How much of a pay cut should the players take?

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

Anonymous poll, just interested to see what consensus is. 

[TIL 1010 4,738]

https://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/sport/norwich-city/canaries-players-premier-league-collective-statement-1-6600386

[Warren Vidic 3]

If the season is cancelled they should be furloughed and like everyone else receive 80% of their wages up to £25,000 a year. #we'reallinthistogether

[Surfer 1,547]

Nothing until the Premier League, and hence the PL clubs work out what their actual revenue shortfall is going to be.

There is far too much political spin going on at the moment. 

[Capt. Pants 4,228]

10 hours ago, TIL 1010 said:

https://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/sport/norwich-city/canaries-players-premier-league-collective-statement-1-6600386

Scant on detail at the moment and entirely voluntary. Hopefully a bit more detail will emerge, and highly paid executives who aren't doing an awful lot at the moment also contribute.

[ricardo 7,385]

However, none of this helps the club cut its wage bill and that is where the real problem lies.

[Hillhead 114]

Perhaps I'm becoming cynical and while I know we shouldn't knock anything being done for charity I can't help but think the total amount raised by this will be equivalent to the smallest of pay cuts. Already I've seen more praise being lavished onHenderson et al than I have any individual member of the NHS - perhaps I need to stop listening to talkSport.

The whole "docking our wages will reduce tax that could go to the NHS" statement stunk for me and if clubs throughout the leagues do end up going out of business I hope this serves as a real wake up call to fans that these footballers are not the heroes we make them out to be - happy to milk as much out of clubs as they can. I don't have much time for the Leeds deferral either, all wages to ultimately be paid up with a 2% bonus.

I won't hold my breath but at the very least I hope this serves as a wake up call to just how insane the amount of money we pay these footballers really is. Off topic but whatever happens in the future, for as long as we are charging fans £500 for a season ticket I hope we never pay a player whatever we paid Naismith per week ever again.

[Harry53 209]

Footballers at our level are very privileged earning a ton of money a year for playing a sport. What some get in a month the man in street maybe gets in a year, and players must have massive savings to fall back on. In the current climate i feel they should be furloughed as i am sure they can comfortably survive on what they have already earnt.

[Capt. Pants 4,228]

17 minutes ago, Harry53 said:

Footballers at our level are very privileged earning a ton of money a year for playing a sport. What some get in a month the man in street maybe gets in a year, and players must have massive savings to fall back on. In the current climate i feel they should be furloughed as i am sure they can comfortably survive on what they have already earnt.

Some may have been sensible and squirreled their money away but the vast majority have high outgoings on luxury cars, properties and high end stuff. They might have a bit to lose, but then so does everyone else at the moment and no guarantee of a job to go back to. I can't think any EPL clubs will fold and the vast majority of players will go back to their seats on the gravy train.

The notion that the NHS will suffer because of footballers paying less tax is frankly rediculous imo. Fairly or unfairly the opinion on EPL clubs and players is pretty low at the moment and the bubble they think they live in needs to burst.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

The NHS is the Government's responsibility not footballers. Their responsibility is to their club, the one that is still paying them full whack.

IMO, they are dragging it out for as long as they can.

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

Surprised that 42% of respondees so far don't believe the players should take a pay cut, when it is the club which is put in jeopardy by a significant drop in revenue. 

I can't see any other way to fill the hole, transfer values are going to tank because every club has a black hole to fill, its not going to be as easy as selling a player this time. 

Edited April 14, 2020 by TeemuVanBasten

[Ward 3 372]

Footballers earn so much per year I think they should give up 50 per cent of the wage. They get more than enough on sponsorship and bonus clauses. They are only human at the end of the day who earn millions. A lot of us can only dream of being a footballer/earn what footballers do.

[Aggy 755]

2 hours ago, Ward 3 said:

Footballers earn so much per year I think they should give up 50 per cent of the wage. They get more than enough on sponsorship and bonus clauses. They are only human at the end of the day who earn millions. A lot of us can only dream of being a footballer/earn what footballers do.

So what about people who earn 60k a year? A lot of people can only dream of earning that. Should people on 60k give away half their earnings because some people earn less?

[Ward 3 372]

19 hours ago, Aggy said:

So what about people who earn 60k a year? A lot of people can only dream of earning that. Should people on 60k give away half their earnings because some people earn less?

60k still isn't 6million... we're talking about footballers not people like me and you.... 

[Making Plans 936]

20 hours ago, Aggy said:

So what about people who earn 60k a year? A lot of people can only dream of earning that. Should people on 60k give away half their earnings because some people earn less?

£60k a year is a lot different to £60k, or more, a week

 

[yellowandgreen 34]

On 08/04/2020 at 22:56, Warren Vidic said:

If the season is cancelled they should be furloughed and like everyone else receive 80% of their wages up to £25,000 a year. #we'reallinthistogether

Interesting idea. Will be a massive loss to the taxman. But at least we can take the moral high ground. 

[Aggy 755]

1 hour ago, Ward 3 said:

60k still isn't 6million... we're talking about footballers not people like me and you.... 

So what? If you’re earning 18k a year minimum wage, you probably think all these people moaning about footballers while pocketing 60k a year still are being rather hypocritical. Why don’t they take a 50 per cent pay cut? 30k would still be more than the 18k the chap on minimum wage is earning.
 

And none of our players are on anywhere near 6 million a year.

[Ward 3 372]

3 minutes ago, Aggy said:

So what? If you’re earning 18k a year minimum wage, you probably think all these people moaning about footballers while pocketing 60k a year still are being rather hypocritical. Why don’t they take a 50 per cent pay cut? 30k would still be more than the 18k the chap on minimum wage is earning.
 

And none of our players are on anywhere near 6 million a year.

Whatever. We aren't going to agree 

[Indy 3,298]

9 minutes ago, Aggy said:

So what? If you’re earning 18k a year minimum wage, you probably think all these people moaning about footballers while pocketing 60k a year still are being rather hypocritical. Why don’t they take a 50 per cent pay cut? 30k would still be more than the 18k the chap on minimum wage is earning.
 

And none of our players are on anywhere near 6 million a year.

Not many normal people will be earning anywhere near 60k a year Aggy! Surely during this pandemic the government set 25,000 a year should be the benchmark till normal operations resume? Surely football clubs are the same as other employers?

Edited April 15, 2020 by Indy

[Aggy 755]

5 minutes ago, Ward 3 said:

Whatever. We aren't going to agree 

I’m not disagreeing with you per se. I’m just asking why it’s a nominal 50 per cent for all footballers but that doesn’t slide down the scale? Footballers probably have much higher outgoings than the rest of us - taking their income down by a whopping fifty per cent could leave them in a much worse financial state than other people getting paid 80 per cent of their salary from the government (with many having it topped up anyway).

The bonuses clauses you refer to won’t be being paid - no football is being played. Sponsorship - I don’t know how the arrangements work, but if the players aren’t playing or allowed out of the house, how are they earning sponsorship money? Take 50 per cent of their wage away forcibly as well, and that’s a huge cut.

 

1 minute ago, Indy said:

Not many will be earning anywhere near 60k a year Aggy! Surely during this pandemic the government set 25,000 a year should be the benchmark till normal operations resume? Surely football clubs are the same as other employers?

A lot more will be earning 60k than 1.5 mil.
 

I’ve said in other threads the club can, if it wishes and the players agree, put the players on the furlough scheme. If the players don’t agree and the club can’t afford to keep them, make them redundant. The club won’t do that because the club doesn’t want to give up an asset worth millions. But the club can’t keep an asset worth millions for its own sake and then ask that same asset to effectively pay for itself. 

 

[Indy 3,298]

10 minutes ago, Aggy said:

I’m not disagreeing with you per se. I’m just asking why it’s a nominal 50 per cent for all footballers but that doesn’t slide down the scale? Footballers probably have much higher outgoings than the rest of us - taking their income down by a whopping fifty per cent could leave them in a much worse financial state than other people getting paid 80 per cent of their salary from the government (with many having it topped up anyway).

The bonuses clauses you refer to won’t be being paid - no football is being played. Sponsorship - I don’t know how the arrangements work, but if the players aren’t playing or allowed out of the house, how are they earning sponsorship money? Take 50 per cent of their wage away forcibly as well, and that’s a huge cut.

 

A lot more will be earning 60k than 1.5 mil.
 

I’ve said in other threads the club can, if it wishes and the players agree, put the players on the furlough scheme. If the players don’t agree and the club can’t afford to keep them, make them redundant. The club won’t do that because the club doesn’t want to give up an asset worth millions. But the club can’t keep an asset worth millions for its own sake and then ask that same asset to effectively pay for itself. 

 

But if they are still working then no issues, but if they’re Furloughed then they won’t be on 60k a year....so as football clubs are in lockdown surely the players should all be Furloughed too? Why should they be treated differently whatever their weekly wage? 25 k a year till they are back in employment?

Edited April 15, 2020 by Indy

[Aggy 755]

22 minutes ago, Indy said:

But if they are still working then no issues, but if they’re Furloughed then they won’t be on 60k a year....so as football clubs are in lockdown surely the players should all be Furloughed too? Why should they be treated differently whatever their weekly wage? 25 k a year till they are back in employment?

Firstly, I doubt many people earning 60k a year have been furloughed. If they have, they were probably the last in the organisation to do so. My gf’s company have put many people on furlough - admin staff went first, then the newer starters and lower paid. Almost none of the management or higher earners above around 40k a year have been furloughed. My guess would be that’s similar in most places - it makes simple sense to furlough your admin and lower salaried (usually less experienced/less capable) staff first because they are less likely to be able to do existing work and win new work than senior more experienced people.

Secondly, no company can put an employee on furlough without the employee’s consent.

Thirdly, I have quite clearly said in my last post said that - if the players agree - the club can put them on furlough if it wants. If the players don’t agree, then the club can make them redundant or keep paying them. Which is what any other company would have to do. Simple as that. 

[Indy 3,298]

I’m not sure your second point is right, please highlight this is fact, as I read it I think this situation means that companies can use the Furlough as a priority before redundancy!  So players could be furloughed as I interpreted it without the need to offer redundancy! Might be wrong, so please highlight your interpretation Aggy?

[nutty nigel 7,532]

This is all very well but the usual bleating on here is that we need more of other people's money to pay the players even more. And that by only paying these millions our club is being held back. Some even say we deserve better.

Will this sudden dose of reality change anyone's long term view? 

[Indy 3,298]

6 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

This is all very well but the usual bleating on here is that we need more of other people's money to pay the players even more. And that by only paying these millions our club is being held back. Some even say we deserve better.

Will this sudden dose of reality change anyone's long term view? 

It’s always been mine, I’ve always said that players are paid too much, I’ve been an advocate of a salary cap to protect clubs and level the files in each league, bring it back to the supporters not the tv.

Edited April 15, 2020 by Indy

[Aggy 755]

11 minutes ago, Indy said:

I’m not sure your second point is right, please highlight this is fact, as I read it I think this situation means that companies can use the Furlough as a priority before redundancy!  So players could be furloughed as I interpreted it without the need to offer redundancy! Might be wrong, so please highlight your interpretation Aggy?

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/claim-for-wage-costs-through-the-coronavirus-job-retention-scheme#agreeing-to-furlough-employees

This is government guidance to employers. Scroll down to “agreeing to furlough employees” which says employers should discuss with employees and make changes to the employment contract by agreement. The same point is made in the “what you’ll need to make a claim” section.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/guidance-to-employers-and-businesses-about-covid-19/covid-19-guidance-for-employees#furloughed-workers

This is government guidance to employees. Scroll down to “furloughed worker” section, which begins by saying “if you and your employer both agree...”. 

Both sets of guidance make it very clear that normal employment law principles apply. Such normal laws would mean you can’t just reduce contractual pay by 20 per cent without the employee’s consent.

https://www.lewissilkin.com/en/insights/furloughing-employefaqs-for-employers-on-the-coronavirus-job-retention-scheme

This article from law firm Lewis Silkin (first article that came up from a law firm when I googled the question) also says that you need employee agreement first - see the section entitled “how do we put someone on furlough?”

I think the only way you can do it without agreement is by making people redundant first. But then there’d be no guarantee the employee would want to go on the furlough scheme (from a footballer’s point of view - you’d be a free agent if you agreed to be made redundant so would then have the choice of (a) going on furlough or (b) being able to sign for someone else - and I’m sure most first team premier league players would get a new contract fairly quickly even in the current climate). You’d also have to go through the full redundancy process, consultations, give the necessary notice period etc.

Of course, if an employer just puts employees  on furlough without prior consent, I’m sure many employees wouldn’t necessarily kick up a fuss about it, but that doesn’t mean legally they are unable to kick up a fuss about it if they want.

[Indy 3,298]

10 hours ago, Aggy said:

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/claim-for-wage-costs-through-the-coronavirus-job-retention-scheme#agreeing-to-furlough-employees

This is government guidance to employers. Scroll down to “agreeing to furlough employees” which says employers should discuss with employees and make changes to the employment contract by agreement. The same point is made in the “what you’ll need to make a claim” section.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/guidance-to-employers-and-businesses-about-covid-19/covid-19-guidance-for-employees#furloughed-workers

This is government guidance to employees. Scroll down to “furloughed worker” section, which begins by saying “if you and your employer both agree...”. 

Both sets of guidance make it very clear that normal employment law principles apply. Such normal laws would mean you can’t just reduce contractual pay by 20 per cent without the employee’s consent.

https://www.lewissilkin.com/en/insights/furloughing-employefaqs-for-employers-on-the-coronavirus-job-retention-scheme

This article from law firm Lewis Silkin (first article that came up from a law firm when I googled the question) also says that you need employee agreement first - see the section entitled “how do we put someone on furlough?”

I think the only way you can do it without agreement is by making people redundant first. But then there’d be no guarantee the employee would want to go on the furlough scheme (from a footballer’s point of view - you’d be a free agent if you agreed to be made redundant so would then have the choice of (a) going on furlough or (b) being able to sign for someone else - and I’m sure most first team premier league players would get a new contract fairly quickly even in the current climate). You’d also have to go through the full redundancy process, consultations, give the necessary notice period etc.

Of course, if an employer just puts employees  on furlough without prior consent, I’m sure many employees wouldn’t necessarily kick up a fuss about it, but that doesn’t mean legally they are unable to kick up a fuss about it if they want.

Sorry Aggy, was watching a film last night so didn’t respond.

Thanks for the link, you rightly say an agreement to be reached between the two parties, your view on this is a little strange to me. If the club is in poor financial situation, then that’s big part down to players who while times are good take a huge slice of the money, come this hard time to all us, I’m currently with zero income as I wait for the oil industry to bounce back. As I take my wage up to my maximum allowable income the rest I take in dividends and pay tax on. In theory I pay my company corporation tax so pay 20% in taxes each year on my company profits and 7.5 % on my personal tax.

As for the players they have a duty at this time to protect their employers, it’s short term and as I agree in respect that all businesses need to enforce a force majour clause in contracts, as I have, hopefully clubs will learn from this as other major incidents in the future could have the same impact.
So for me it’s an absolute disgrace when clubs in the lower leagues are now pushing the financial boundries and having to think about laying everyone off permanently to survive. Sorry but in the short term all players should be put on minimum wage Furloughed if you like, then each club should donate to a critical finance fund to help lower league clubs and the rest to aid the NHS.

Its not like we would be asking the players to take a huge wage cut long term, it’s just short term and they have a moral duty to help this club and it’s community. We obviously see it from different view points but this is a very strange time and community should come first including the football clubs. 👍

Edited April 16, 2020 by Indy

[Barbe bleu 823]

42 minutes ago, Indy said:

 

Its not like we would be asking the players to take a huge wage cut long term, it’s just short term and they have a moral duty to help this club and it’s community. 

Would you take a pay cut if your boss and his boss haven't?.  It starts at the top or it doesn't happen.

[Jim Smith 2,317]

On 10/04/2020 at 08:12, Hillhead said:

Perhaps I'm becoming cynical and while I know we shouldn't knock anything being done for charity I can't help but think the total amount raised by this will be equivalent to the smallest of pay cuts. Already I've seen more praise being lavished onHenderson et al than I have any individual member of the NHS - perhaps I need to stop listening to talkSport.

The whole "docking our wages will reduce tax that could go to the NHS" statement stunk for me and if clubs throughout the leagues do end up going out of business I hope this serves as a real wake up call to fans that these footballers are not the heroes we make them out to be - happy to milk as much out of clubs as they can. I don't have much time for the Leeds deferral either, all wages to ultimately be paid up with a 2% bonus.

I won't hold my breath but at the very least I hope this serves as a wake up call to just how insane the amount of money we pay these footballers really is. Off topic but whatever happens in the future, for as long as we are charging fans £500 for a season ticket I hope we never pay a player whatever we paid Naismith per week ever again.

I don’t think you are being cynical. Whilst it’s admirable on one level (and clearly better than them doing nothing) in my view it’s at least in part a PR offensive worked up with the PFA designed to try and head off the threat of more permanent pay reductions. It doesn’t actually achieve what the stated aim of the pay reductions is which is to save the clubs. Although I can see why if your club is owned by a billionaire you may be reluctant to take a pay cut if if that owner is still likely to receive the tv monies so to have the discussion properly they need to sort that out and make a decision over the league at the same time. 

[Ray 111]

The simplest way to cover all this is for the government to introduce an emergency tax effective 1st May for 2 months on anyone, footballer or not, earning in excess of say £20,000 per month of say an extra 20%.  There may of course be ways around this but anyone found guilty of deliberately taking steps to avoid paying could be named and shamed and/or their average weekly/monthly wage is calculated at the end of the year and the tax applied retrospectively.  That way footballers will not feel they are being singled out and it will no doubt raise a fair few quid.  All this would probably do is bring forward the increased tax we will all no doubt have to pay eventually anyway but will only be payable now by those who earn the most.