I'll use a simplistic analogy: You have two options for a job. One is for an established company, in which you're more or less a caretaker. You have to work, but you don't have to kill yourself figuring out how to make it work and you have everything you need to succeed already in place. They offer you $100k/yr. The next option is a bit of a start up. They've been around for a while, but have never been very successful and the territory for the product is smaller and less economically vibrant. They offer you $100k as well. Which one are you accepting? You're not a moron, so it isn't the second one, but you do counter and say look, I'm interested in your position, but it's a small, unproductive and under developed territory, but it has potential. I'll have to work much harder than if I took a similar position, but I'm confident I could make it work. If you pay me $150k, I'll take the position. UK football, in case it wasn't clear, is the underdeveloped territory and Mitch paid more because that's how free market capitalism works.