The 2 things I take from all this, is not how much somebody gets or the "gender gap", but ;
1) They get paid a hell of a lot more than politicians, who get pelters by a large chunk of voters that they get paid too much & aren't living in the real world
2) because of the above, how do presenters such as Jeremy Vine start to understand how it is to live on the living wage, especially when they are at the sharpe end talking to the public.
I pick oout Jeremy Vine in particular as he had the balls to discuss this on his lunchtime show today on Radio 2, and got a bit flustered when the first person he spoke to asked him outright if he felt he deserved to be paid 3/4 million pounds. JV didn't want to answer, but the caller insisted saying " you spend every day asking people questions - now its your turn to answer one". Great stuff.
I wasn't that shocked except for a few 'outliers' - Lineker comes to mind in that regard.
Surely, the question has to be whether there would be a serious decline in the MOTD audience if he was replaced by Dan Walker, Mark Chapman or Gabby Logan, all of whom in my opinion have proven themselves perfectly capable of hosting football highlights on the BBC. And would likely be happy to take the job at a fraction of that paid to Lineker.
The same argument could also be made for Chris Evans - if someone took the job at a fraction of that paid to him, but pulled in a million less listeners, surely that would be a justifiable trade off?
Alan Shearer I also cannot believe is worth the reported amount in exchange for the work I have seen him do...
I agree it's an obscene amount of money to pay anybody. But the BBC is competing with the bottomless pockets of Rupert Murdoch and the much higher paying ITV. Was it Murdoch who made it so that the Beeb had to release how much they're paying their talent? Can't see it happening at Sky, can you? At least Lineker does some presenting, Alan Shearer gets over £400k for saying the same thing every week for 9 months of the year. Mind you, some of these people on this list are on less than Tex was.
I don't think the BBC should be competing with the private sector. They should be filling the void that the private sector can't or won't service.
Frankly, I'm sick of seeing people in the entertainment industry being overpaid whilst mere mortals struggle. It doesn't matter whether it's tv, football or something else. Society needs to reevaluate what it is prepared to pay, I've had enough of seeing ordinarily people getting shafted.
It doesn't seem right to me that people like Jeremy Bowen, Orla Guerin or John Simpson, who report from some of the most dangerous places in the world at considerable personal risk, get paid a fraction of what Huw Edwards does to sit on his fat arse reading out an autocue.
It doesn't seem right to me that people like Jeremy Bowen, Orla Guerin or John Simpson, who report from some of the most dangerous places in the world at considerable personal risk, get paid a fraction of what Huw Edwards does to sit on his fat arse reading out an autocue.
Or (and I haven't read the report) Attenborough getting more than some poor cameraman sitting in the Arctic for 3 months to get a shot of some rare arctic fox or whatever it is that episode.
Where somebody has a clear 'following' (eg Evans, Norton, Wright) then it is reasonable to compare pay to commercial alternatives, but for the likes of Shearer, Lineker etc then it is pure 'rent-seeking' as economists like to say.
Would that be for Eggheads, his BBC2 radio show or his unbelievably bias election presenting?
Can anyone have a serious crack at answering this though? Why Jeremy Vine, JEREMY VINE, is on 3/4 of a million. Is he doing Bargain Hunt now or something?
The BBC should position itself as a finder of talent and have a maximum pay and of course equality within that. I suspect the top earners are the ones other channels have tried to nick, so whilst ITV have been enjoying this, they probably take some blame for not trying to nick more women. I think the BBC should always remember where their funding comes from.
Whether you like it or not - a show like the old Top Gear which made the BBC a lot of money - You can justify big salaries because the presenters were key to the success of the show and provided net benefit for license fee payers - whether you like them or not. If Lineker was swapped for somebody else, it would not greatly affect MOTD ratings.
the gender pay cap is in most careers, the english womens team me personally i dont enjoy watching them as much as the mens, yet wayne rooney will be on more than there captain.
Same non-story they print every year. Maybe the BBC should spend more money on sourcing new talent rather than relying on people who were household names 20 years ago.
Its news precisely because they havent revealed this previously.
If they are creative and bring something unique to a show fair enough, if they just state the obvious like Shearer and Lineker its harder to justify.
Not really bothered what BBC employees earn. What gives me the hump is having to pay for a service that I don't use. Should either show adverts or make it a subscription channel. Would be interesting to see how many people would sign up.
Most of the top BBC salaries are ludicrous - there are very few employees who can warrant their pay. Mediocre radio presenters getting 400k seems somewhat laughable.
In most cases we're not talking about highly skilled jobs or standout presenters. They do exist in a bubble...
I agree it's an obscene amount of money to pay anybody. But the BBC is competing with the bottomless pockets of Rupert Murdoch and the much higher paying ITV. Was it Murdoch who made it so that the Beeb had to release how much they're paying their talent? Can't see it happening at Sky, can you? At least Lineker does some presenting, Alan Shearer gets over £400k for saying the same thing every week for 9 months of the year. Mind you, some of these people on this list are on less than Tex was.
For comparison purposes Henry apparently gets £4m a year for performing the same role as Shearer.
Have to agree with most people about Lineker. Whilst i think he's a decent presenter, let's be honest how many people watching MOTD actually give a shit who presents it. To be honest as long as they show the goals, i couldn't care less if Katie Hopkins co-hosts it with Piers Morgan
It's a little ironic that the public sector, like the BBC, is frequently criticised for not being run along the same lines as the commercial sector. Yet when it does have to pay the going rate in order to attract the staff it deems are required, as per any other business, it's also criticised.
They are paying these salaries because there is a market for these "stars", just like footballers, and they would be off otherwise.
Couldn't care less. Non-story from right wing media to distract from Theresa May ballsing everything up.
Really? You think Gary Lineker being paid £1.8 million is a non-event? Or Shearer getting £400k for uttering a few inanities every now and again is value for money?
Remember this the next time the BBC cries out it is broke.
It's a little ironic that the public sector, like the BBC, is frequently criticised for not being run along the same lines as the commercial sector. Yet when it does have to pay the going rate in order to attract the staff it deems are required, as per any other business, it's also criticised.
They are paying these salaries because there is a market for these "stars", just like footballers, and they would be off otherwise.
I can't explain Steve Wright though...
Oh come on. Do you really think if they reduced Shearer's wage and he flounced off in a huff they couldn't find someone to take his place? There must be many recently retired footballers who can string 2 sentences together who would jump at the chance of taking his place for a fraction of what Shearer earns.
Gary Linekar, our national treasure of champagne socialism. God bless you Gary, you keep stacking your 2m a year whilst having a dig at normal people on social network for disagreeing with you about refugees, what a hero.
Comments
With the exception of Steve Wright. The bloke is about as entertaining as haemorrhoids.
1) They get paid a hell of a lot more than politicians, who get pelters by a large chunk of voters that they get paid too much & aren't living in the real world
2) because of the above, how do presenters such as Jeremy Vine start to understand how it is to live on the living wage, especially when they are at the sharpe end talking to the public.
I pick oout Jeremy Vine in particular as he had the balls to discuss this on his lunchtime show today on Radio 2, and got a bit flustered when the first person he spoke to asked him outright if he felt he deserved to be paid 3/4 million pounds. JV didn't want to answer, but the caller insisted saying " you spend every day asking people questions - now its your turn to answer one". Great stuff.
Surely, the question has to be whether there would be a serious decline in the MOTD audience if he was replaced by Dan Walker, Mark Chapman or Gabby Logan, all of whom in my opinion have proven themselves perfectly capable of hosting football highlights on the BBC. And would likely be happy to take the job at a fraction of that paid to Lineker.
The same argument could also be made for Chris Evans - if someone took the job at a fraction of that paid to him, but pulled in a million less listeners, surely that would be a justifiable trade off?
Alan Shearer I also cannot believe is worth the reported amount in exchange for the work I have seen him do...
Frankly, I'm sick of seeing people in the entertainment industry being overpaid whilst mere mortals struggle. It doesn't matter whether it's tv, football or something else. Society needs to reevaluate what it is prepared to pay, I've had enough of seeing ordinarily people getting shafted.
Whether you like it or not - a show like the old Top Gear which made the BBC a lot of money - You can justify big salaries because the presenters were key to the success of the show and provided net benefit for license fee payers - whether you like them or not. If Lineker was swapped for somebody else, it would not greatly affect MOTD ratings.
If they are creative and bring something unique to a show fair enough, if they just state the obvious like Shearer and Lineker its harder to justify.
In most cases we're not talking about highly skilled jobs or standout presenters. They do exist in a bubble...
They are paying these salaries because there is a market for these "stars", just like footballers, and they would be off otherwise.
I can't explain Steve Wright though...
Remember this the next time the BBC cries out it is broke.