MartiSaka
Join my "Occupy A-M" movement here 🗳
For me it's not about corruption in the refereeing case. However, there is often a correlation between low pay and corruption. As an example go to different parts of asia and africa where police are on a salary of virtually nothing:; I think small time corruption is the expected way that you make a living. But I agree there are a number of important factors other than salary i.e. opportunity, culture, morality, job transparencyYou have to be stunningly naive to think that paying corrupt people more will make them less corrupt. They're not corrupt because they don't get paid enough. If you trebled the salaries of politicians and referees they would just be making more money in base salary while still being corrupt. We have the greatest income disparity in modern history and the most corrupt people on the planet are those with the most money, how on earth could you reconcile that with paying people more leading to less corruption?
Is Sunak any less corrupt than any other PM in recent memory because he's got more access to capital? No he's not. Was Trump less corrupt because he was wealthier than any other President in history? Quite the opposite. Corruption is stopped by actual consequences not pay rises. Human beings are greedy, particularly where money is concerned.
If you pay a ref 300k instead of 100k that's not going to make him turn down a big bribe. In fact it becomes easier to take the bribe because less questions are asked about how your expenditures square with your salary. What these referees need is to be held accountable for their performances. Throwing money at them with no attached performance stipulations is just daft.
But higher salaries would definitely increase the pool of talent willing to be referees. Would you want to cop death threats and the abuse they receive, in addition to being despised by strangers as you walk down the street for a moderate salary?