Premier League clubs live during a "moral vacuum" and players
should be first to sacrifice salaries during the coronavirus pandemic, say politicians.
Julian Knight, the chair of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport committee, has condemned the actions of some Premier League clubs, who have furloughed non-playing staff.
Tottenham, Newcastle, Bournemouth, and Norwich have opted to utilize the government's job retention scheme.
"It sticks within the throat," said Knight.
"This exposes the crazy economics in English football and therefore the moral vacuum at its center."
Spurs chairman Levy issues warning as non-playing staff take a salary cut
Newcastle put non-playing staff inactive
Norwich begin to furlough staff
On Wednesday, Bournemouth announced that "a number of staff" would be furloughed, while the club's chief executive Neill Blake, first-team technical director Richard Hughes, manager Eddie Howe, and assistant manager Jason Tindall have taken "significant, voluntary pay cuts".
The Professional Footballers’ Association has written to all or any of its members urging them to not agree on any reduction or deferral in wages until they need speaking to the union.
In a letter seen by BBC Sport, the PFA says: "The PFA requested to ascertain each club's financial situation before we provide advice to players on whether to simply accept the terms offered.
"Before accepting or signing any paperwork from your club, it's vitally important that squads collectively discuss proposals with the PFA."
In a joint statement the Premier League, EFL, PFA and League Managers' Association said that they had a "constructive meeting" on Wednesday "regarding the challenges facing the game".
"The meeting reiterated that the overriding priority is that the health and well-being of the state - including that of players, coaches, managers, club staff and supporters - and everybody agreed football must only return when it's safe and appropriate to try to so," the statement said.
"No decisions were crazy discussions set to continue within the next 48 hours with attention on several high-profile matters, including player wages and therefore the resumption of the 2019-20 season."
Highly-paid footballers should carry the burden - Khan
Mayor of London Sadiq Khan told BBC Radio 5 Live top-flight players should be those to "carry the burden".
"My view is usually that those that are the smallest amount well-off should get the foremost help," he said.
"Highly paid football players are people that can carry the best burden and that they should be the primary ones too, with respect, sacrifice their salary, instead of the person selling the program or the one that does catering or the one that probably doesn't get anywhere near the salary a number of the Premier League footballers get.
"It should be those with the broadest shoulders who go first because they will carry the best burden and have probably got savings, instead of those that add catering or hospitality who have probably got no savings and live week by week and who probably won’t get the [government] benefits for five weeks."
The Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme means the govt can pay staff placed on furlough - temporary leave - 80% of their wages, to a maximum of £2,500 a month.
Knight cares the scheme isn't getting used within the appropriate way.
"This isn't what it's designed for. it isn't designed to effectively allow them to still pay people many thousands of pounds, while at an equivalent time furloughing staff on many pounds," said the MP for Solihull.
"I do not know whether or not the Treasury can legally turn down these applications.
"But at an equivalent time, I feel football must have an honest, long, hard check out itself and see whether or not morally this is often really right and whether or not actually what they have to try to has come to an appointment with a number of their stars in order that they can still pay their [non-playing] staff 100% of their wages instead of furloughing them on 80%."
While some clubs have opted to use that scheme, the variety has taken other steps to scale back their costs while football is suspended during the pandemic.
Players at Championship leaders Leeds United have already volunteered to require a wage deferral while Birmingham City players who earn quite £6,000 every week are asked to require a 50% cut for the subsequent four months.
In Europe, Barcelona players have taken a 70% salary cut while Juventus players and manager Maurizio Sarri have agreed to freeze their buy four months.
However, Lord Mervyn King, former governor of the Bank of England, says Tottenham's decision is fair, and Brighton & Hove Albion chief executive and deputy chairman Paul Barber said he can understand why clubs like Spurs would furlough staff.
Brighton has committed to paying all matchday staff until the top of the season but Barber says he cannot rule out having to form cuts.
"It's a really difficult time for everyone and that I can fully understand why people think that the football industry and particularly the Premier League possesses tons of money," he told BBC Radio 5 Live.
"In many cases that's not the case, it is a little bit of a myth, but what we've to try to do is protect jobs.
"We’re doing whatever we will try to that and that’s the priority at the instant for almost every industry within the country, including ours."
Analysis
Dan Roan, BBC newspaper editor
This has the potential to show into one among the gravest PR disasters within the Premier League's history.
Many are now asking whether the government's taxpayer-funded job retention scheme was really designed for clubs who - within the case of Spurs as an example - have profits of £68m, a Bahamas-based owner worth £4bn, an MD paid £7m and players who, on the average, earn £70,000 per week.
Government sources indicate the scheme is hospitable all businesses and it's up to individual clubs to make a decision whether to use. But by furloughing non-playing staff while continuing to stay squads on full pay, Spurs, Newcastle United, Norwich City, and Bournemouth have provoked an inevitable outcry, and also put major pressure on players - and therefore the PFA - to comply with a deal that might see players have their pay deferred or maybe cut - as went on at clubs in Europe.
My understanding is that a deal that will see players comply with deferring a proportion of their wages plus some quite financial contribution to an honest cause should be signed off by the top of the week.
The PFA is wary of the danger that some clubs may cut pay, only to then make transfer signings instead of reimbursing their staff, and need a labor contract instead of unilateral action, as has been seen at Leeds and Birmingham.
This is undoubtedly a sophisticated dilemma for the game. The PFA has got to consider the interests of players outside the highest two divisions who don't earn fortunes, and it's asked the Premier League and EFL to return up with financial data for clubs so it can determine which are most in need of help from players.
And as agents will little question means, players' contracts must not be breached. But unless clarity and compromise soon emerge from this week's talks, the danger is that much of the great work that football clubs do to assist their communities during this crisis might be overshadowed.
0 Comments