Malaguena
Well-known member
Now I know Rod Liddle's not everyone's cup of tea, but I quite like his "observations", and for me, he's got it spot on in today's Sunday Times ....
Banks would be a better target for public ire than footballers
It took a little while, but it seems the Premier League clubs have at last been afflicted with that most worrying of things, a conscience. They have been bullied into it, I suspect, by the annoyance of the general public and the deflecting opprobrium from government ministers. The upshot is a total of £20 million has been immediately bunged to the NHS, and a payment of £125 million to lower league clubs has been brought forward by more than four months.
Further, the Premier League is to discuss with all its 20 clubs plans for a temporary 30 per cent pay cut for players, whose high wages really anger the public. Meanwhile the players themselves have sprung into action, with Jordan Henderson initiating a Premier League fund for the NHS into which the top earners can contribute a few quid, rather than buying another Range Rover or a small country.
There was certainly something revolting about Daniel Levy’s decision to “furlough” Tottenham Hotspur’s backroom staff with the players remaining on their humungous wages, when the club are richer than Croesus, as is Daniel himself. Surely no top-tier clubs should be, effectively, poncing off the government and thus the rest of us.
But let me play devil’s advocate for a short while and agree slightly with Gary Neville, who was angered by the public wrath being turned upon the players at the behest of beleaguered government ministers. We may all agree that Premier League wages are “obscene”, but then so are city bonuses and the salaries paid to the chief executives of our major companies. It was pretty much ever thus. And it does seem to me that the government was cannily deflecting, by providing an increasingly disquieted public with a convenient target for its ire, away from its own manifest incompetence. And then there is this — if everybody in this country gave £1 to the NHS it would be enough to provide 65,000 ventilators, or one million Personal Protection Equipment kits for frontline NHS workers. And yet I have heard no injunction upon the rest of us to do so, despite the fact we could all afford a quid. So why pick on the high earning Premier League players who have already contributed enormous amounts to the NHS through their taxes and, beyond that, are often — and I would cite Marcus Rashford, Dele Alli and Henderson as just three examples — huge contributors to the charitable sector?
When the witless and yet mysteriously arrogant health secretary Matt Hancock says Premier League footballers should “play their part”, he is dog-whistling to the public while at the same time ignoring the fact that those same footballers have played a much, much, bigger part in funding the NHS than the vast majority of the population, including Matt Hancock. Is he going to furlough his salary, or take a 30 per cent cut (before he is sacked)?
My argument here isn’t that the players should not give money, simply that it should be left to them to decide to do so. They should not be blamed for earning high wages. It is the fault of a system that rewards someone who can kick a ball quite well with half a million quid every week. I get the annoyance at that — in which case, change the system, introduce wage caps or increase tax rates. But for once, the players themselves do not deserve our odium. A more deserving sector would be the banks. They caused the last financial crisis and were bailed out by the taxpayer, and are now stifling loans to hard-up companies. But whacking the bankers is perhaps a bit too close to home for this administration, even if it would be more salient.
Down below the Premier League, the morality of the issue becomes more blurred — shades of grey rather than of black and white. We would probably all agree that Rochdale, Morecambe or Macclesfield are entitled to take advantage of the furlough arrangements, given that they are perpetually skint and in danger of oblivion once the cash flow dries up. But what about Championship clubs? There, it is too close to call. My own club, Millwall, like many others in the second tier, have taken advantage of the furlough scheme. Our top players are probably on a similar salary to Matt Hancock. Should they take a cut?
Birmingham City are asking those players on more than £6,000 a week to take a 50 per cent pay cut. Given Birmingham’s league performances I’m astonished any of the team are paid that much. Either way, the focus of attention on football is a deliberate attempt to steer the public away from where the blame should really lie.
Banks would be a better target for public ire than footballers
It took a little while, but it seems the Premier League clubs have at last been afflicted with that most worrying of things, a conscience. They have been bullied into it, I suspect, by the annoyance of the general public and the deflecting opprobrium from government ministers. The upshot is a total of £20 million has been immediately bunged to the NHS, and a payment of £125 million to lower league clubs has been brought forward by more than four months.
Further, the Premier League is to discuss with all its 20 clubs plans for a temporary 30 per cent pay cut for players, whose high wages really anger the public. Meanwhile the players themselves have sprung into action, with Jordan Henderson initiating a Premier League fund for the NHS into which the top earners can contribute a few quid, rather than buying another Range Rover or a small country.
There was certainly something revolting about Daniel Levy’s decision to “furlough” Tottenham Hotspur’s backroom staff with the players remaining on their humungous wages, when the club are richer than Croesus, as is Daniel himself. Surely no top-tier clubs should be, effectively, poncing off the government and thus the rest of us.
But let me play devil’s advocate for a short while and agree slightly with Gary Neville, who was angered by the public wrath being turned upon the players at the behest of beleaguered government ministers. We may all agree that Premier League wages are “obscene”, but then so are city bonuses and the salaries paid to the chief executives of our major companies. It was pretty much ever thus. And it does seem to me that the government was cannily deflecting, by providing an increasingly disquieted public with a convenient target for its ire, away from its own manifest incompetence. And then there is this — if everybody in this country gave £1 to the NHS it would be enough to provide 65,000 ventilators, or one million Personal Protection Equipment kits for frontline NHS workers. And yet I have heard no injunction upon the rest of us to do so, despite the fact we could all afford a quid. So why pick on the high earning Premier League players who have already contributed enormous amounts to the NHS through their taxes and, beyond that, are often — and I would cite Marcus Rashford, Dele Alli and Henderson as just three examples — huge contributors to the charitable sector?
When the witless and yet mysteriously arrogant health secretary Matt Hancock says Premier League footballers should “play their part”, he is dog-whistling to the public while at the same time ignoring the fact that those same footballers have played a much, much, bigger part in funding the NHS than the vast majority of the population, including Matt Hancock. Is he going to furlough his salary, or take a 30 per cent cut (before he is sacked)?
My argument here isn’t that the players should not give money, simply that it should be left to them to decide to do so. They should not be blamed for earning high wages. It is the fault of a system that rewards someone who can kick a ball quite well with half a million quid every week. I get the annoyance at that — in which case, change the system, introduce wage caps or increase tax rates. But for once, the players themselves do not deserve our odium. A more deserving sector would be the banks. They caused the last financial crisis and were bailed out by the taxpayer, and are now stifling loans to hard-up companies. But whacking the bankers is perhaps a bit too close to home for this administration, even if it would be more salient.
Down below the Premier League, the morality of the issue becomes more blurred — shades of grey rather than of black and white. We would probably all agree that Rochdale, Morecambe or Macclesfield are entitled to take advantage of the furlough arrangements, given that they are perpetually skint and in danger of oblivion once the cash flow dries up. But what about Championship clubs? There, it is too close to call. My own club, Millwall, like many others in the second tier, have taken advantage of the furlough scheme. Our top players are probably on a similar salary to Matt Hancock. Should they take a cut?
Birmingham City are asking those players on more than £6,000 a week to take a 50 per cent pay cut. Given Birmingham’s league performances I’m astonished any of the team are paid that much. Either way, the focus of attention on football is a deliberate attempt to steer the public away from where the blame should really lie.
