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.
Within the parameters of the contract and the stipulated terms of employment, the players
are performing the work duties required under the terms of the agreement.
The players are: Actively training, withing the constraints of the parameters set by the British state
The players are taking part in club mandated public press
You're missing the point about the palyers salaries not being cut. There are legalities that the FPA UK and the clubs are
currently working out in terms of reducing players salaries. The justification is that reduction in salaries are potentially not baked into the contract for a situation like this, and if the club reduces payments outright, they could be in breach of contract and the player could
potentially void his contract and join another club if a appeal court agreest that the breach is sufficient. The club want to
avoid this small possibility, and that is why the clubs and the Players Assosciation are hashing this one out. They did not reach an agreement yesterday.
Again, fixed term contracts, and permanent employment contracts are not the same. There are considerations. As you say,
"Sure there will be legalities and the potential for contract terms being breached" - This is literally the one thing that stops the players wages from being cut right now.
But I'll just emphasise. I have been
very clear that I want the players to agree to take paycuts themselves before the club reaches a critical point that will affect the club negatively.
On that note, I own 2 companies myself, and I have already foregone my own salary for the next 6 months over 2 weeks ago h to alleviate any potential risk of employees not being paid. I am very well intimately familiar with the need to set an example.
My entire point that I am trying to convey in no uncertain terms is that the players and regular staff are not in any way comparable in terms of their employment terms or status.
BUT YES THE PLAYERS SHOULD TAKE ONE FOR THE TEAM. - In fact, Norwich already did.