There are those who insist that CEOs are overpaid. What shareholders do with their own money is not, of course, something to be determined by cardigan sniffers among the Guardian reading classes.
The slightly more sophisticated go on to say that, actually, it’s not the shareholders who determine these things. They’re a dispersed interest and they’re outdone by the insiders. The non-execs all have an interest in business folk being highly paid, many are CEOs elsewhere themselves, so they as an exploitative class jack up top bod wages.
So, can we test that insistence? Sure, we can. Because there are businesses out there where the shareholders are not a dispersed interest. Where – off over in private equity, or privately owned not public market companies – the power of the capitalists is very much greater than that of the managerial class. If the owners being duped reason is true then private business should pay less than public. So, does it?
Mr Segev will take over as co-chief executive of DAZN, a venture launched by Mr Blavatnik that owns overseas TV rights to the likes of the football Premier League, US baseball and English cricket.
However, sources said that the former Israeli soldier will remain at Entain until as late as July and will likely oversee any potential sale to MGM.
Mr Blavatnik – Britain’s fourth-richest man with an estimated net worth of £23bn – is believed to have approached Mr Segev shortly before Christmas to run DAZN with the promise of a salary of several times higher than the £675,00 he is paid each year by Entain, sources said.
He is also understood to have been offered share options worth tens of millions of pounds, if not more than £100m.
Barry Gibson, Entain chairman, said: “We are sorry that Shay has decided to leave us but recognise that we cannot match the rewards that he has been promised.”
Oh. A CEO is moving from a public company to a private one on the grounds that private pays him many multiples of what the public one will. Something that everyone is being entirely open about as the reason.
Doesn’t that just show that the original complaint, that the shareholders get duped, is bollocks then? But then, you know, we’d sorta expect that given the source among the cardigan sniffing Guardian reading classes.