April Fool? The award has to go to Sky pundit Gary
Neville. Responding to criticism that Premier League footballers are totally
disconnected from the real world, have towering egos and are utterly incapable
of coping with even a hint of criticism, he showed that actually - Premier
League footballers are totally disconnected from the real world, have towering
egos and are utterly incapable of coping with even a hint of criticism.
Gary has form as an angry man, so it’s no
surprise that when Health Secretary Matt Hancock posed a totally reasonable
question; suggesting that Premier League footballers should “do their bit”, Neville
“hit back” as most media outlets reported. He could have responded in a
reasoned and courteous fashion but, in a sport where every game is described as
a clash or a desperate battle, moderate language is not the norm. Mr Neville
even tried to draw parallels between the challenges footballers face in agreeing a short term pay cut, to the
logistical issues of organising a rigorous and resilient testing regime for the
million or so people who work for the NHS. One of these issues could be
resolved with a few phone calls and a bit of goodwill – and only one.
Premier League football exists in its
current form only because the fans lash out staggering sums of money for match
tickets, merchandise and the vast array of on-line subscriptions required to
watch the game on TV. Football receives a large part of its income from
commercial sponsorship, the cost of which is then added to the price of the
products we buy, so the fan (who may just have been laid off due to COVID), gets to pay that way too. Gary Neville opened his
“hit back tweet” with “I wish I was a footballer for ten more minutes.” We all
do Gary. His beloved Manchester United reportedly pays Alexei Sanchez £500,000
a week. Assuming a 35-hour week (generous), that is about £15,000 an hour or close
to two and a half grand for every ten minutes. Few remember, by the way, the
last time Mr Sanchez pulled on a United
shirt.
Since Neville’s outburst, a host of
footballers have whined that it is wrong to single them out. “Why us? Why pick
on footballers?” Well, they are in a position that few of us will ever know.
They are paid eye-watering sums of money to do what most of us would do for
nothing. People up and down the country pay subs and buy their own kit to play
this game. I’m guessing that if Sainsbury’s asked for a cash contribution from
its employees who were told to “bring your own uniform” – it wouldn’t get many
takers. Neville is in a particularly fortunate position. A very successful
right back, he is now handsomely rewarded (allegedly paid more than £1.5
million a year by Sky) to watch and talk about football. He is arguably one of
the better pundits – but is there any other job where someone can retire from
“doing” and make a staggeringly good living from talking, whether you have a
discernible talent for the new role or not? My generation grew up with Jimmy Hill, Ian St
John and Jimmy Greaves. They did their job with style and wit and were chosen
because they were intelligent, articulate and insightful and talked about
football as a game – rather than as a proxy for armed conflict. I yearn for a
return to those days. Any professional footballer is now eligible for a job as
a pundit. Most can barely string two sentences together; they appear to find an
inability to pronounce the names of foreign players hilarious and often
struggle to grasp the rules of the game from which they “earn” a living. Few are
able to hide their historic club allegiances, and none seem able to grasp that
their opinion (that’s all it is) is worth no more than that being expressed by
someone in the stands.
Gary Neville was a good player, he is one
of the better pundits, but he appears to believe that we should all sit up and
take notice of his views regardless of the subject matter. He is unimpressed
that Matt Hancock has been unable to implement a resilient test regime but
forgets that the last time he was paid handsomely to “do” rather than “say”, he
was an unmitigated disaster. He lasted only three months as manager of Valencia
and attributed much of his failure to “bad luck”. He is a consistent pleader
for those at the pinnacle of football to be seen as “special”. Bad behaviour by
players is excused because of the pressure (elite sportsmen in other fields
rarely ever make such a claim), he told us an Arsenal fan was an idiot for
criticising the club he was paying
astronomical sums to watch. Fans who questioned Rachel Riley’s qualifications
as a football pundit were derided. What right did paying customers have to
query the service they were receiving? He also stepped in to defend Jamie
Carragher who spat in the face of fans who were almost certainly customers of
his employer. Neville can certainly opine on whether Liverpool should play a
flat back four – the problem is that he now believes himself to be an authority
in general.
He angrily demands that we trust the players
– they will come up with something. Several days later we have seen nothing but
more special pleading by and on behalf of players. They are different, there’s
a whole bunch of people who should be ahead of them in the queue we are told.
So why are they “being picked on”?
Primarily, it’s because they are standing
by and watching their low paid colleagues being laid off whist they sit back in
their luxury homes whinging about how tough it is to stay fit, in case the
season ever restarts. They claim that the clubs should do more and their rich
owners should be the focus of public ire. It’s true that chairmen like Daniel
Levy has acted shamefully by accepting a huge bonus on the same day he laid off
hundreds of low paid staff – but the bad behaviour of others is never an excuse
for one’s own failings. Since Neville’s demands to back off – Liverpool,
currently England’s top club, has also placed the burden of supporting many of
their non-playing staff onto the taxpayer.
We have seen plenty of examples of the
disdain with which elite footballers treat the fans who pay their salaries.
Danny Rose memorably informed the world he would never forgive Spurs fans for
questioning his commitment during a lengthy injury spell in which he did little
but whinge about how tough it is to be a footballer. Rose had not played for
around nine months and in that time had been paid what most of the fans he was
criticising would struggle to earn in several lifetimes.
So why are we picking on footballers now?
Several players have given examples of those who might be ahead of them in the
queue – I list them below with some pretty obvious answers.
Actors? Actors get paid when they work. Many of
the most famous actors in the world are now out of a job because film projects
have ceased. They also work in an industry where one bad performance can end
their careers.
CEOs? Sure, the average CEO is paid a handsome
salary but most of their remuneration comes in bonuses and income related to
the performance of the company’s shares. Both will be hit drastically by the
current crisis.
Other top sportsmen? Many have already done what is now
expected of Premier League footballers. Barcelona players have agreed to a 70%
cut so that other staff “can earn their full salaries”. Many sportsmen do not
enjoy the cossetted existence of being employed by a club. If golfers and
tennis players don’t compete (like now), they don’t get paid. England’s
cricketers (paid a fraction of the sums received by footballers) have already
agreed to the 30% cut that Premier League clubs are asking of their players.
Investment managers? Another group that
rarely garners sympathy, but they too will see a reduction to their incomes as
a consequence of this crisis. Most are paid based on stock market values which
have dropped, and bonuses are based on profitability which will be ravaged.
Wealthy club owners? Of course they should
do more, but most have already seen the value of their club drop dramatically.
Some may be unable to sustain the investment they have already made with the
commercial future of the game so clearly under threat. Yes – they should do
more, that does not excuse players, as a group, offering nothing but excuses.
Other rich people? Wealth is measured
by the value of assets one has accumulated to date. It’s possible to be rich
without having a commensurate income (if you own a massive estate which generates
no revenue). Virtually all rich people will exit this crisis poorer than
before. It’s not to say they shouldn’t do something – but footballers have an
abundance of what everyone needs right now. Income. It’s inconceivable that they could not sacrifice
a small part of that for a short time to protect the jobs of their lower paid
colleagues – and to tide clubs over until the future of the game itself is
clearer.
The candidates offered up in the “why not”
list will all see their income fall due to COVID, all of them can and should do more, the problem is that players appear to believe
they are exempt.
Our Premier League players simply fail to
grasp that they have an almost unique privilege. They are paid whether they
play or not, most have long term contracts guaranteeing their income years into
the future and they appear to believe they should not be asked to behave in a
way that the players of Barcelona and the England cricket team have done
willingly and without fuss.
Neville said they would respond – subsequent
news report are not encouraging. We are told that a one-year sacrifice of 30%
would amount to a £500 million loss to the players and a £200 million loss in
tax to the Treasury – they claim this will damage the NHS. This is possibly the
most egregious distortion of all. Whilst it is true that their pay is subject to tax, it
also qualifies for tax relief for their employer. The claim that the net cost
is 200 million is quite simply a lie. Suggesting that this would have a direct
impact on the NHS is shameful. The government is now in a position where it has
no choice but to give the NHS any resources it needs, lower tax revenues from
football will not change that. If club owners have asked for 30% of player's annual pay, why have the players not responded with a counter-offer? Maybe 30% of monthly pay for the duration of the lockdown. Finally, it is breath-taking that footballers
should now show such concern that the government gets its share of their
income. I suggest you Google “Premier League tax avoidance” it will take you to
a host of links describing the endless measures players have adopted to avoid
paying tax in the past. In the words of Gary Neville – “it’s a
F&&&king cheek”.
Another contributor to the debate has been
Wayne Rooney – who is outraged that footballers are being “scapegoated”. He says
that he has a player at Derby who still lives with his mum. How could such an
individual be asked to sacrifice part of his pay for a short time? Rooney then
goes on to answer his own question. Of course the player is a “young kid” and
he doesn’t even play in the Premier League, so nobody has suggested he should
take a pay cut. But the clincher is this – Wayne tells us that this vulnerable
youngster is only on 2 grand a week. Could the disconnect be more stark?
Footballers play a team game. Many have
honours denied to far more talented players simply because they were in a
successful squad. They are being asked to make a gesture, not to take the whole
burden of this crisis on their own shoulders. They are being asked to be a
“team player”. They should offer a pay cut on the condition that clubs protect
the jobs of their low paid colleagues. At a time when many people are wondering
where the next pay cheque is coming from – it is frankly obscene that some of
the luckiest people in the land have offered no coherent response. Gary Neville
would be well advised to drop the “but we’re special” attitude. It’s time for a
bit of humility and all that is being asked is a gesture that will make little
or no difference to the lifestyles of those in the spotlight.
Football is not a business that invests in
its future. Neville and his cohorts demand that clubs spend the money they earn
on more and more expensive player acquisitions – which may or may not work. The
quest for glory is predicated on an ever-increasing flow of cash into the game.
That flow has now been interrupted. TV won’t pay for matches it can’t show,
sponsors may decide they don’t want to be associated with a sport that is
failing to “do its bit” and many fans will either not have the cash for
merchandise and season tickets next year or will remember that the players they
usually adore, sat out the COVID pandemic and sent them the message – it’s not
my problem. Players and pundits should heed the warnings or a few years from
now, some of them might have to get a proper job.
