on here. The Mirror thing reads like a re-heat. The Mail has more continuousness of thought. Not generally! I mean that article in particular.
The Mirror is using direct quotes and is not a "re-heat" their article was published on the 27th. The Mail article was published on the 28th, it directly quotes the Mirror AND gives them credit as the source in the article for it.
"She told the Daily Mirror of Arlene's departure: 'They were wrong to get rid of her. Alesha only did four months and suddenly she became a judge, a bit unfair. I mean, what does she know about dancing?"
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2736601/Ola-Jordan-questions-former-Strictly-judge-Alesha-Dixon-s-credentials-slams-bosses-hit-show.html#ixzz3ByBF12R5
James and Ola always use the Mirror group. The Mirror aren't going to annoy their main source of Strictly exclusives by miss-quoting her and sending her to the Sun. That's not how the tabloids work. You give exclusives, they give you cash.
The article wasn't to promote her calendar either. I suspect it was far more petty than that in that I would think it was because Karen gave an interview to the Daily Star.
I agree that it's a buyers market to some degree, but think putting it at the door of the EU is a bit of a swerve. I may be wrong, but don't think any of the Eastern European dancers came to Strictly from their home 'markets'. They all seem to be based in the US or in the UK or travelling the world with Burn the Floor.
As for the buyers market, it only seems to apply to some of the cast. Darcey I can accept. Craig, perhaps, but I'm intrigued to know what you think people like Bruno or Len would have been earning in their 'normal' lives if Strictly hadn't happened to them
BIB So why not apply the same logic to the judges and presenters?
It wouldn't make it right though.
You wouldn't get any Pro doing the show for that. You may not know how expensive lessons are...top pro's earn " a couple of hundred" in just 1 or 2 lessons.
The "couple of hundred" a week is a symbolic gesture. You can put it down as a pound if you like. So they can get 2000% more doing a lesson than they would doing a week on the show, but it still wouldn't be even remotely comparable to how much they would earn by appearing on the show at a single pound a week.
It wouldn't? Why wouldn't it be right? You realize the national average wage for the year is 65% of what they get for 2 and a half months of work, right? Then they have the temerity to whine about it. If they gave them what reality stars generally get (a couple of hundred a week while filming) they would still be earning a vast amount more than the average guy/gal on the streets purely due to the exposure of being in a prime time show on a tv channel funded by the public.
totally agree about their choreography - dull, dull, dull springs to mind
as dancers, they are ok but I don't get excited or yearn to see them on the dance floor
I haven't commented on the amount they're paid. My remark is aimed at your logic: pay someone as little as you can get away with because they will be grateful for the exposure. It's a form of blackmail and exploitation. They should be paid a sum appropriate to their qualifications, experience, talent and hard work - I can't say what that is, but to compare them to reality show participants (who bring none of the above) is plain silly.
I don't understand why your indignation is reserved for the dancers. Half the 'talent' on TV probably makes more money through ads, endorsements, appearances etc than they earn from the work that gives them their profile, but these dancers should graft for the glory and the spin-offs?! Tell that to Wayne Rooney and co!
As to how 'telly wages' relates to the average person's income and comparative 'value' in the real world - don't get me started! .... but that isn't what's being discussed here
Well said Fridgesoup. My thoughts exactly.
The judges have only to put in a few hours work on a sat, whereas the Pros real work is the many hours they spend with the celebs during the week teaching .
I don't know is there any contract between the Pros and the BBC about the number of hours they must put in teaching . Depending on the celeb some put in a great deal of hours from 6-8 hours a day for 6/7 days .
Maybe all the Pros should agree on 2hours a day as sufficient for what they're being paid.
When Jerry Hall did Strictly, she claimed that they had to train for a minimum of 12 hours a week.
Even without the teaching hours the pros put in though, they have the choreography to prepare and pro dances to rehearse too.
Yes, and not forgetting additional travel they sometimes have to do if their celeb is working out of the London area.
My indignation isn't reserved for just the dancers, didn't you see my whole bit about the BBC? As I said then, the dancers are just the tip of the iceberg. As for your point regarding the celebrities, judges and presenter fee's. They are the faces of the show, it's credibility and the celebs are the reason the vast majority watch. Very few people tune in to see Artem, James or Pasha or whatever their names are. So no they shouldn't be paid more and they shouldn't be bleating about what they do get paid.
As for Wayne Rooney and co, who should get the money if they aren't getting it?