If all footballers in the PL took a 10-20% pay cut it would do more than help fund employees at their own clubs. They would probably have a bit left over to help non-league/lower league clubs too. There are some of them who are earning a million a month ffs.
PL clubs furlough non-playing staff | Liverpool, Spurs & Bournemouth U-turns
- Thread starter PoTMS
- Start date
If the players want to take less wages, by all means sign on for less time.
They can already do this, but choose to sign long deals.
Any news on what United are going to do for their staff?
They already came out a couple of weeks ago saying they would continue to pay all of them.
They havent actually spunk anything in the transfer market because if they keep going at this rate, the club will run out of money.
Its really very VERY basic business practice: Can't your employees work? Lay them off. They drain your financial resources. Why should a football club be different from H&M workers?
My actual pet pewee comes from the players who should all be up and afront to say "Yes will reduce our salaries, so x can still get paid". Clubs shouild be including a provision in contracts that allow them to not pay player salaries , or pay as little as 20% salaries in case of a shutdown like this. Reduce your outgoings instantly.
Paying staff for postponed games and will pay them again if the games are played at a later date.
So why don't the clubs just lay the players off? They can just let for instance just agree to let Paul Pogba go now for free. They don't have to pay his wage because he'll be off their books, he'll make up for his losses by signing for someone else and getting a massive signing on bonus. Easy.
Spurs can do the same with Harry Kane etc.
Players get paid far too much but at the same time, surely the billionaire owners are the ones who should be made to pay the non-playing staffs' wages. If the player's want to take a paycut that's absolutely fine but it doesn't sit right with me that they'll be the ones demonised if they don't give up their wages. Everyone's telling the players to give up their wages but few in the media seem to be calling for the owners to actually pay their staff.
Because the staff they are furloughing cost a fraction of the real issue - the player's salaries. How can you not see that? Granted clubs are legally entitled to do that but there is a moral issue for certain. The government scheme was not designed to help in this scenario and once again it is being taken advantage of by big corporations. It's exactly why the likes of McDonalds shut down as well.
Sadly the average football fan is far too stupid to realise, that's it's not the players who are screwing them over but the clubs themselves and the billionaire owners.
That's because the word didn't exist until a couple of weeks ago.
I literally say that it IS an issue? Its in the last sentence of the post. Come on, surely you must have seen it?
The British state decided to close down. Business is down everywhere with physical locations. Its pretty easy for you to sit there and say that "Well the billionaires should just pay", while ignoring that these places are mostly franchises, with property rent to pay. Supplier bills, etc etc. Paying salaries on top is just pure charity.
Its an absolutely shitty situation that no one wants to be in, but you're absolutely bonkers if you don't think that the state should not pay the financial consequences of their own regulatory actions to combat this pandemic. Like, is there some rule where you feel only employees or poor companies should be entitled to the government bailout, where huge corporations should just pay their employees regardless how long this lasts? My man, its not a bottomless pit of money everywhere. Operations cost money.
Levy just laid off 500 people to make sure Tottenham does NOT struggle. He's taking preventative action. If anything he should receive applause for making the hard choice and protecting Tottenham Football Club.
Last edited:
Because the players are not only contractual employees, they are also massively important financial assets. Laying them off voids the contract and you lose the asset. Laying off the players is not an option. Besides, their contracts stipulate a wage over time with a fixed end date. Reguilar employees do not have such contractual stipulations, their term of employment is entirely different than a football player who is on outgoing contracts their entire careers. The club is still currently liable to pay the players weekly as their contracts are still in effect. So even if you let a player go, you are still responsible for his salary for the contract period.
So why is it okay to ask players to take a paycut then? It seems like the football clubs want to retain full value of the assets (players) without having to pay what they owe it.
The clubs could instead just ask the players to defer the payments until later on (and then pay them by not spending as much on transfers) or agree to pay them back when they sell him on/end of his contract/at renewal.
Not just football clubs, also the fans as well. I don't think clubs should be taking advantage of the government scheme but I do think it's difficult to demand player's take a pay cut just for the sake of it.
Want to know the easiest way Spurs can generate some cash to pay all non-playing staff? Sell Kane or some other in demand player to another club. Obviously the Spurs fans would then be fuming.
Because wages account for about 60% of a clubs financial outgoings. The playters have enormous wiggle room to forego wages for a short period to offset the payable load if its at such a stage that it becomes critical. The workers, while numerous, can stay in job, even though the club have no obligation to keep them on as idle help.
Defering payments has a few problems assosicated with it: Clubs have operating revenue and a certain cashflow. (Cashflow and revenue are not the same, but revenue affects cashflow and potentially vice versa) Paying out huge amounts of wages in a short timespan will interruptt that and can cause some problems, especially for smaller clubs in the PL system. "Simply not investing" is also a question with a lot of drawbacks. Getting a player in or not can be big difference for a lof ot clubs, its not as easy as "We'll just go with what we have". A potentially worse squad also hurts the current players. Agreeing to pay a player back is more of the same,
But the kicker is in the example set by other teams in other big leagues that have already agreed to cut their salaries in solidarity with the club and its employees. At this point, the PL players do not have a moral highground to stand on when the question arrives at their club. Barcelonas players volounteered to reduce their salaries by 70%, Juventus have taken enormous wage cuts., Bayern München are down 20%, same with BVB. Essentially this is a big unifying effort by everyone. You make a sacrifice for the common good. The players are public sporting heroes who set examples that others follow. Not being greedy is one of them. Remember that its the fans and TV deals largely made possibly by the viewing fans that pay these players. Voiding parts of your salaries is very much a solidary act along with the fans.
Exactly. Or defer his salary, or change the payment structure to pay them over a longer period of time. There's many options at hand, but it seems like the clubs/owners are going for the one that keeps the most cash in their own pockets.
There's many ways around this. A lot of people are in the same situation with mortgages that make up a large part of their expenditure, but they don't have the option to get a 3 month mortgage discount. You get a mortgage holiday instead but you still owe the same amount.
If they defer the salaries they can choose to pay the deferred payments over the remaining length of the contract. They can structure them however they want which will alleviate some of the cash flow problems.
Players have their own expenses as well, same as clubs. It's fine if it's a request, but if it's a matter of public pressure to force them to accept wage cuts, that's not cool.
Besides, should anything happen to jeopardize their (very short) careers or land them bankrupt, you can be sure there will be no massive unifying effort to help them and their families out. Those are the sorts of things they have to consider when taking these cuts.
What about all the other big companies that cannot retain staff that make 100s of millions per year?
Everyone implies football is evil, just because people are obsessed with discussing the figures more than every other industry. Clubs have huge operating costs too, and don’t all make hundreds of millions in profit.
As always, everyone turns to football clubs who ‘should be doing more’ and bailing out everyone’s financial problems. Many clubs are in debt.
None more so than the sports industry.
Sorry, no bloody sympathy if that is the case. If you get 70k a week (I believe that's about average for a PL player) and you live cheque to cheque, you are an idiot, no two ways about it. Yes, you might have more expensive tastes but you have a lot of people around you to advise you and keep you on the straight and narrow. When you look at the number of people about to be in real trouble, I couldn't even begin to muster the energy to think how one might shed a tear.
Here's the thing - they are employees. While I accept they get bought and sold like assets, players are subject to visa rules and the like. If they were "assets" in the truest sense, there would be excpetions for working visas and the like, but there isn't.
They are just employees tied into specific contracts, nothing more and nothing less. Military personnel, for example, have stricter contracts where you can't go on strike, you can't leave without a year's notice etc. Same deal. Employees with specific contracts.
I have no problem with a pro footballer quiting to go and become a cleaner in Aldi. I'm sure they could break their contracts if that's what they were actually going to do - the issue would be if they went and signed for another club.
I think you missed the question there. The question was why not give players exactly the same amount of freedom of movement as other employees, which would mean they could put in a 2 weeks and then work somewhere else?
Football clubs, and players, in self-serving, greedy cnuts shocker.
Players and coaches should be taking dramatic pay cuts before any non football staff
Gordon Taylor is one of the most reprehensible people on this planet. You know he is one of the (if not, THE..) highest paid Boss of a Trade Union, in the world. (If that makes sense...)
They probably bought all the toilet paper too
Because the contracts stipulate under which terms the player is connected to the club and most specifically, under what period.
Most importantly, this wording from section 2.2 of a Chelsea standard football contract. You will find this exact language in any contract: "2.2 This contract shall remain in force until the date specified in clause 2 of Schedule 2 hereto subject to any earlier determination pursuant to the terms of this contract. "
The players are legally bound to play for the club unless terms of the contracts are broken and term for dimissal or exit is fullfilled. So in short, they can't put in their 14 days without legal ramification. Standard retirement age in football contracts is 35 years of age. A player voiding his contract before that time without good reason will make the player potentially be liable for a big portion of his own transfer cost.
Adrian Mutu was sacked by Chelsea in 2009 (or 08?) after being suspended for 7 months for using cocaine. He joined Juventus as a free agent after that. The problem Mutu has is that the broke the code of contuct terms stipulated in his contract, thereby voiding Chelseas chances of recouping his tranfer fee. Mutu was ordered by court to pay Chelsea £15 million for breach of contract. Which is what the court estimated his transfer value to have been at the time. Mutu has since appealed and a appeal court upheld the verdict in 2018.
Now, the clubs CAN use discrecion. If a player wants to retire at age 33 and he has 2 years left, that's a conversation the club and his agent has to work out the details ahead of time. But if AWB comes to Manchester United tomorow and says he's retiring from football, he will be excused from service, with a £50 million bill in his hand.
Yes I do understand that, and the question is a bit rhetorical and trying to get at something. If I were to ask why is there a need to give footballers such contracts and not other non-playing staff, then we get at the heart of the matter which is that footballers are not regular employees, but assets to the club.
For reference, here's the post with the question:
Just to do kick ups with in their latest 'we're all in this together', my clothing line isn't doing much business and the gardener only comes round once a week, update.
Exactly. And clubs trying to pull this bullshit to try and guilt-trip the players into giving up their own money, is exactly the reason they have agents. The clubs are far from innocent.
Looking at the post that's being refered, you're arguing that Pogba should be able to put in his 2 weeks notice and go play somewhere else.
Ok, so following that argument. Congratulations, you have now ended: Professional football contracts. Football transfers AND club driven development programs. Clubs run their development programs to foster new football stars that they can sign to contract, They are not charirites that just wants the local lads to play ball and then join Manchester united when they are 20 for 0 pounds.
The relatively humorous bit is that you'd switch it around entirely. Players would become mercenaries that can switch to any club at any time for the biggest sign on fees. The superstars of football are no longer millionaires. They are billionaires who all play for clubs on 2 week auto-reccuring contracts. If you think this example sounds stupid its because it is, but this is the reality you are proposing.
I mean. Hell. We already HAVE a court ruling that allows for the free movement of workforce for non contractually obliged players. it's called the Union Royale Belge des Sociétés de Football Association ASBL v Jean-Marc Bosman (1995) C-415/93. Commonly referred to as the Bosman Ruling of 1995, that allows players to move between football clubs free of charge once their contract is ended.
I honestly don't get what the argument is. Football players are BOTH employees AND assets during their contract period. This is how the football market works. The contracts are legally binding. You can call bullshit as much as you want, but there is a difference between Paul Pogba the contracted player between 2018 - 2022, with a legal obligation to represent Manchester United, that is in the clubs accounting as a amortized assets deprecated annually until the terms of his contracts are expired, and Doris Day, the amazing cafeteria lady that makes scones for the lads, who has a standard employment contract that says she is entitled to x amount of pay every month with not contractual end date. Is Doris being amortized? No? Maybe she should, those are fine scones. Perhaps we can transfer her to Southampton for Lukas the light technician when her cafeteria contract is up in 2023.
It's not only this and that. Its BOTH. Period.
Great, then it might be fair enough to ask them to take a paycut & pay for Doris Day's salary.
But jesus christ thats what Ive been saying all along.
No you haven't. You're saying is that the players should be taking a paycut now to subsidise for non-playing staff - because they're rich enough. I'm saying they shouldn't because clubs like Spurs do have the money to pay everyone - even if they need to defer the players salaries later. They're just pulling this bullshit because they'd rather save the cash.
I'm saying they can take a paycut now to avoid a budgetary crisis. You take measures preemptively, not after they happen.
But okay. Please lecture me on Norwich's finances if there is no income in March, April, May and June. I'll give you a follow if you let me know how well they faire, including a minimum 25% payback of their TV commercial lump sum.
Like I said, they can also just defer the payments like PFA have offered. Spread it out over the course of the contract, 5 years etc. It's basically an interest free loan to the club from the players, but I don't see why the players need to give up the money they're owed.
These clubs & players are also very thick. The economic repercussions to this crisis will make the health crisis seem mild in comparison. Ruining many millions of peoples lives in this country alone. I am sure they will take kindly to millionaires & fat cats at PL clubs lording it around. There was already increasing dislike & hatred towards the rich & powerful in this world beforehand, & this is going to escalate, particularly in the USA. So these people need to really watch their step. I say this as a conservative in nature.
It's social treachery from the clubs (and that's a euphemism) who do this.
The biggest pity is that many of the regular match going fans from their local communities won't punish them by staying away when football eventually restarts.
Even parking the moral considerations, if possible, it's such a short sighted view and a huge missed opportunity for goodwill. These clubs could reduce the pay from the highly paid staff, pay the lower earning non-playing staff and then still be left with contributions to local support efforts.
Forget talk of contractual logistics here... I'd guess that, except for a few bad characters, most players recognise the severity of this and would be willing to give up a segment of their already disgusting wages.
The biggest pity is that many of the regular match going fans from their local communities won't punish them by staying away when football eventually restarts.
Even parking the moral considerations, if possible, it's such a short sighted view and a huge missed opportunity for goodwill. These clubs could reduce the pay from the highly paid staff, pay the lower earning non-playing staff and then still be left with contributions to local support efforts.
Forget talk of contractual logistics here... I'd guess that, except for a few bad characters, most players recognise the severity of this and would be willing to give up a segment of their already disgusting wages.