

Frank Lampard is Now the Premier League’s Top Earner
By: Daryl | August 14th, 2008
And so Frank Lampard has got himself the contract he wanted. To be fair to Frank, he only ever asked for one thing: loads of money every week for the next five years. My guess is that all the talk about moving to Inter Milan was half a veiled threat and half a Plan B should Chelsea not cough up the cash.
The figure hasn’t been officially released but it’s believed to be “close to £140,000 a week” which would make Lamps the top earner in the Premier League, with John Terry a close second. Could be worse, eh Frank? The sticking point wasn’t really the weekly amount (with so many goals from midfield, it’s easy to argue he’s worth it) but the length of the contract.
The 30-year-old Lampard may be worth “close to £140,000 a week”, but will the 34-year-old Lampard?
A lot of the man’s game is based on his energy and consistency. He’s up and down the pitch and all over the place, in a good way. He’s also ridiculously fit and hardly ever seems to miss a game. But now that he’s 30, it’s unlikely he’s going to get any better or any fitter.
Lampard could make a good argument that his fitness record suggests he’ll age well, like fine wine, but it’s equally possible that Chelsea will eventually be paying an astronomical sum to a man in his mid-thirties who’s too tired to boss the midfield like he used to. And you never know when the downward slide will begin, or how steep it will be.
The reluctance to sign such a long and expensive deal with Lampard seems to be the high rolling Chelsea equivalent of Arsenal’s one year contracts for players over 30 rule. Arsenal’s policy makes sense financially, but it sees far too many players leave before their time (like Robert Pires for example).
But, it seems a smart compromise has been reached at Chelsea whereby Lampard’s wages will drop in the final twelve months of his contract, to reflect his likely reduced contribution. That could go either way. If he’s useless at that point then Chelsea will still be shelling out a lot of money for little return.
But if Lampard is still on top of his game, then he’ll have a contract based on a reduced version of five year old prices.
Either side could lose out. But, this is still a happy compromise. Lampard has a guaranteed fat contract for the next five years of his life, and now Chelsea don’t have to put up with Jose Mourinho bothering them every summer to see if he can buy his buddy.
![]() |
Soccer Forums | Team/International Results |
Subscribe
|
Print
|
Share
![]() |
Comments | Add your comment
-



I would like to have seen Lampard in an Inter shirt, it would have been a good move for him. But fair enough, for now he has shown he is willing to be loyal to Chelsea (until Mourinho comes back with a bid this time next year).
Posted from
Argentina

-



The trouble is, with Roman’s millions it doesn’t matter if he is any good at 34, because they can afford to just have him on the bench.
But I do like Lampard, I think he’s a valuable football especially to Chelsea - although quite how Scolari is going to fit Deco, Lamps and Ballack in the same side is a mysetery to me.
Posted from
United States

-



A lot more badge-kissing will be required to heal the wounds…..
Posted from
India

-



Why are soccer salaries always reported as X number of dollars per week? Is it a European thing? Do Europeans negotiate salaries by how much they make a week instead of per year? Why don’t they just say how much he’s going make per year?
Posted from
United States

-



Charles, that’s a good question actually. It’s not really a European thing, but a football thing. I guess (and this is only a guess) is that it’s a throwback to the days when footballers had regular jobs when the season was over, and contracts that talked of wages per week made more sense.
Posted from
United States

-



Ak, I’ve got nothing to back that up but it makes perfect sense to me.
Posted from
United States

-



Which begs the obvious question, which I’ve always felt I should know the answer to but was never sure about: That weekly salary is for a full 52 weeks per year, is it not?
(What can I say? i’m an MLS fan, where the players make $12,200 a year. This is not an issue in MLS.)
Posted from
United States

-



Yeah, I surprised myself with how cogent it appears!
Oh, and Charles here’s a quick maths trick: to multiply by 50 (which is close enough to 52), just half the number and add two zeros.
So, for 90,000/week: half of 90 is a 45, and two more zeros on the three at the end makes 4,500,000/year. Simple…er.
Actually, after a while, you don’t even need to worry about the zeros because you know what ballpark the answer is going to be in. So, for 110,000/week: half of 11 is 5.5 so it’s 5.5m/year (because 55m/year sounds too high, and 0.55m/year sounds too low).
Next week on “calculators are for chumps”: multiplication by 11…
Posted from
United States

-



Laurie: me too! I think it is.
Posted from
United States

Leave a Reply
If you have not commented here before, please take a moment to peruse ourCommenting Guidelines.














