The reliable Hammers news source claims that the Argentine international is still on the £36,000-per-week from his original contract signed in 2016, not the much-mooted £70,000-per-week sum.
The east London outfit were looking to offer the 26-year-old a new deal last summer, but their plans were hit by the player’s pre-World Cup injury which limited him to just 10 appearances this campaign.
Because of that setback FIFA are said to have paid the majority of Lanzini’s wages until his return to first team action in late February.
This is just a bizarre story from Claret & Hugh. Why would FIFA agree to pay Lanzini’s wages for the majority of the season? What’s in it for them? Plus, why should that be their responsibility? Footballer’s contracts are meant to be paid by their club no matter if they’re injured, not being selected or if they’re performing week in week out. There isn’t supposed to be any distinction between the three in terms of the player’s wages. So it’s strange that FIFA would agree to pay for the Argentine’s wages when they had nothing to do with his injury. Yes he picked it up in training before the FIFA World Cup, but that doesn’t mean it’s the governing body’s fault. If anyone other than West Ham were to pay his wages you’d think it would have been the Argentine FA. But no, apparently FIFA took it upon themselves to do the Hammers a favour. That sounds slightly unlikely, though, doesn’t it?