“Cutting footballers’ salaries would harm the NHS”

[Oakeshott]

I think a problem is that two essentially separate issues are being brought together, understandably but in my view inappropriately.

The first is what is seen as misuse of the Government's furlough scheme, when wealthy businesses use the fact of a government enforced stoppage of business to offload 80% of staff wages (to an upper limit) from them to the public. The second is the issue of very high pay within a small element of the industry.

Both issues apply far beyond football. The first arises solely because of the Government's action and is designed to save jobs as without it many private sector companies would be making many more staff redundant than they are and, probably, be going out of business especially, as for understandable reasons, the Government could not, and still cannot, say when the enforced shutdown of business will end. Outside of football, some companies are responding differently to others, no doubt in part because of their differing financial positions and values, but ALL, even the most "ethical", whose businesses have been closed will have to go down the route of using the Government scheme sooner or later to survive. In the football context the likes of Liverpool and Spurs look to be on one end of a spectrum but they are only businesses doing what many another company is doing.

Then there is the issue of pay. In other businesses we see as in football, some high paid people voluntarily taking cuts for the sake of their businesses. But as Rooney has pointed out, there is very differential pay among top footballers. I've no idea who is the best paid player in the Premiership or what he earns, but it will surely be many, many times what say a young squad player in a team like Norwich or Watford will be earning. So the idea of a flat 30% reduction or whatever makes no sense, unless the Government had decided to apply that to every business for employees above a certain pay level before it could access the furlough scheme.

The bottom line is that we are where we are because of Government decisions which, whatever their merits or demerits, force the normal flow of business and revenue to stop. That is hardly the fault of any professional footballer and in my view they should be left to do what Rooney indicates they are doing, sorting out arrangements with their clubs in the light of specific circumstances.


ps

Just seen this on the BBC website:

"Britain's largest telecoms company, BT, has pledged not to fire or furlough any of its staff for the next three months.

Chief executive Philip Jansen, who tested positive for coronavirus in March, will also donate half his annual salary to charity and said the company will do "everything we can" to support its 84,000 UK employees.

"For the foreseeable future – at least the next three months – no BT, Openreach, EE or Plusnet colleague will lose their job as a result of the changing trading conditions. That's a promise," Mr Jansen wrote in a letter to staff.

While recruitment is on hold and managers' salaries have been frozen, BT has reaffirmed its commitment to provide shares worth £500 to employees and frontline staff will also be given a 1.5% salary increase.

Mr Jansen's donation to NHS charities and affected small businesses in his local community is reportedly worth over £500,000."

Obviously those decisions reflect BT's current expectations about its business (presumably not nearly as badly affected as some in other industries) and its financial position. Let's hope in three months things generally look a lot better but if not even a company like BT won't, presumably, be able to sustain a non furlough policy indefinitely.

[ffcne]

I think a problem is that two essentially separate issues are being brought together, understandably but in my view inappropriately.

The first is what is seen as misuse of the Government's furlough scheme, when wealthy businesses use the fact of a government enforced stoppage of business to offload 80% of staff wages (to an upper limit) from them to the public. The second is the issue of very high pay within a small element of the industry.

Both issues apply far beyond football. The first arises solely because of the Government's action and is designed to save jobs as without it many private sector companies would be making many more staff redundant than they are and, probably, be going out of business especially, as for understandable reasons, the Government could not, and still cannot, say when the enforced shutdown of business will end. Outside of football, some companies are responding differently to others, no doubt in part because of their differing financial positions and values, but ALL, even the most "ethical", whose businesses have been closed will have to go down the route of using the Government scheme sooner or later to survive. In the football context the likes of Liverpool and Spurs look to be on one end of a spectrum but they are only businesses doing what many another company is doing.

Then there is the issue of pay. In other businesses we see as in football, some high paid people voluntarily taking cuts for the sake of their businesses. But as Rooney has pointed out, there is very differential pay among top footballers. I've no idea who is the best paid player in the Premiership or what he earns, but it will surely be many, many times what say a young squad player in a team like Norwich or Watford will be earning. So the idea of a flat 30% reduction or whatever makes no sense, unless the Government had decided to apply that to every business for employees above a certain pay level before it could access the furlough scheme.

The bottom line is that we are where we are because of Government decisions which, whatever their merits or demerits, force the normal flow of business and revenue to stop. That is hardly the fault of any professional footballer and in my view they should be left to do what Rooney indicates they are doing, sorting out arrangements with their clubs in the light of specific circumstances.


ps

Just seen this on the BBC website:

"Britain's largest telecoms company, BT, has pledged not to fire or furlough any of its staff for the next three months.

Chief executive Philip Jansen, who tested positive for coronavirus in March, will also donate half his annual salary to charity and said the company will do "everything we can" to support its 84,000 UK employees.

"For the foreseeable future – at least the next three months – no BT, Openreach, EE or Plusnet colleague will lose their job as a result of the changing trading conditions. That's a promise," Mr Jansen wrote in a letter to staff.

While recruitment is on hold and managers' salaries have been frozen, BT has reaffirmed its commitment to provide shares worth £500 to employees and frontline staff will also be given a 1.5% salary increase.

Mr Jansen's donation to NHS charities and affected small businesses in his local community is reportedly worth over £500,000."

Obviously those decisions reflect BT's current expectations about its business (presumably not nearly as badly affected as some in other industries) and its financial position. Let's hope in three months things generally look a lot better but if not even a company like BT won't, presumably, be able to sustain a non furlough policy indefinitely.

The footballers were not going to do anything .
Left to do do what Rooney indicates.  :yay:
Lets put Rooney in total charge .

l

[ffcne]

I'm probably repeating what others have said but I think the reaction of some - Lineker etc - that footballers are easy targets just shows how out of touch they are.  The main point about highly paid people running businesses is surely that their large salaries are still a small proportion of turnover of their companies which may employ large numbers of staff, whereas Premier League, and probably Championship, clubs spend at least 80% of their running costs on players pay, probably more.  It is outrageous for clubs to try to take advantage of a Government scheme to protect workers when only a small proportion of what they spend on players would be needed to pay other staff.  Maybe the mistake was to try to agree a blanket reduction across all clubs rather than deal with this within each club.  I'm sure most players themselves would be happy to support staff at their own club and it probably wouldn't require that much of a reduction in what they get.

As things stand, will all the players get booed when football eventually starts again?  Interesting thought
[/quote



Very good point.]

[Oakeshott]

"The footballers were not going to do anything."

Your evidence for that?

[domprague]

 :005:

Most of them have already had it.

[domprague]

How about getting agents to kick in? There are plenty making millions out of the game.

As for people running businesses and their salaries. From what I gather it is not about the salary it is the bonus and the shares.

Be nice if Andrex, Tesco, Amazon and so on kicked in a donation as they are having windfall after windfall right now.

[Statto]

There's a much more reasonable article on this from Alan Shearer on the BBC today for those that are interested. He defends the players to some extent by saying it's a complex situation, and most will want to help but want to take advice on the best way to do it. But he's also critical where appropriate, eg about the big clubs putting non-playing staff on furlough. Good article from a decent bloke IMO.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52209583

[ALG01]

there are a number of issues and I hope I mam not repeating too many.

1. the players earn way too much and if the clubs cannot afford to pay 'ordinary people they employ' and have to furlough them then I think it totally reasonable that the players on their outrageous salaries should divert some of their earnings to keep the others working or at least being paid full wack!

2. the players earn way to much and excuse these obscene amounts by claiming HMG will lose tax is a ridiculous argument because at no poinmt have I seen a concerted effort by the players or the PFA to divert a a significant percentage that they will hardly notice from them to worthy causes.

3. it is up to the clubs and the players not us how the money and salaries are spent...we just need to be aware of the obscenity of it and hold it to account.

4. Amazon, google, fat cat banks/hedge funds and the such like that pay next to no tax in the UK but earn fortunes should be held to account and shown up for the greedy people they are.

I do think the players do them selves no favours in the beauty contest stakes by not doing more, and the PFA are not helping.

[Statto]

So the PFA have managed to drag these negotiations out for another month then... That'll be another £100m+ the players collectively "earn" this month for all that time spent on their Playstations, Instagram etc. Keeerching

[ffcne]

Rooney at it again.

[Twig]

I've completely lost patience with the bloody PFA and their negotiations.  I recognise it's not one size fits all, a player on 5 or 10k a week (and I know it's still a lot) is not the same as one on 100k a week. All those on £20k or more can certainly afford to make a serious gesture.

As to highly paid CEOs, bankers etc; that's far too simplistic a generalisation.  Where I am critical is with companies who manage to pay a tiny tax contribution in the UK whilst operating here. But then I've always been unhappy about that and critical of successive governments for failing to close the loopholes these greedy companies exploit.

[The Rational Fan]

there are a number of issues and I hope I mam not repeating too many.

1. the players earn way too much and if the clubs cannot afford to pay 'ordinary people they employ' and have to furlough them then I think it totally reasonable that the players on their outrageous salaries should divert some of their earnings to keep the others working or at least being paid full wack!

2. the players earn way to much and excuse these obscene amounts by claiming HMG will lose tax is a ridiculous argument because at no poinmt have I seen a concerted effort by the players or the PFA to divert a a significant percentage that they will hardly notice from them to worthy causes.

3. it is up to the clubs and the players not us how the money and salaries are spent...we just need to be aware of the obscenity of it and hold it to account.

4. Amazon, google, fat cat banks/hedge funds and the such like that pay next to no tax in the UK but earn fortunes should be held to account and shown up for the greedy people they are.

I do think the players do them selves no favours in the beauty contest stakes by not doing more, and the PFA are not helping.

An average worker in Ethiopia is paid £500 per year, an average worker in UK is paid £25,000 per year and an average Championship Footballer is paid £20,000 per week. So the average UK worker is over-paid or underpaid depending on their comparison, but the average UK worker will generally conclude they are underpaid. I am sure the average Championship Footballer is the same, that is thinks they are underpaid.

[RaySmith]

Footballer are comparable to movie and pop stars, who make millions, but it's accepted that in these industries  you 'have to make hay while the sun shines.'

Footballers are the same - it' a short career, which can  be suddenly ended by injury, or just being deemed not good enough.

I don't see why footballers are picked upon   while other very wealthy groups aren't.

I also think that  the situation is complex between clubs and players, and  am sure many players want to do the best they can for their communities- footballers having a history of charity work.

[Statto]

Footballer are comparable to movie and pop stars, who make millions, but it's accepted that in these industries  you 'have to make hay while the sun shines.'

Footballers are the same - it' a short career, which can  be suddenly ended by injury, or just being deemed not good enough.

I don't see why footballers are picked upon   while other very wealthy groups aren't.

I also think that  the situation is complex between clubs and players, and  am sure many players want to do the best they can for their communities- footballers having a history of charity work.

They've been singled out in the COVID 19 outbreak because they work for small organisations who are laying off (and claiming taxpayer handouts for) staff on low/average salaries whilst continuing to pay the players' astronomical salaries in their entirety, despite the players also doing nothing at this time.

FWIW I don't have a problem with footballers earning astronomical salaries generally. Although I do think they can be distinguished from many (albeit perhaps not all) other wealthy groups on the basis of, among other things, how little use they are to society, and how young they are. I also don't think the "short careers" argument is credible when their careers are perhaps one third of the average length, but their earnings are over one hundred times average.

[Twig]

Footballer are comparable to movie and pop stars, who make millions, but it's accepted that in these industries  you 'have to make hay while the sun shines.'

Footballers are the same - it' a short career, which can  be suddenly ended by injury, or just being deemed not good enough.

I don't see why footballers are picked upon   while other very wealthy groups aren't.

I also think that  the situation is complex between clubs and players, and  am sure many players want to do the best they can for their communities- footballers having a history of charity work.

They've been singled out in the COVID 19 outbreak because they work for small organisations who are laying off (and claiming taxpayer handouts for) staff on low/average salaries whilst continuing to pay the players' astronomical salaries in their entirety, despite the players also doing nothing at this time.

FWIW I don't have a problem with footballers earning astronomical salaries generally. Although I do think they can be distinguished from other wealthy groups on the basis of, among other things, how little use they are to society, and how young they are. I also don't think the "short careers" argument is credible when their careers are perhaps one third of the average length, but their earnings are over one hundred times average.

Completely agree and for me the key point is that, as you say, they work for relatively small businesses that are furloughing staff at our expense.  The "negotiations" drag on and they continue to trouser absolutely huge salaries. I'm disgusted and can only praise the few clubs where players have got on and done something more constructive.

Haven't heard from FFC yet so regrettably have to assume our lit are still in these so called negotiations?

[Woolly Mammoth]

Footballer are comparable to movie and pop stars, who make millions, but it's accepted that in these industries  you 'have to make hay while the sun shines.'

Footballers are the same - it' a short career, which can  be suddenly ended by injury, or just being deemed not good enough.

I don't see why footballers are picked upon   while other very wealthy groups aren't.

I also think that  the situation is complex between clubs and players, and  am sure many players want to do the best they can for their communities- footballers having a history of charity work.

They've been singled out in the COVID 19 outbreak because they work for small organisations who are laying off (and claiming taxpayer handouts for) staff on low/average salaries whilst continuing to pay the players' astronomical salaries in their entirety, despite the players also doing nothing at this time.

FWIW I don't have a problem with footballers earning astronomical salaries generally. Although I do think they can be distinguished from other wealthy groups on the basis of, among other things, how little use they are to society, and how young they are. I also don't think the "short careers" argument is credible when their careers are perhaps one third of the average length, but their earnings are over one hundred times average.

Completely agree and for me the key point is that, as you say, they work for relatively small businesses that are furloughing staff at our expense.  The "negotiations" drag on and they continue to trouser absolutely huge salaries. I'm disgusted and can only praise the few clubs where players have got on and done something more constructive.

Haven't heard from FFC yet so regrettably have to assume our lit are still in these so called negotiations?

I agree also, and although they are entitled to spend their money as they wish, although they have far more money than sense, which brings its own form of arrogance and entitlement, they are not in the real world and forget you can only wear one pair of trousers at a time.
Greed is the only snake that can never ever be charmed.