After the arsenal paceman recently renewed his Arsenal contract boosting his weekly wage to a whopping £100,000 questions have arisen about weather this is too much? Walcott has varied in quality in recent seasons, he is currently on a high, but is he worth this big figure?
This season the England international has been in incredible form, he is currently Arsenal’s top scorer with 11 goals from 20 games, on top of this he has given 7 assists. This form shows how much an unusually poor Arsenal team need Theo, and if this means cashing out £100,000 a week then so be it. Arsenal are currently sitting at 6th in the table and results have been sporadic, keeping Walcott is a big boost for the club. After loosing Robin Van Persie to Manchester United Wenger pushed very hard for Walcott to stay.
Is £100,000 too much?
100,000 every week equates to 5.2 million a year, this is without sponsorship, at the end of Walcott’s 3 and a half year contract Arsenal will of paid him 18.2 million. This is a huge sum of money, and questions must be asked about how a 23 year old can spend such an amount. The fact that Walcott also rejected £75,000 a week shows that money is his main priority, not the love of the club.
Should footballers be paid such vast amounts?
The question is always asked ‘why is a solider paid 17,000 a year and a football player paid twice this a week?’ and I completely agree that wages of footballers should be less, but I don’t believe that the wages of players will ever decrease due to the amount of people that watch and follow football in the world. However, their wages could be redistributed upon receiving them. As England hero David Beckham has recently promised his wages to a French children’s charity, this should set an example to all footballers to do something similar.