The non playing staff are getting furloughed, the playing staff are still being paid hundreds of thousands.
It's class discrimination really.
Let the playing staff take a paycut to pay the wages of those being furloughed, job done.
PL clubs furlough non-playing staff | Liverpool, Spurs & Bournemouth U-turns
- Thread starter PoTMS
- Start date
It's class discrimination really.
Let the playing staff take a paycut to pay the wages of those being furloughed, job done.
Just wanted to add that the players will have to take voluntary pay-cuts, and PFA is asking players not to agree to any reduction or deferral in wages until they have spoken to the union, and is requested to look at club's financial situation before offering advice, according to the BBC.
And the Athletic wrote that several senior executives at Premier League clubs are trying to reach a joint agreement, and Levy hinted at ongoing talks in his statement regarding furloughing of non-playing staff: “We hope the current discussions between the Premier League, PFA (Professional Footballers’ Association) and LMA (League Managers Association) will result in players and coaches doing their bit for the football eco system.”
It's less complicated in the case of non-playing staff, and as long as the outcome of a pay-cut for players is undetermined, you could see why some clubs will look at reducing the expenditures where it's possible to do so today. Especially in the case of Bournemouth who have a 84.6% wage-to-turnover ratio, and 88 percent of their total revenue comes from broadcast rights money. They also owe other clubs £81m in transfer instalments, with only £5m coming in.
A bit less so, in Tottenham's case as they have the lowest wage-to-turnover ratio in the league at 39%, and £1.86 billion in total assets and £123.5m in cash, but they have the stadium debt to maintain at £637m at 2.66% over 23 years.
For the record, I'm glad that United have taking the approach of paying their casual staff.
And the Athletic wrote that several senior executives at Premier League clubs are trying to reach a joint agreement, and Levy hinted at ongoing talks in his statement regarding furloughing of non-playing staff: “We hope the current discussions between the Premier League, PFA (Professional Footballers’ Association) and LMA (League Managers Association) will result in players and coaches doing their bit for the football eco system.”
It's less complicated in the case of non-playing staff, and as long as the outcome of a pay-cut for players is undetermined, you could see why some clubs will look at reducing the expenditures where it's possible to do so today. Especially in the case of Bournemouth who have a 84.6% wage-to-turnover ratio, and 88 percent of their total revenue comes from broadcast rights money. They also owe other clubs £81m in transfer instalments, with only £5m coming in.
A bit less so, in Tottenham's case as they have the lowest wage-to-turnover ratio in the league at 39%, and £1.86 billion in total assets and £123.5m in cash, but they have the stadium debt to maintain at £637m at 2.66% over 23 years.
For the record, I'm glad that United have taking the approach of paying their casual staff.
Last edited:
Its a fecking travesty. The millionaires keep getting paid while the people that enable them get shafted.
Disgrace.
They could take a few months pay cut and be no less off.
Disgrace.
They could take a few months pay cut and be no less off.
Paying staff for postponed games and will pay them again if the games are played at a later date.
Mike Ashley strikes again
It really is disgusting, even when the football does return to normal will it have the same support behind it at this rate as the players are doing themselves no favours of creating an even bigger disconnection between them and the hard working paying fans the longer this situation drags out with it becoming more and more of a big deal in the news iver the next week or two whilst Joe public continue to struggle more and more with limited salaries.
Absolutely disgusting from the Premier League players, especially when you see Barcelona and Juventus have taken cuts. Just pure greed and if they do nothing then this will not be forgotten about.
Its embarrassing, that no PL player has taken a pay cut yet (as far as I am aware) and if they do it seems it will be a collective decision forced upon them rather than a voluntary one.
Respect to Howe atleast for stepping up...
Respect to Howe atleast for stepping up...
Have any English based player taken a pay cut yet? I suspect the PFA have asked players not to do so as a bargaining chip for the time being. I imagine the crucial thing the PFA are looking for is reassurances regarding players from the lower leagues for whom salary cuts aren't easy to stomach.
How did I guess that Spurs would be one of the clubs doing this.
I think it’s an absolute disgrace.
If anything the clubs should put the playing staff on furlough and decide amongst themselves if they want to pay them the difference after the standard £2500 cap.
I don’t see why they can pick and choose which staff when the players can’t physically work during this time either, even more so than the stadium staff you could argue.
I think it’s an absolute disgrace.
If anything the clubs should put the playing staff on furlough and decide amongst themselves if they want to pay them the difference after the standard £2500 cap.
I don’t see why they can pick and choose which staff when the players can’t physically work during this time either, even more so than the stadium staff you could argue.
And void the players contracts, and let them go for free?
All full time employees have contracts.
It shouldn’t be one rule for the players and another for the general staff.
It's a pretty straight up case of discrimination to only cut pay to your lower paid workers. It's impossible to argue that it's a financial necessity or that any kind of fair legal process has been followed.
I don't know if I'd blame the players so much as the clubs. Tottenham have spent a lot of money on new players within the past 12 months. They clearly have the resources to carry on paying their staff, even with no pay cut to the players. Levy was mouthing off just yesterday that football is living in a bubble.
There might be players who are more than willing to help but if the club don't communicate anything then they have no idea that taking a pay cut will even be put to good use. If I was a Spurs player now I'd want assurances in the form of something written legally that any pay cut I take would be used to pay lower paid employees, and not just go back into Levy's pocket...and I suspect that's what they are being advised.
It's all well and good asking them to help but it's been 3 weeks. Any PL club asking for players to take pay cuts at this point clearly has an alterior motive than to pay staff, because the money will still be there to do that if they actually really wanted to.
I don't know if I'd blame the players so much as the clubs. Tottenham have spent a lot of money on new players within the past 12 months. They clearly have the resources to carry on paying their staff, even with no pay cut to the players. Levy was mouthing off just yesterday that football is living in a bubble.
There might be players who are more than willing to help but if the club don't communicate anything then they have no idea that taking a pay cut will even be put to good use. If I was a Spurs player now I'd want assurances in the form of something written legally that any pay cut I take would be used to pay lower paid employees, and not just go back into Levy's pocket...and I suspect that's what they are being advised.
It's all well and good asking them to help but it's been 3 weeks. Any PL club asking for players to take pay cuts at this point clearly has an alterior motive than to pay staff, because the money will still be there to do that if they actually really wanted to.
My place of work have a system in place where directors are taking a 50% cut, management 30%, middle-management 20% and non-management 10%, the highest earners taking the biggest cuts.
Football clubs will continue to pay players 5 and 6 figures a week but Bill from accounts is going to be furloughed...
The world is fecking broken.
Football clubs will continue to pay players 5 and 6 figures a week but Bill from accounts is going to be furloughed...
The world is fecking broken.
I understand people having the "spoilt millionaire players" angle, but the players are the ones who make football possible, and they are the working-class ones! They were just lucky enough to get to the highest level.
A lot of players will have come from lower backgrounds where the whole family had to grind and sacrifice to make their dreams come true, so of course they will want to pay them back. Painting that in an evil light is unfair to me. If anything, it's the execs who are making money off the players' skill who should be classed as greedy, although I'm not even sure of that angle tbh.
These days it just feel like fans are against players so much because of their wealth, however, most of them came from even worse backgrounds than we did and they worked very hard and sacrificed a lot to have the (very short) career they do. I think that's admirable.
A lot of players will have come from lower backgrounds where the whole family had to grind and sacrifice to make their dreams come true, so of course they will want to pay them back. Painting that in an evil light is unfair to me. If anything, it's the execs who are making money off the players' skill who should be classed as greedy, although I'm not even sure of that angle tbh.
These days it just feel like fans are against players so much because of their wealth, however, most of them came from even worse backgrounds than we did and they worked very hard and sacrificed a lot to have the (very short) career they do. I think that's admirable.
I'd say if the players want to help/contribute they should just pool in some cash & gift it to the non-playing staff in addition to the club paying the non-playing staff's salaries.
But in my opinion, they shouldn't be taking a pay cut & paying for the staff on behalf of the clubs. If the club is struggling for cash, they should accept deferred payments/restructured contracts.
Imagine if you're someone who takes a paycut now, and in 6 months the same club then spends the summer trying to fob you off/replace you with the same cash you saved the club by paying for their non-playing staff. The clubs show the players no loyalty so the players also don't owe the clubs anything too.
But in my opinion, they shouldn't be taking a pay cut & paying for the staff on behalf of the clubs. If the club is struggling for cash, they should accept deferred payments/restructured contracts.
Imagine if you're someone who takes a paycut now, and in 6 months the same club then spends the summer trying to fob you off/replace you with the same cash you saved the club by paying for their non-playing staff. The clubs show the players no loyalty so the players also don't owe the clubs anything too.
I find that hard to believe for PL footballers. It may be funnelled to other places though. If they are actually spending it all they're incredibly stupid, which is very possible I guess.
Not hard to believe, athletes go broke all the time.
My understanding is if players went on furlough they can’t do anything work related because it becomes fraud. Would make things very complicated in the lower leagues.
Its a bit pointless discussing this any further since you're of the opinion that players should be allowed to just hand in their resignation letters and leave clubs whenever they please. Do you not want clubs to have stability?
And why is discrimination mentioned in this thread?
Ok firrst of all, for discirimination to be a thing, there needs to be an unjust treatment in place. Currently non-essential personell has been either laid off or offered wage reduction since they are not working. Periiod. Jobs are not being performed. If you can not execute your job, a company should not HAVE to pay you regardless. This principle either applies to both football clubs and clothing stores, or it applies to no one.
Remember that the football players contracted to the club are still very much at work. They are training and fullfilling their contractual obligations within reason. In principle rulings, the size of a purse do not matter.
There is a difference between permanent and fixed term employees. The EU Framework agreement sets out the principle of the justification for fixed term contract in sports by UNICE, ETUC, CEEP in 1999. The legality of Fixed Term employment in football has already been subject to a legal battle in Germany, The Müller case Germany where the player demanded to be treated like a fulltime employee due to getting frustrated that Mainz did not allow him to reach a certain number of games to extend his contract after being long term injured. He actually won through in the lower courts but the Rhineland-Palatinate Higher Labour Court overturned.
The principle reasoning for a football player being on fixed contracts are:
Club uncertainty - a player is not successfull indefinitely
The need to continually refreh the squad
Club entertainment. Sports is entertainment. Renewal is required.
The players benefit since players are better protected against early contract termination following injuries.
Fixed term contracts are simply different in form and nature than permament contracts, and its time that everyone understands that.
Do I think that players should be paid 100% while people are being laid off? No, of course not. But these things need to be put into the contract language. We have no fixed rules for Pandemics, everyone are learning as they go here.
I expect the PFA, FA and the players themselves to announce voluntary paycuts any day now in clubs that had to lay off staff, following the principles set by major competing clubs.
A-fecking-men to this. One of the many things I hope comes out of this crisis is a total reset of the way football is being run. There's no way to defend the wages and the transfer fees of the last years when most countries might be looking at unemployment rates of 15-30 percent after this. I can't see how it's going to continue to be honest.
I get that players and other high earners have rights, but this is a moral question. If you continue to receive your £80k a week at least have the decency to spend 90% of that cash on something that might gain the community. The players of all elite clubs have to donate some of their wages to at least save their own staff and community. What is a club without the supporting staff and all those guys running the show in the background anyway?
Im sorry I dont believe that for a second.
A pro on a few grand a week living pay check to pay check is just not something I can buy In to.
Outside their house what do they actually pay for day to day ? feck all.
Chefs, gardeners, personality security. Mum, Dad, Sibling's houses, cars & expenses.
Also you know saving/investing money so that once your career's over, your/their lifestyle doesn't have need to get down scaled. What seems like a lot of money now, probably isn't as much going into the future. Roy Keane was once the highest paid player in the league at a then outrageous 50k a week (2.5m / yr), now he's a bitter old man who has to swallow his own pride & dignity and talk shit with idiots like Redknapp & Souness.
Maybe they should use their money to hire an accountant.
It's good this is getting huge coverage, it was at the top of the BBC homepage earlier. The sooner the football hierarchy collapses and something better comes out from the ashes the better.
There should really be some more conditions attached to this furlough law. How many of the clubs actually need to do it? One of the unfortunate side effects is that plenty of companies that don't have financial problems are just using it as an excuse to get people off their payroll for a few months.
That was certainly true back in the day but it's a lot less common now. Player salaries have grown exponentially over the last decade and are in a different stratosphere to when you had the likes of Paul Merson blowing everything on booze. It would take a hell of a lot to burn through a current PL salary, and the type of person that would do is the type who would go bankrupt whether they were on 100 or 100k per week.
There should really be some more conditions attached to this furlough law. How many of the clubs actually need to do it? One of the unfortunate side effects is that plenty of companies that don't have financial problems are just using it as an excuse to get people off their payroll for a few months.
That was certainly true back in the day but it's a lot less common now. Player salaries have grown exponentially over the last decade and are in a different stratosphere to when you had the likes of Paul Merson blowing everything on booze. It would take a hell of a lot to burn through a current PL salary, and the type of person that would do is the type who would go bankrupt whether they were on 100 or 100k per week.
Last edited:
The ship has sailed on this one. Any action now will be seen, quite rightly, as about protecting their brand rather than contributing to a wider collective purpose.
Football is a nasty greedy business full of cnuts, sure I agree. But isn't the government scheme designed for these exact situations? to protect workers who would otherwise be let go. If football is off for the foreseeable then a lot of staff are surplus to requirements. A lot of these clubs run on small margins or no margin at all.
Which businesses are worthy of state handouts with regards to wages? It's not really news that these are ruthless businesses and not charities.
I'm not defending the clubs, they can burn to death in their piles of money as far as I'm concerned but I am defending the government scheme.
I could have this totally wrong though. Write in and let me know.
Which businesses are worthy of state handouts with regards to wages? It's not really news that these are ruthless businesses and not charities.
I'm not defending the clubs, they can burn to death in their piles of money as far as I'm concerned but I am defending the government scheme.
I could have this totally wrong though. Write in and let me know.
New YouGov poll reveals huge number of Brits want players to take wage cuts. An incredible 92% for this & only 3% against. 67% of those wanting a cut are arguing for wage reductions of 50% and more. This is not going to end well. https://www.standard.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league-wage-cuts-players-yougov-poll-a4404521.html
Can't expect any better from Mike Cash-ley, Daniel Loot-vy et al. These are scums of the highest order, raking in millions themselves and furloughing those who struggle to make ends meet. Disgusting.
Oh, some clubs are working on how spin this.
Wasn't that long ago Eboue was literally homeless, while still a professional footballer. The first thing to remember is that these guys aren't all on 300k a week. the average is 70k a week. This means that there is a bunch of players way below this average, earning around the 10k-30k range. Now, particularly for foreign players, earning a premier league salary often means supporting tens of people on a full time basis. It also means an expensive overhead burden with security, cleaners, etc, and of course plain old irresponsible behavior in some cases.
I don't think Keane is doing it just for the money. He's phenomenally well off.
I think the whole issue is with the current set up.
It is not the fault of players they get remunerated so well, if they wish to donate their wages to those less fortunate, then great. If not, that's their choice. If someone who earns a very good salary in "normal" life, say £50k. Are they giving up their wages to support those on minimum wage?
I'm not saying one way is right and there are obvious differences given the disposable income %.
But someone on £50k could give away £100 a month and it not necessarily impact them that much. The same way £10k a month would not impact on a pro footballer.
The second point is in relation to the comment made by players being put on "normal" employment contracts.
It is an interesting thought. Obviously the 2 week notice period would not be in force, as someone else mentioned, it is common for executives to be on a minimum of 6 -12 month notice period and have restrictive covenants in place. I guess footballers would fall into this category more so than falling into one similar to someone who works at Aldi on a 2 week notice period.
I think this could have some benefits as well as cons:
1.) Imagine a player who is not performing, or acting professionally. They could be "sacked" paid off for a 6 month or 12 month period and told to leave.
2.) If a player wants to leave a club, fine, have to wait 6 -12 months before leaving. Then they may be put on garden leave if not perfoming. Who knows what could happen in that period.
3.) Managers, if performing badly, think Jose (who may sometimes create drama to get a huge financial pay-off). If he starts those kind of games, fine, sack him. Pay him his notice period.
It may not ever be viable, but it certainly is interesting to think about. There are not many jobs in the world, where you can purposely perform badly and potentially be paid huge amounts to just leave the club / company.
It is not the fault of players they get remunerated so well, if they wish to donate their wages to those less fortunate, then great. If not, that's their choice. If someone who earns a very good salary in "normal" life, say £50k. Are they giving up their wages to support those on minimum wage?
I'm not saying one way is right and there are obvious differences given the disposable income %.
But someone on £50k could give away £100 a month and it not necessarily impact them that much. The same way £10k a month would not impact on a pro footballer.
The second point is in relation to the comment made by players being put on "normal" employment contracts.
It is an interesting thought. Obviously the 2 week notice period would not be in force, as someone else mentioned, it is common for executives to be on a minimum of 6 -12 month notice period and have restrictive covenants in place. I guess footballers would fall into this category more so than falling into one similar to someone who works at Aldi on a 2 week notice period.
I think this could have some benefits as well as cons:
1.) Imagine a player who is not performing, or acting professionally. They could be "sacked" paid off for a 6 month or 12 month period and told to leave.
2.) If a player wants to leave a club, fine, have to wait 6 -12 months before leaving. Then they may be put on garden leave if not perfoming. Who knows what could happen in that period.
3.) Managers, if performing badly, think Jose (who may sometimes create drama to get a huge financial pay-off). If he starts those kind of games, fine, sack him. Pay him his notice period.
It may not ever be viable, but it certainly is interesting to think about. There are not many jobs in the world, where you can purposely perform badly and potentially be paid huge amounts to just leave the club / company.
Like i say, some people will go bankrupt whether you pay them 100 quid or 100,000. It's a lot harder to waste all of it in the modern age, especially with all the support mechanisms in place that weren't there 20 years ago.
And none of this compares to the fact they are cutting people off without a second thought who are earning 50k per year if they're lucky, and who all might have similar money problems of their own.
Based on how many decided to donate 1 day's pay to nurses in the NHS a few years back, I wouldn't get your hopes up.
Last edited:
It's a fecking joke how many of our own players have signed up to Mata's Common Goal, let alone the rest of the league.
If you think about how many of the footballers are actually "in charge" of their own life... The many stories about clubs/agents/helpers having to ensure that the footballers have all they need all the time. The number of players in the league that have people functioning as nannies for them...
It is somewhat understandable and is not only in football, but in all sports where you often require a 100% dedication or focus from an early age to make it. General education and understanding are often lacking. The few players that have an interest or understanding in anything else than their job, making £££ etc are easy to spot.
Sorry but the players are not working either. Surely by the very nature of any contract, fixed term or not, the employee under said contract is required to work.
Sure there will be legalities and the potential for contract terms being breached however, before the clubs put ANY staff on furlough they should have collectively gone back to the players in the league and put it on their toes as it were.
Say to them, listen this is an unprecedented situation, rather than get into legalities around contract situations let's agree a blanket reduction for players across the league that will allow us (the clubs) to speak with the non-playing staff and put them on furlough. That would have been a fair approach.
The banks are being told to stop all bonuses, there is always room to implement new legislation in unprecedented times like these. Not to mention it would be extremely difficult for the players to refuse this and simultaneously allow the non-playing staff to be furloughed. The clubs have jumped the gun to save a quick buck at the expense of the tax payer before even speaking to the players. Not acceptable sorry.
I'm speaking from the position of having furloughed 36 staff last week, whilst it is a totally different industry we included directors and were not selective/biased in our approach. The last thing people need now is to feel shafted by their employer on top of everything else.
If you are in a position of financial difficulty on even £10,000 a week (£520,000 per year) you would have to be a complete imbecile, no two ways about it. You could at least buy one house per year without a mortgage; as soon as you can buy a house outright you should really not have any financial difficulties at all, even with the extra expenditure you stated. After all, you have the security of having a home to live in, and likely a pretty nice one. A lot of financial stress comes from not having the security of owning your own home.
I see no reason why players should not see a 20% wage reduction in line with other employees since they should be living comfortably. After all, it is not like they are doing anything to earn the money. If people on far less wages are able to live with 20% less, how can footballers be permitted to continue to earn 100%.
Besides, going by that average, it is likely that most players in the Premier League are on about £30,000 - £50,000 per week anyway. I don't see how anyone can debate that players should keep 100% of their wages when they are doing nothing.
I’ve never really been one to resent footballers for their wealth, but this whole Covid pandemic has really made me feel disillusioned with a lot of them, to the point where I’ve unfollowed pretty much every professional athlete I follow on social media.
It feels like a real kick in the teeth to see these guys posting photos and videos from their mansions, kicking a roll of toilet paper around, safe and sound, while I wake up every day and come to a hospital that’s basically a veritable minefield now and hope each day that today isn’t the day I catch this virus.
Maybe this comes across as bitter, but truth be told I’m not sure what my feelings towards footballers on a whole will be whenever we come out on the other side of this. Yes I’m well aware that all the corporate suits are doing the exact same thing, sitting comfortably at home figuring out ways to make money off of this, but maybe it’s because they aren’t as “In your face” or as much of a known presence as the athletes are.
It’s not going to change anything at all, but this pandemic really should give us some perspective on what’s actually important in the world, and who the most important cogs in society really are. I’m not strictly talking about us, but also all the people who do those low level jobs that so many people claim don’t even deserve a living wage because “it’s not meant to be a career”, those people are much more important to propping up society than Harry Kane and Paul Pogba, but it will all be forgotten when this blows over, which is regrettable.
It feels like a real kick in the teeth to see these guys posting photos and videos from their mansions, kicking a roll of toilet paper around, safe and sound, while I wake up every day and come to a hospital that’s basically a veritable minefield now and hope each day that today isn’t the day I catch this virus.
Maybe this comes across as bitter, but truth be told I’m not sure what my feelings towards footballers on a whole will be whenever we come out on the other side of this. Yes I’m well aware that all the corporate suits are doing the exact same thing, sitting comfortably at home figuring out ways to make money off of this, but maybe it’s because they aren’t as “In your face” or as much of a known presence as the athletes are.
It’s not going to change anything at all, but this pandemic really should give us some perspective on what’s actually important in the world, and who the most important cogs in society really are. I’m not strictly talking about us, but also all the people who do those low level jobs that so many people claim don’t even deserve a living wage because “it’s not meant to be a career”, those people are much more important to propping up society than Harry Kane and Paul Pogba, but it will all be forgotten when this blows over, which is regrettable.