Does football deserve criticism for its coronavirus response?

There have been so many positive stories surrounding clubs and players contributing to society since the coronavirus crisis prompted an end to competitive football for the time being.

With no certainty of when the global pandemic curve will be flattened sufficiently for competitions to recommence, clubs are faced with the challenge of paying players and staff without the gate receipts and much of the additional income streams that fund them.

That has not stopped players and coaches from doing their bit to help.

Crystal Palace and Ivory Coast winger Wilfried Zaha has offered his properties for use by health workers during the crisis; Liverpool and Scotland defender Andy Robertson made a huge donation to Glasgow foodbanks; and Manchester City coach Pep Guardiola donated €1 million to health institutions in the fight against coronavirus.

Football clubs are part of the fundamental fabric of their local communities and most have been contributing positively by using their resources to support those most in need.

Arsenal, for instance, made a donation to local communities and provided cars available to transport frontline NHS mental health workers.

And Manchester City and Manchester United came together to launch #ACityUnited to donate a combined £100,000 to help food banks in the Greater Manchester area meet increased demand from vulnerable people as a result of the coronavirus lockdown.

But with top players, especially at Premier League clubs, earning millions each season, the decision by some to cut wages for non-playing staff or put them on furlough was widely condemned with Liverpool legend Jamie Carragher one of the first to criticise his former club for doing so.

Within two days, Liverpool had reversed their furlough decision, with CEO Peter Moore stating: “We believe we came to the wrong conclusion last week to announce that we intended to apply to the Coronavirus Retention Scheme and furlough staff due to the suspension of the Premier League football calendar, and are truly sorry for that.

“Our intentions were, and still are, to ensure the entire workforce is given as much protection as possible from redundancy and/or loss of earnings during this unprecedented period.

“We are therefore committed to finding alternative ways to operate while there are no football matches being played that ensures we are not applying for the government relief scheme.”    

When a crisis occurs, it is important to fix it as quickly as possible, because how you deal with a crisis is always more important than the crisis itself.

The quicker you clean up the reputational mess, the less of a stain it is going to make, something Liverpool did without delay.

At governance level, the Premier League issued a statement regarding prospects for the season and the impact the lockdown has had on clubs.

There was good news about support for the NHS and relevant charities and advancing payments to clubs further down the pyramid to help their cashflow.

That prompted the Gillingham Chairman Paul Scally to accuse the Premier League of being fat cats simply looking after themselves by not contributing in addition to advance payments.

But in light of comments made by Health Secretary Matt Hancock during a government briefing about footballers needing to take a pay cut, the Premier League added that they would propose “to consult their players regarding a combination of conditional reductions and deferrals amounting to 30 per cent of total annual remuneration.”

This statement appears premature and possibly intended to force the hand of the players, with negotiations ongoing.

The players’ union, the Professional Footballers’ Association (PFA), responded with its own statement, not only criticising the size of the contribution made by the Premier League to the NHS and lower league clubs but also rebutting its proposals to cut player salaries.

PFA Chief Executive Gordon Taylor demanded that Premier League clubs are honest with their finances before players accept any sort of wage cuts and that any cuts are repaid down the line.

These developments have prompted accusations that the players are greedy at a time when thousands of individuals and organisations without their wealth or cashflow face financial struggle or even ruin.

It’s been a PR disaster. But is it deserved?

Let’s be clear – footballers and football clubs are high profile and warrant huge swathes of newsprint every single day.

But there are plenty of other industries where people earn big money, be that top-level musicians and actors or entrepreneurs; in industries such as banking, property, aerospace or travel and so many more. In sport alone, Formula One drivers, golfers and tennis players each earn huge sums at the top of their games.

So why single out footballers for criticism?

Former England captain Wayne Rooney, who recently started a column in The Sunday Times, made some very good points about footballers being easy targets and highlighting the disparate contrast between those players at the top of the pyramid and players lower down or at the start of their careers whose earnings may be considerably lower.

Does it need the players to work together, either by club or by league/association? Or could those earning the biggest bucks make a commitment to donating to the lowest paid non-playing staff?

Even for some of the smaller Premier League clubs, the lack of income during the lockdown is having a devastating impact, prompting some to try to bypass the PFA to reduce salaries until normal service is resumed.

For those on £100,000 a week or more, a short-term donation while the lockdown is ongoing would make a huge difference to the lives of those that they rely on indirectly when football carries on in normal times.

But what a brilliant gesture it would be to their wider communities if players took it upon themselves to help out others, and, from a reputational perspective, it would provide a huge amount of credit to the individuals concerned. *

The coronavirus crisis has certainly highlighted once more how many stakeholders there are in football – in terms of governance, club ownership, players, sponsors, broadcasters and all the additional permanent and part-time staff that are affected by the lack of football since the lockdown began.

Each has their own agenda and without a consistent and collaborative plan that sees them all working together, football will continue to be in the firing line for all the wrong reasons.

* UPDATE

More than 150 players launched a "collective initiative" with a statement posted on social media called #PlayersTogether to generate funds for the National Health Service and distribute them "where they are needed most".

Working with NHS Charities Together (NHSCT), the initiative is separate to other conversations with clubs or leagues and is focused on directly helping those on the NHS frontline.

Deservedly, the announcement has earned widespread praise from health workers, politicians and fans alike.