STRIKE!!!! (Money in Football)

Member Name: dave27

Product:	Money in Football
Date:	23/11/01 (328 review reads)
Rating:

Advantages: More to go around

Disadvantages: No winners

Strange times these ... the issue of money for the rights to televised football has brought football to the brink of a strike by professional footballers for the first time in nearly forty years.

Back then it was the chin of Jimmy Hill as a player who led the players' revolt against the maximum wage and eventually started the ball rolling in freeing up their rights. These days it is a short and stubby ex left winger by the name of Gordon Taylor who is leading the Professional Footballers Union?s battle for a greater share of the gravy train.

The problem arose because of the renegotiated deal for the rights to televise matches. The PFA previously had an agreement for a percentage share of the money coming into the game, but when the current package was agreed, the Premier League offered the PFA an absolute amount which meant that their percentage share would reduce.

Taylor started agitating for action a while back and there was a ballot of members to determine whether they supported a strike by players and their non appearance in televised games. Apparently more than 90% of players supported the strike motion, giving Taylor the mandate to dig his heels in.

The Times carried the following article on key questions and answers about the dispute:

When is the last date the strike can be called off?
Technically, at a moment's notice, though the police say that, in general, they usually need nine days' notice to postpone a fixture, and three weeks' notice to reschedule a postponed fixture.

How is money from television paid?
BSkyB paid £1.1 billion over three years to show 66 live games a year. ITV paid £183 million for a three-year highlights package. NTL paid £328 million for 40 pay-per-view games. The broadcasters paid 7.5 per cent of their deals up front last year. It is believed that ITV paid half up front with the rest over the three years. Each Premiership club receives £7.6 million
in television money, plus anything from £417,000 to £8.3 million in merit payments, depending on where they finish in the table, £570,000 for each live appearance and £82,000 if the game is shown in a highlights package.

Can the television companies renegotiate their deals if the strike goes ahead?
This is dealt with in the contract between the Premier League and its broadcasters, but the Premier League declined to say whether the deal could be renegotiated. ITV Digital was warned last week, however, that its £315 million deal with Nationwide League clubs is 'non-negotiable'. It was reported that the channel could face closure unless its three-year contract with the League, signed last July, is renegotiated. The channel has already paid £165 million, with £90 million to be paid in August.

Will clubs play without television cameras present?
No, it is unlikely, because they will not receive any money from the broadcasters. Premiership games are broadcast to 142 countries around the world and clubs such as Manchester United and Chelsea have their own television stations. The Premier League has insisted that cameras will be present. Geoffrey Richmond, the Bradford City chairman, said that youth team and non-contract players could be played.

Will clubs pay their players if they strike?
No, because they say the players will be in breach of their contracts. Clubs could choose to terminate contracts, if players break them. One argument is that they could lose only one days' wages for the game they did not play.

Does the PFA have a strike fund?
No, but the union can support its members if they suffer financial hardship.

What games are affected?
FA Barclaycard Premiership and Nationwide League matches would be hit, although European and domestic cup matches would be unaffected.

Can the season be extended?
With the World Cup in the summer, there is little scope for extending t
he season.

Will a short strike put any clubs out of business?
It is unclear. Nationwide League clubs received their television income at the start of the season. If the games were postponed, clubs would lose gate receipt income.

Has there every been a football strike in England before?
No. The closest English football players have come to a strike was in 1961, when Jimmy Hill, then a Fulham player, negotiated the abolition of the maximum wage. The strike was called off three days before it was due to start.

What are the odds on a strike going ahead?
William Hill, jokingly, said that it is apprehensive about offering odds, in case Gordon Taylor places a bet in an attempt to make up the difference in the money offered by the Premier League and what the PFA wants. The bookmaker did say, though, that if it were offering odds, it would quote 5-1.

The Times also carried a report saying that the lawyers' view was that the clubs could take legal action preventing the strike, effectively scuppering the PFA's opposition, but this is a tricky issue which isn?t going to go away and is likely to simmer on for several weeks to come. There are clearly passionate feelings on both sides and the BBC website invited contributions on the subject. Among the responses were the following:

Damn right they should strike. The reaction of the chairmen just shows how out of touch they are with the grass roots game in this country. The PFA exists to represent all professionals, not just the well-paid Premier League players. The TV money will soon dry up as soon as the middle classes' interest in the game dries up, so we the PFA should get as much money as it can now. This will, more than anything else, safeguard the future of the game.
Philip trotter, England

Players should not strike for an issue that does not directly affect them. Footballers at the highest level are grossly overpaid for what they do,
and if the PFA wants more money let their super rich players donate some of the millions they waste in nightclubs and on gambling. For those players the PFA say will need handouts when their careers are curtailed by injury, have they not heard of insurance?
Barry, England

Most, if not all unions are funded by their members who can pay up to 5% of their wages as dues. The fact that they get any money from the FA is a bonus. The PFA is one of the richest unions in the country relative to its size. The strike action, if taken, will be illegal as the parties that suffer will be the clubs with whom they have no argument, and the fans who will suffer whatever happens. There are possibly a few chairmen who are rubbing their hands at this opportunity to rid themselves of some high paid players who they see as deadwood if they break their contracts by going on strike. It seems that some facts about the PFA are being aired that were before unknown to us supporters, and the whole thing could backfire in Mr Taylor's face
Sean Edgar, England

I suggest a staggered union annual subscription. If you earn more than £1000 a week, you should pay a higher rate, and more again for those earning £3000 a week, etc. Players are getting too greedy, and I would not like to see the game go the same way as baseball in the USA. Striking must be avoided for the good of the game. The players should start thinking about where their future revenue will come from, rather than jeopardising the current arrangement.
Paul, Ireland

Unions are organisations set up for the benefit of their paying members; if the PFA demands money directly from the clubs it weakens its position as the players' representative. If players want the benefits of union membership they should pay a fair subscription. In any other industry demanding money like this would be called a protection racket.
Richard Gee, Scotland

The logic of some of the Football Bosses a
mazes me. I have just seen Ken Bates say that they will not negotiate with the PFA until they have taken the case to court and LOST. What arrogance. Typical of an industry run by people with no feeling for either the people who come through the turnstiles every week or who provide the entertainment. Good luck to the PFA - someone has to bring the idiots at the top to their senses.
David, UK

What would happen if the football fans went on strike? We pay out a lot of money to watch them every week. As a postman I pay out more than the reported £75p.a.to be a union member. Cough up more money Becks and Co.!!
Ian Pole, England

There is more TV money because more people watch top level football on TV. The lower levels don't have any more TV following than they did before so I don't think they should get more money, in fact I don't think they should get any money at all, if they can't run the union on the money they get from their members then tough, they should get their own shop in order instead of blaming others. It's right that the top footballers get the most money, it's the same in any career and gives the rest an incentive. If other footballers don't make enough money before they retire then they should find another career, the same as the rest of us. Playing professional football for a decade or so shouldn't give you the right to live off others for the rest of your life.
Matt, UK

The clubs are being greedy here, not the players. The players bring in the fans, whether through the turnstiles or through television subscriptions. Their success at attracting a bigger audience has resulted in a "bigger pie" - why shouldn't they share proportionately (at least) in this? Incidentally, is Premier League chief executive Richard Scudamore related to Murray Walker?: "It is unthinkable that players in this country are thinking of striking."
Steve, France

Now tha
t's only a small selection of the views posted on the site and it's clear that there's a heated debate going on. It seems that some of the players are wavering from their original commitment following an improvement to the League's offer. Les Ferdinand of Spurs is quoted as saying: "We don't want to go on strike and still hope there will be a compromise. Perhaps if the leagues up their offer some more, there will be a second ballot on that offer. That would not be a bad thing."

Dean Windass of Middlesbrough seemed similarly ambivalent: "All the lads at Boro voted yes to the strike. But when it comes to the crunch it will be interesting to see if the players all go through with it."

It's important not to get wound up by the more simplistic view that this is all about already well paid players being greedy for more dosh. This issue is not about such players, it's about how much money the PFA should receive and have available to it so that it can carry out its work in supporting ailing football clubs, supporting ex footballers who have fallen on hard times and developing the game in this country.

Quotes about the £75 annual membership fee which players fork out are misleading, though the question of whether the higher paid players should pay higher dues is an interesting one.

My view on this whole matter is that there are no rights and wrongs to the argument. One could criticise the PFA and the players for fighting for this cause, but the high handed and clearly biased viewpoints of club chairmen does nothing to improve matters.

Money in football these days is greater than ever before and has brought us to this tricky position. Unless some form of compromise is reached in the near future all the parties involved are likely to do is bring the entire industry into disrepute and turn the people who fork out the money against them and that could set off a vicious spiral dragg
ing the game back into the terrible state it was in the 1980's.

Football in England in 2001 is in an exceptionally strong state, but it could quickly disappear up its own rear entrance unless compromise and reason start to become words in people's vocabulary again.

Summary: