All players and managers contracted to all clubs should get the same pay. Problem solved - Karl Marx 2025
All players and managers contracted to all clubs should get the same pay. Problem solved - Karl Marx 2025
Should the underage managers be on the same pay too? If not, why not?Originally Posted by tetsujin1979
The modern world seems to have a Communist view of equality which has no basis in financial reality, or indeed fairness.
I maybe wouldn't mind as much if she had some track record of success to draw on from her time in charge. But, having signed a contract of her own free will, and subsequently failed miserably in the job itself, she's now looking for in the region of a million euro payoff for her 16 months of failure in the job.
I honestly wouldn't be surprised if the FAI ended up cutting a deal with her for a few grand to make it go away. Which is maybe what she's hoping for. But she'll have pretty much rendered herself about as hireable as Enoch Burke after this, if her performance in the job itself hadn't already ensured that.
Messi and an Irish woman international should be able to make the same amount of money, from playing professional soccer in there careers, regardless of how much money either generates for soccer ! ! !
Lefty economics in a nutshell !
The only comparable salaries to that of Gleeson, are those of Pauw and Carla Ward (Colin Healy’s wage could also be of some relevance). A discrimination case which points to the salary of Hallgrimsson as a comparator ought to fail as he’s not managing the women’s team, he’s managing the men’s team, an entirely different and distinct role (would Gleeson for example, have considered applying for the men’s job? not likely, given she would have been evidently unqualified to do it despite being the preferred candidate for the women’s job) The suggestion that there should be pay parity is patently ludicrous and should be resisted vigorously from whichever quarter it emanates. Additionally, to suggest that an already bankrupt organisation should bankroll such a farce, would add fiscal stupidity to illogical virtue-signalling.
The comparable pay obviosuly gets the headlines and comments, but reading the article there is a lot more to it. Some of it extremly concerning.
And Gleeson wasn't the men's manager. They're different jobs.
How do you decide which jobs should be paid the same as others?
Diversity & Inclusion has an awful lot of crap to answer for.
Agreed. Some of the stuff on the lack of security is shocking. Hopefully that doesn't get overshadowed. And generally poor provision of support of various kinds.
The bit about salary discrimination in comparison to Hallgrimsson's salary will be the headline, and it's nonsense tbh.
That said, the argument that income generation is the key measurement here isn't one I'm a big fan of. Hallgrimsson's salary isn't determined by income generation in the first place.
If they paid Gleeson the same salary as the mens team manager how long will it be before the womans players at the clunbs say they are doing the same job as Micheal Duffy or Forrester or Pico and should be paid accordingly
Cue every LOI club going bankrupt or making all the womans teams fully amateur in every position , manager and players
But it feels like she's attaching that stuff onto her compo claim for her own benefit rather than for the right reasons.
If her motives were genuine why is this stuff only coming out now? As the manager she should have been airing these issues when they arose.
But it sounds like everything was agreeable enough to her up until the point where her own contract wasn't renewed, then suddenly they are problems worth airing when it suits her own interests.
I guess it may have been discussed internally up until now, but with no satisfactory resolution, she's now taking a next step.
That said, I'm not sure what else is in there on reading it more closely. There's an issue that there was no security linked with the squad while the men's squad had three people - but so what? Again, they're different squads with different profiles, and that doesn't mean the women's team should have had three security personnel too. There's two incidents outlined and the FAI responded by adding one security member. You could say they should have had one person before, but it seems a relatively trivial issue for a court case.
Then she says she was forced into the senior manager role, which also sounds a weird one. I can't think of anything comparable really. Most people would surely want to step up - which isn't to say she wouldn't have the right to not step up. I presume she got more pay for it, and she's still with the FAI so it's not like she lost her job when she left the senior role.
I think it's hard not to look at the equal pay thing as a nuisance case and to judge the overall case on it. That may be unfortunate if not intended, but it does seem to be a big part of the case, unless I'm missing something.
Tbf, the article suggests she was raising these issues but getting nowhere. There are examples of her contacting people but getting no response/help whatsoever.
So why not go public then if it was that bad? Or straight after she was demoted if she felt she couldn't do it while she was the manager? Why hold it back without mention right up until the point where she is seeking damages?
In fairness, I've no problems someone going through the correct channels rather than running to the media every time something they don't like happens
this article suggests that she applied for the role twice but wasn't successful. it also quotes her admitting her interest in the role when she finally got it.
https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/67761893
"If you're asking for a critical, specific time where I changed my mind, it was standing in the rain in Albania," she said.
"I mean, who wouldn't want to be there?".
and...
"It is third time lucky for Gleeson, who applied for the position in 2017 and 2019 but lost out of Colin Bell and Pauw respectively."
she knows that attacking the FAI is low lying fruit for the Irish media and is taking advantage of this
Everyone ( well a lot of people ) is on the make these days, They are just looking for the best angle to grind ?
Genuinely where does the FAI go from here?
Academies: Woefully underfunded, held together by amazing volunteers trying to hold down day jobs
Schools: Could have been useful in the absence of academies but completely ignored by the FAI in comparison to GAA/rugby.
Junior football: A mess of poor facilities and unaligned leagues. May not help the senior team now but keeping people playing football can only help clubs and the game long-term
Commercial: Poor quality merchandise, lack of national brands engaging in sponsorship, frustrating ticket packages that alienate fans
LOI: The one shining light but the clubs are driving that, along with a few capable FAI employees, not the organisation as a whole
National Team: Less said the better
The whole thing is a shambles
The League of Ireland isn't even a shining light, it's just less bad than it used to be.
The answer to your question is that they continue to cut their cloth with the upcoming redundancies, and they plod on. Anyone who thinks we're on the verge of significant change, or that huge changes "have to happen", is going to be extremely disappointed.
It's a sad enough reflection on Irish football support currently that this is about as positive a remark as you've ever made about the LOI.
The LOI is currently thriving as much as its ever been. Record attendances, underage structures continuing to produce the goods, under-17 Irish squad in the world cup with an almost entirely home based squad, two clubs in group stage of European football, and all of this despite being one of the most underfunded leagues in Europe.
Some people would rather just continue to berate the league at every given opportunity though, and frankly, its just sad.
Last edited by nigel-harps1954; 10/09/2025 at 1:03 PM.
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks