To think that football players should be furloughed.

[TheletterZ]

They can’t ‘work’ so should be furloughed like everyone else, on 80% of their salary or £2500, whichever is greater.

www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52148955

Not be asked to take a 30% pay cut.

It’s disgraceful. Db works for a club (not uk) who have cut all staff pay by 20% but not the players. He’s so disgusted he’s actually considering quitting his job. He is well paid but so many of the other staff who keep the club running won’t be able to cope on that wage (expensive city).

I might be wrong but I don’t think the players are employed by the clubs as such. Instead they are acting as companies providing a service.

Meant to add I agree with the sentiment though.

I wouldnt expect them to get the government furlough payments but it grates that most are earning a "average" person's yearly salary in a week while not working!

It's not as if they're funded by the tax payer though... Is it?

They're employees of a wealthy company that can afford to pay them.

Couldn't care less 🤷

They'd be on £2500pm since 80% of their salary is slightly above that.I imagine that might take some adjusting.

@0010001

I guess in a way they are being funded by the taxpayer - in part. If clubs have furloughed all of their non playing staff, they are collecting 80% of their salaries from the tax payer (and not paying the other 20%). Not having to pay the other staff means that they have more cash in order to pay footballers salaries.

The problem is clubs are laying off other staff, who will inevitably end up on UC whilst they continue to pay players ££££.

If they're furloughed, their employers can claim the money back from the Govt. surely?
So yes its taxpayers money ultimately..

They can’t ‘work’ so should be furloughed like everyone else, on 80% of their salary or £2500, whichever is greater.

I think you mean whichver is lesser. You're presumable not advocating that taxpayer pay 80% of footballers salaries.

That aside, it would be very bad for taxpayers if that did happen, as they would lose all the PAYE they are getting on footballers salaries, and to add insult to injury, would actually be paying (in effect) benefits to multimillionaires.

I don't think you've thought this through!

who cares

they are paid because they generate even more money.
If no one spends a penny on football-related item - ticket match, tv subscription, merchandising, they won't be worth anything anymore.

Don't blame them, blame the fans. But being resentful of a profitable industry is a bit stupid - they are not doing anything wrong, they are just playing football.

Disgraceful. Embarrassing as a Spurs fan.

If the footballers continue with high salaries they will at least pay high tax so we do benefit.

If they were furloughed then the tax payer would be paying them. The clubs should not have furloughed their low wage staff though if they can afford to pay big wages for players...1 player's weekly wage would cover most of the other staff.

I completely agree. However, the auditor in me realises that rather than being salaried employees, footballers are written in as assets. This allows them to be amortized yearly on a straight line basis based on years contracted. As a footballer has a limited useful life, and is contracted only for an amount of time equal to contract length they are classed as an intangible asset in the balance sheet. This differs from employees whose salaries are recorded against expenses.

So yes, they should take a pay cut. However, clubs can't force them to given the way contracts are structured - it would need to be voluntary on the part of the players to cut their salaries.

Hope that helps, fire away if you have any questions.

Furloughing then would be stupid as then the club could claim from the government. Why on earth would we want to encourage that? Presumably what you mean is they should all take a pay cut?

If so, that’s fine, as long as you are also campaigning for every other millionaire in the country to take a pay cut?

Why should the government pay them when the company they work for can pay them?
What good would that do anyone?

And I say that as somebody very embarrassed to be a spurs fan. But that embarrassment is aimed at the billionaire owners screwing over their staff by forcing them to take 20 per cent pay cuts, not the players.

So the taxpayer should start funding them? Great idea.

@RandomLondoner I think you mean whichver is lesser. You're presumable not advocating that taxpayer pay 80% of footballers salaries. thank you yes, I meant the lesser amount.

I just find it very frustrating that non-playing staff are being treated very differently. They aren’t working so they shouldn’t be paid at their normal rates.

But they’re not employed on PAYE so cannot be furloughed.
Some clubs have not furloughed their staff and are continuing to pay them full salary. At one premiership club, players are donating 30% of their salary to the nhs.

And yes, I can’t quite believe that players at all clubs can’t decide in consultation with their club, to help cover the salaries of those who shine their boots and feed them lunch. If one club can do this why can’t they all?

Why should the government pay them when the company they work for can pay them?

An alternative question: Should rich companies owned by extremely wealthy people be relying on the taxpayer to pay their staff while continuing to pay certain members of staff obscene wages?

If one Premier League player went for three months without being paid he’d probably hardly notice, but that money would cover all the salaries of the non-playing staff for the same time. And that’s one player. And I find it pretty disgusting that people like Lineker and Neville are trying to shift attention onto Matt Hancock. He may be well paid compared to a groundskeeper or admin assistant, but it will still take him a year to earn what a top player does in a week and they know it. The disparity here is out of this world.

An alternative question: Should rich companies owned by extremely wealthy people be relying on the taxpayer to pay their staff while continuing to pay certain members of staff obscene wages?

No, they shouldn't. That isn't what the op asked though. I answered the question she asked

They can't be though, that's the problem.

They have contracts which mean they earn X amount for X length of time unless they're sold. Clubs can't just decide to pay them less or pay them off.

I have issue with football players being the fall guys in the public waking up to the obscene wage disparity in this country. Where was Matt Hancock's comments on billionaire and millionaire company owners? Instead he singles out men from predominately working class backgrounds to take the media hit.