Mason Mount not offered “comparable salary” to Reece James according to ESPN report

Mason Mount is on the verge of leaving Chelsea, and it’s all down to a contract issue.

The reason we’re selling him is because he’s coming into the last year of his current deal, and we can’t agree a new one with him. That means he has to be sold now to ensure we get a good transfer fee.

It’s infuriating for the fans – why are we selling off our fan favourite academy stars rather than giving them the money they deserve?

The ESPN report on matters makes it very clear why Mount isn’t happy. It claims that Reece James’ new deal put him on a £250,000 per week, but the midfielder wasn’t offered a “comparable salary.”

Some people have tried to explain that away. You might argue that James is in the top 5 players in the world in his position (perhaps the top 3), while Mount isn’t.

The counter argument to that is easy – since they broke into the team at same time, Mount has played 195 games and James just 147.

Mount has been reliably fit consistently, while James’ issues have gone from irritating to really worrying. So the idea that they would receive similar wages is not outrageous.

There may be more to it than that – we’ve heard there are issues with the midfielder’s image rights – but we can see this being the crux of the issue.


  1. Sorry, SuperFrank, your “argument” as you call it is a loser. Durability alone does not warrant that kind of money, nor does sentimentality. Mount is simply not the elite player James is and the durability and consistency arguments took a major hit this season as saw his performances drop off fairly precipitously.

    It’s natural for supporters to want to see “homegrown” players stay, but it’s the owners’ responsibility no to let sentimentality factor into what have to be business decisions. And it’s just not good business to pay Mount 250k/week! If the player’s ego is caught up believing that he deserves money equal to James then that’s on him, but every pro athlete knows that you have got to deliver results in a “contract year” and Mount did anything but. Chelsea’s unwillingness to meet his demands is therefore on him, not the owners.

    1. The fact Mount has played far more with less breaks has led to fatigue. James on the other hand has had plenty of rest also missing international matches. James has pretty much played his normal position Mount moved around accommodating coaches various systems. And please don’t give me the nonsense that James has been on form. He and Fofana have been embarrassed many times not reacting to balls into the box losing concentration. Madrid made him look average defensively and what exactly has created goal or assist wise. Had Mount not finally picked up an injury the games total would differ even more. Whilst James was out injured in 21/22 Mount was running himself into the ground producing most goal involvements taking us into a top 4 slot. Without those contributions no UCL. Forwards attackers are normally paid more in anycase.. James had talks first and agreed his lucrative deal and been on it for months. Mount talks opened after James so for the last 6 months James has been on treble Mount’s salary Mount was instrumental in our successes been player of the season two years in a row that earns you a higher status. Kante was earning 10 million almost for 2 matches almost 4 times Mount and throw in games he missed over the two previous seasons. Don’t give me the James has been great nonsense he hasn’t.

Comments are closed

Chelsea News