'Make no mistake, Sheffield United and other Premier League clubs are facing serious difficulty, so we need a change of outlook'
and live on Freeview channel 276
But for others, including many of those operating at Premier League level, the sight of clubs asking government to subsidise their salary costs changes the narrative surrounding English football’s elite division. The one which, for many years, revolved around tales of bulging bank balances, huge recruitment budgets and access to almost unlimited, unfettered wealth.
Unless you are part of the elite’s elite, those bankrolled by major conglomerates, generous oligarchs or sovereign wealth funds, the chaos created by the coronavirus pandemic poses a serious threat. Economies across the globe, particularly those built largely on borrowing, are facing challenges not experienced for several generations when politicians begin receiving the bills created by measures to prop up businesses and individual livelihoods.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdThe ecosystem around football, which Sheffield United are a part of, is not immune to the issues created by the spread of a disease which has now claimed 80,000 lives worldwide.
Yes, those at the top end of the pyramid are better protected than, say, those in the English Football League or non-league competitions. And in turn, given how communities mobilise whenever their teams are threatened with extinction, their safety nets are deeper than the local cafes, pubs and shops who also use the income generated on match days to keep themselves afloat.
But make no mistake, given the toxicity created when some of the country’s most famous sporting brands furlough employees, particularly given the size of the savings involved, it should change the lens through which we view the game’s fiscal health. Perhaps force a rethink of how we all - journalists, pundits and supporters alike - equate ambition with the amounts boards of directors splurge on recruitment.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the situation, there is no getting away from the fact that clubs receiving £200m in solidarity payments alone asking politicians to underwrite the wages of their lowest paid members of staff is not a good look. Particularly when many of their high-earners, even though the arguments put forward by the Professional Footballers’ Association about imposing cuts or deferrals upon its members are impossible to refute, continued to be remunerated in full. Nor is it something that should really be necessary if they adopted a more altruistic, egalitarian attitude to those working in back office roles. Many, aware of the toxicity surrounding their use of furloughing, are now making it plain they will do so without seeking outside assistance.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdBut the fact is, and few of us complain when the sides we follow splurge eye-watering sums on new talent, the majority of the income handed over by rights-holders is spent up front rather than tucked away for a rainy day or situations like the one we are facing now.
If directors don’t splash the case, if they ignore calls to ‘be bold’ or pay the extra few quid required to land a key target, then many commentators and fans alike accuse them of being tight-fisted and facile.
United, according to some independent analysts, stand to lose over £40m if the 2019/20 season is rendered null and void. This might be less, in terms of transfer fees and pay over the course of their contracts, they have spent on two new players alone since being promoted from the Championship last year.
Bur make no mistake, given how they are funded, that is serious. So those claiming bailouts are for businesses in crisis, not those with money to burn, should consider if many of those in the PL right now fall into the former category. Burnley chairman Mike Garlick’s admission that the coffers at Turf Moor will be empty by August if the lockdown continues suggests they do.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdFootball has an unfortunate knack of handing its detractors a bloody large stick to beat it with. Much of the criticism it has received in the past and is faced with now is warranted.
But it is also an easy target for those looking to score points and curry favour with the public.
A debate, between two friends on social media earlier this week, highlighted how belief-systems and ideologies can colour the prism through which we view events in the wider world.
One, responding to his mate’s suggestion that it was disgraceful PL players had yet to accept a wage cut while others at their clubs were being handed deductions, wondered why The Queen wasn’t facing demands to make a similar gesture given her family receives around £67m from the nation’s purse?
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdThe reply he received stated this would be a nonsense, because of the tourism revenues generated by the royals. Yet, keeping my own thoughts on the matter private, there was no mention of the tax contributions made by top-flight performers. Equally, although I happen to believe all parties concerned could have handled the matter better, the PFA was not obligated to immediately accept cuts or deferrals before being furnished with more information simply because those of us working in other sectors are feeling the pinch. Providing, of course, they feel the righteousness of their stance outweighs the PR damage inevitably caused.
All of us will have slightly different takes on how clubs are responding to the chaos caused by Covid-19. And most of those, providing we consider them sensibly, will have some merit.
But hopefully, when the game emerges from the shadow of this terrible virus, we can all agree that it is no longer good enough to judge a club’s worth solely on the size of the cheques they write when building a squad.
We must begin to factor things like looking after ticket assistants, stewards and turnstile operators into our arguments about whether those we support are budgeting sensibly before lambasting those who, even though these are unprecedented times, are regarded as not being ambitious enough.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdIf one good thing comes out of this whole sorry mess, it will be the removal of the word ‘gamble’ from football’s vocabulary and a new framework within which we view what clubs should be and stand for.