Skip to content

Real Madrid set to receive $3.4 million compensation after Sami Khedira injury

Nov 17, 2013, 3:58 PM EDT

sami_khedira Getty Images

Kirsten Schlewitz told you about this one yesterday: Real Madrid stalwart Sami Khedira, a fixture in midfield this season for Carlo Ancelotti, is potentially out six months after injuring his knee. After 14 all-competition appearances, recording one goal and one assist, the 26-year-old German international may be out until near the end of the season, using only few La Liga matches to regain fitness before World Cup prep begins.

[MORE: Sami Khedira could miss six months with injury]

This is obviously a huge setback for Germany and Real Madrid, but Khedira’s club is going to see some of their inconvenience offset. Per FIFA rules, the world soccer governing body compensates clubs for every day a player misses beyond the first 28 with an injured suffered on international duty. That compensation: Covering the player’s salary.

Khedira makes just over $22,000 per day with Real Madrid. If his ACL tear keeps him out for the projected six months, FIFA will owe the Merengues just under $3.7 million, according to today’s reports out of Spain.

Had Cristiano Ronaldo (earning an estimated $28.3 million per year) suffered the same injury, FIFA would be set to cut Real Madrid a check for $11.8 million.

After being injured in Friday’s second half against Italy, Khedira underwent surgery Saturday in Augsburg, a procedure that will see him confined to the city recovering for three weeks. With no reported complications, German doctor Wilhelm Müller-Wohlfahrt said the national team remains “very hopeful that [Khedira will] be able to return in time for the World Cup.”

The earliest Germany would start begin Brazil 2014 is June 13. Later, we’ll circle back to talk about what the injury means for the nationalmannschaft’s preparations as well as Real Madrid’s quest to claim a 10th European title.

  1. wynswrld - Nov 17, 2013 at 5:10 PM

    It’s not clear from this article who pays the compensation. Is it FIFA, or is it the German federation?

    • Richard Farley - Nov 17, 2013 at 5:18 PM

      See second sentence of paragraph two.

  2. ndnut - Nov 17, 2013 at 7:08 PM

    Richard: you normally have a reason for the way you deal with incompetent readers in the comments. However, the last sentence of the third paragraph contradicted the earlier statement. If legitimate questions are disrespected, I can and will take my readership elsewhere.

    • Richard Farley - Nov 17, 2013 at 7:10 PM

      Oh. Let me check now.

    • Richard Farley - Nov 17, 2013 at 7:12 PM

      Thanks for pointing that out. And for what it’s worth, I don’t see how my initial response was disrespectful. It was just wrong. Or, at least, I didn’t read past paragraph two, sentence two.

      If you can let me know how/why you saw it as disrespectful, let me know. Maybe I’m missing something.

  3. footballer4ever - Nov 17, 2013 at 8:17 PM

    @ Richard Farley

    From an outsider’s point of view, It was not disrespectful, but it was thoughtless which can come out as disrespectful in the way you dealt with that valid question or concern. By the same token, i understand how some individuals, give you a hard time here that maybe have made things difficult to deal with whay is a genuine question or not because there are quite a craving attention lunatics constantly nitpicking, pointing out from spelling errors to whatever their twisted mind bugs them next. (Yes, You know who you are!!!). I had the same question when i finished reading it myself.

    • Richard Farley - Nov 17, 2013 at 8:19 PM

      Thanks for the feedback. That helps.

      I suppose I’d also take exception with it being thoughtless (if did, after all, point out a spot where I thought the question would be answered) and offered it was short on pleasantries and the customer service-esque tone many might expect. And that I can’t deny. I would just offer that while my response may have been unexpected, it’s pretty neutral.

      • footballer4ever - Nov 17, 2013 at 8:34 PM

        “if did, after all, point out a spot where I thought the question would be answered)”

        That’s where the “thoughtless”, and not lack of answer, is where it might be interpreted as disrespectful to just tell someone to read again a portion of what you already wrote as if it was simply a lack of comprehension problem. Again, giving you the benefit of the doubt, I understand some individuals , not referring to wynswrld , do in fact suffer from such “syndrome” and make it difficult for you and other authors here on a daily basis.

        Personally, I enjoy and look forward to reading most of the stories.

      • Richard Farley - Nov 17, 2013 at 8:36 PM

        Thanks, man. And thanks for the feedback. Definitely pointed out a potential pitfall.

  4. ndnut - Nov 17, 2013 at 8:46 PM

    I do enjoy your writing and your responses to the idiotic questions, and I just though your response was a bit cold/thoughtless/dry. I couldn’t do your job as well as you, as your interaction in the comments is usually enjoyable. Sorry for my rudeness.

    • Richard Farley - Nov 17, 2013 at 8:48 PM

      Nah, you weren’t rude. I disagreed, but yours and the other feedback have shown me: I might not be perceiving the rudeness (and it certainly wasn’t intended), but if it’s there, it’s there. So, I’ll definitely be more conscious in the future, which means I owe both of you a “thanks.”

      • footballer4ever - Nov 17, 2013 at 9:03 PM

        @ Richard Farley

        A thank is not actually needed, but thank for the thoughtful gesture either way. The fact of the matter is I enjoy logging in to WFT, err, PST, is rewarding and I am thankful enough we have our own place to gather , inform, discuss if even times disagreements arise and “things” are thrown out at each other. Thank you and your colleagues for leading this blogging place.

        @ Ndnut- You are a great contributor with your presence to this blog and I do acknowledge it in public.

      • footballer4ever - Nov 17, 2013 at 9:10 PM

  5. wynswrld - Nov 17, 2013 at 8:55 PM

    As the original commenter, I must say your response was far from neutral. It clearly insinuated that I failed to comprehend the article as written, when in fact the article contained an obvious contradiction between the second and third paragraph (which has now been fixed, thanks).

    Although I’ll admit, if I had been here to see your response, I would have replied with “see second sentence of paragraph three…”


    • Richard Farley - Nov 17, 2013 at 9:02 PM

      Thanks, wynswrld. I still don’t see how it wasn’t neutral, though. I certainly did implying you hadn’t seen that sentence – no way around that – but there’s no reason that can’t be done in an objective, even-handed way.

      Right? I mean, how else could we ever point out somebody’s potential mistakes? Didn’t your original comment imply that I had made a comprehension error? Yes, it did. Were you rude about it? No more so than I was, which I was say is not at all. Both comments, to me, come off as matter-of-fact.

      If you would have replied with “see second sentence of paragraph three” my response would have been “Doh! You’re right. Thank you!”

      I think we’re just at a place in the internet where any correction seems rude, but maybe dealing with PST (and knowing how many errors I make), I’m just used to it. Honestly, I was just trying to keep my correction to you as short as possible and trying not to make a big deal of what I (at the time) thought was an honest oversight on your part.

      All the same, thanks for telling me how you took it. Whether this is me being rude or a general misunderstanding, I’d like to avoid both (though this conversation has been very interesting).

      • wynswrld - Nov 17, 2013 at 9:14 PM

        My original comment was simply seeking clarification on two contradictory paragraphs in your article. Comparing the tone of my question to the tone of your response is just being disingenuous.

        I think the issue (although ‘issue’ is probably too strong a word for this – it’s a silly misunderstanding) is that, as you admit, you assumed the oversight was on my part, without first re-reading the entire article to find the source of my confusion.

        Anyway, my question has been answered. Thanks.

      • wynswrld - Nov 17, 2013 at 9:38 PM

        What mistake of mine were you compelled to correct? I saw the sentence you referred me to. I also saw the sentence in the following paragraph that directly contradicted that one – hence my question. Wouldn’t it have been much simpler to admit your mistake, and say “FIFA is responsible for the compensation”?

      • Richard Farley - Nov 17, 2013 at 9:40 PM

        I did. I was talking about at the time I made the initially comment. I thought you were the one mistaken, which proved wrong. I couldn’t just say “you were correct” because I didn’t realize that at the time; hence, the answer I gave.

      • footballer4ever - Nov 17, 2013 at 9:43 PM

        @ wynswrld

        Let it go, buddy. No need to extend it more than it has already been done. Points were presented, acknowledged, analyzed, and compromised by everyone who got into the root of the problem. Having said that, requesting a mistake admission is pushing the envelope. Case Closed. :)

  6. nappy25 - Nov 17, 2013 at 9:16 PM

    This Bro-out was brought to you by ProSoccerTalk.

    • footballer4ever - Nov 17, 2013 at 9:33 PM

      …and then the lunatics start to come out of the woodwork. lol

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

Premier League, Week 3 review