As much as footballers (and pop stars/actors, etc) are easy targets - visible, highly paid and not currently working. It shouldn't just be them furloughed. Where are the calls for Jacob Rees-Mogg and Crispin Odey to hand over the fortunes they've made from the stock markets in the last few weeks? To be fair to the players too, they will have mortgages, cars, etc to pay for, so maybe a cut to £2500 per month is too much for many of them to meet their outgoings (as with a fair few "normal" people), but they should look to reduce their incomes as much as possible in these times.
Why would you want any of these furloughed? They surely are the ones who can afford to not take government help. I agree with your point of easy targets though.
I was just thinking about reducing their wages in a fair way with their non-playing colleagues. I agree that they should look at a pay cut, but it might not be to the same levels as the non-playing staff. There is the argument about reduced tax take, but would it be better for the players to take a cut at source, pay the non-players first then donate everything else to local charities that are working to help people through the crisis? (Shelter, food banks, local hospital, etc)
That’s fair enough. I think the issue is with the owners, but like you say the players are an easy target. I see the players are saying they want to help those in need not the rich owners. Personally I don’t mind any club who furlough their staff as long as they are making up the 20%, if they are not, then that is wrong, especially when some clubs could just not pay one players wage for a week to cover it all. On a linked note on the subject I see Burnley are claiming they will be bankrupt by August if football does not resume.
Is anybody 100% clear on this because my boss isn't and we've just been furloughed? That money will be paid back somehow
Burnley have a huge income from tv rights. About 7% of their income comes from match-day. This can only be down to the player wage-bill surely if correct?
Having reread the article bankrupt was a little dramatic on my part. £5 million for match day, £45 TV rights. https://www.skysports.com/watch/vid...lick-burnley-could-run-out-of-money-by-august
100% clear yes. Its a grant not a loan? There's no grey area there its been made abundantly clear from the very beginning. The only way that you have anything right here is that it will one way or another have to be paid back but by EVERYONE in the form of higher taxes, further cuts to services etc. It won't be paid back directly from the companies who benefit from it. So no, Liverpool FC won't be paying it back as a loan. The tax payer will be paying back the grant to the billionaire owners of Liverpool.
This could probably have been solved by UBI - everyone gets cash (I know business will need to be dealt with separately) - but they could get this back through tax over the next few years by adjusting our tax codes. In fact, they could keep UBI, knock the tax free allowance off completely and probably not be too far off parity in normal times.
Having read the excuses by players and the clubs. Why don't the Players refuse pay cuts. Make the owners cough up. Eg Players wage £100,000 pw. (Gross)If they were willing to drop to an income based on £70,000 (gross) tax paid on the other £30,000 = £13,500. Donate the other £16,500. Pretty sure I could live on an approx net income of £40,000 pw. And a good accountant would probably up that figure . Government insist owners pay non playing staff. Or tax revenue to the hilt when they restart the season. Sky income especially. PS I was bored and it probably isn't as simple as that. Will definitely be wake up time for the greedy bStds, If they don't alter tack.