Premier League player wage Q&A: What is going on behind the scenes?

With the coronavirus crisis having stopped football in its tracks, clubs up and down the country are trying desperately to keep their heads above water.

Admittedly, cash-flushed sides in the Premier League are starting in a far more fortunate position, but there has so far been a lack of action regarding their players’ wages.

Many Premier League stars earn well in excess of £100,000 a week, but have not yet been asked to take pay cuts or deferrals, while the non-playing staff members at clubs are being furloughed and taking home 20 per cent less themselves.

MailOnline columnist and football fan Piers Morgan summed up the thoughts of the nation when he told Sportsmail today: ‘It is outrageous for any football club right now to cut salaries of club staff but not the extravagantly paid players too.’ 

So what’s going on? Here, we answer all the big questions regarding Premier League wages, to find out what is going to happen next… and *spoiler*, it could get ugly.

So are any Premier League players currently taking wage cuts?

No, and at the moment that’s a huge issue. While companies across the UK furlough their workers, taking advantage of the government’s pledge to pay 80 per cent of employees’ wages, mega-rich footballers are still earning their full pay while no football takes place.

That isn’t actually necessarily the players’ faults, but more the clubs and the Premier League in general, for not being more forthright in coming up with a solution and announcing the plans earlier.

It leaves a bad taste in the mouth that the club’s least well-paid staff members – the canteen staff, the matchday stewards, the cleaners – are having to get by on 20 per cent less, while the rich get richer at the top of the pecking order.

It’s worth noting that in the Championship, both Birmingham and Leeds players have deferred their wages for the foreseeable future, while Sportsmail understands that other Football League clubs have also asked players to cut wages, only to be told they cannot agree without consent from the PFA.

Going forward, the Premier League have a few options if they are to reduce the pay of their biggest stars. They could implement wage cuts, or they could defer the wages for a few months, which would then be paid back in stages once the league campaign resumes. 

Haven’t lots of other countries already agreed cuts? 

They have, yes. In fact, the Premier League will be the last of the big European leagues to affect change if and when they finally decide to do something. Over in Spain this week, it has been a massive talking point, with Barcelona’s players taking a 70 per cent pay cut, as announced by Lionel Messi.

In the Bundesliga in Germany, both players and directors at Bayern Munich and Borussia Dortmund have taken 20 per cent pay cuts, while Union Berlin – who sit 11th in the table – have agreed to go entirely without wages.

Borussia Monchengladbach’s players were the first in the country to offer to forgo wages, while the league’s big four – Dortmund, Bayern, Leipzig and Leverkusen, have all ploughed £17.7m each into a fund to help the second tier clubs who will struggle more than them in the coming months.

In Italy, meanwhile, Juventus players have waived four months’ wages in a move that could see Cristiano Ronaldo give up over £9m of his money to help the cause. 

Sportsmail understands that part of the reason behind the lack of individual decision-making at clubs is partly down to the way contracts in the Premier League are structured. Unlike in other European countries, contracts are less-easily altered in English football and it likely to need a collective decision from all clubs to make changes.

So when will something be decided about the Premier League?

This week, for sure. There are two big meetings in the pipeline, the first of which is taking place today. The PFA – the players’ union – are meeting with the Football League, the Premier League and the League Managers’ Association, to discuss wage cuts, and a whole host of other coronavirus-related matters.

A Premier League decision may not come out of this first get-together, given the huge gap in finances between clubs at the top of the pyramid and those in Leagues One and Two. A blanket wage cut across the board isn’t likely to work for all concerned, so it’s expected that the Premier League will do their own thing. 

That’s where Friday comes into play, when the Premier League have a big meeting of their own. Chiefs from all 20 clubs will put their heads together and come up with a solution if one hasn’t already been decided on Wednesday.

It’s very likely that when a decision is finally made, it will come courtesy of a joint all-encompassing Premier League statement, rather than individual clubs doing different things, for the reasons detailed above. All major Premier League changes ‘require the support of at least a two-thirds vote, or 14 clubs’ in order to be pushed through.

And what are the clubs saying at the moment?

Well, so far their silence has been pretty deafening. Sportsmail approached a number of top-flight clubs on Wednesday morning but most have been hesitant to say anything about their players taking wage cuts, especially with their big meeting scheduled for Friday.

A spokesperson for Tottenham told Sportsmail: ‘We hope the current discussions between the Premier League, PFA and LMA will result in players and coaches doing their bit for the football eco-system.’ 

Spurs are one of three Premier League teams to have already publicly announced that they have furloughed their non-playing staff, with Norwich and Newcastle the other two. 

It seems that clubs will hang on until the meetings have taken place, when they can make a decision together and avoid sticking their head above the parapet as a single club making a big statement alone. 

Why have they been so slow to take action? 

Here’s where it gets really interesting. Essentially, clubs are scared that taking action and forcing their players into pay cuts could spark a disastrous situation in which they lose some of their big names through breach of contract. 

Let me explain. When the players signed their contracts, they agree to receive a certain weekly wage until the end of their terms. If all of a sudden the club stops paying them, or pays them less, stars could start triggering legal claims for unpaid wages that would enable them to leave on free transfers.

Clubs, perhaps understandably, are fearful of breaching their players’ contracts and potentially losing a number of big players to rival clubs. That is why no snap decision has been made, and an overall Premier League decision is the preferred method.

To most, though, the view is that if other countries can do it, why can’t the Premier League? Yes, there are differences in the contract situations across Europe, but surely it would not be difficult to come to an agreement with all the players, who in most cases are happy to take a wage cut, without fear of contract breaches further down the line?

Are pay cuts likely and how much will the players lose? 

It would be astounding if Premier League players weren’t ordered to take a pay cut in the coming days, especially given the hostile reaction to a number of top-flight clubs furloughing their non-playing staff members.

Plenty of clubs have released statements with the overriding message being ‘we’re all in this together’, and it is near-impossible for them to announce cuts to everyone apart from the highest earners, the players.

It is unlikely the percentage will be anything like Barcelona’s 70 per cent, unless specific clubs decide to take a stand and take further cuts than their rivals. It is expected that a figure somewhere around 20 per cent will be decided on, bringing the players in line with the rest of the club’s staff.

While the furlough scheme used by a number of clubs sees the 80 per cent paid by the government, the clubs will continue paying the players’ wages, and it is as yet unclear what the expected pay cuts will fund.

It could well be kept in the coffers to keep the clubs running with a lack of football to contend with for the foreseeable future, but we have of course seen plenty of other clubs put the money to even better use.

In Germany, the fund to help lower league clubs stay afloat, and other wages have been pumped straight into medical services and the fight against coronavirus. Essentially, it’s a case of watch this space with Premier League clubs.

So far, they’ve not come out of this in a positive light but their impending wage cuts give them a chance to become the good guys. Let’s see if they take it. 

And are the PFA on board with players’ wage cuts? 

Actually, no. In an interview with Sportsmail on Tuesday night, PFA chief executive Gordon Taylor was absolutely against blanket wage cuts across the board. 

He told us that, as things stand, the union want to know the precise financial position of a club before agreeing to any deferral, to prevent clubs from capitalising on the pandemic to save money.

In full, the 75-year-old said: ‘We don’t just want anyone taking advantage of this crisis to suit their own ends. A request for deferral of wages has to be realistic and meaningful and needs due diligence. Players have their own welfare to think about.’ 

In truth, this comes back to an earlier point about differing wages for different leagues. Money is obviously far tighter in lower leagues, so Taylor’s comments – and the PFA’s standpoint – are in part to protect players who don’t earn as much as their counterparts in the top flight.

Taylor will be a big part of the meeting on Wednesday, so we should have a clearer idea of the PFA’s views after that.

So this could get pretty ugly pretty quickly? 

Potentially, yes. There is a chance we are gearing up for an almighty war between players and clubs, especially if the PFA continue their stance and urge players to not accept pay cuts from their clubs.

If the clubs ask players to take a pay cut and the players refuse, there are all sorts of legal implications and issues going forward.

One thing to note, though, is that from a player’s point of view, it is surely beneficial to them in the long run to take a small wage cut and appease supporters.

Using Tottenham as an example, their players would only need to take a 2.77 per cent pay cut to cover a £30,000-a-year wage for the club’s 550 non-playing staff.

For Harry Kane, that would be £5,000 of his reported £200,000-a-week salary. You can certainly see why fans are urging the players to do their bit. 

Should the players just come out and announce cuts themselves?

Well, that’s a question of morals really. They certainly could do that, and follow the lead of the likes of Lionel Messi and Barcelona in Spain. 

Doing so would certainly help the clubs with their legal quandary regarding contract breaches, but it’s likely the players will have been advised differently by their agents.

Of course, the agents have different motives and will be keen to protect their players’ finances at all costs, leading to a bit of a stalemate on that front. Currently, it is all too easy for players to hide behind their clubs and wait for action.

So what are the players saying about it?

Publicly, nothing, and perhaps that’s understandable given the lack of action from their clubs and the Premier League above them.

Privately though, Sportsmail understands that the players would take a wage deferral but are reluctant to take a wage cut.

And the wider world must have pretty strong views too, right? 

Absolutely. Fans, pundits and politicians alike have all had their say on the wage cuts – or lack, thereof – to Premier League players.

We have already heard from Daily Mail columnist and huge football fan Piers Morgan, who told Sportsmail: ‘It is outrageous for any football club right now to cut salaries of club staff but not the extravagantly paid players too.’

Speaking on talkSPORT, former Crystal Palace chairman Simon Jordan didn’t hold back in giving his thoughts, too.

He said: ‘I think it is an awful look for football, and I think it’s awful Premier League footballers are being paid £250,000 to £500,000-a-week and the government is having to support Premier League clubs.

‘I’m sat here saying: Come on football, you can’t sit there and have every footballer in the Premier League on an average £70,000-a-week and seriously say “let’s not cut the players’ wages first before we go to the government to fund our own staff”.

‘Come on! There is a moral obligation here – there has to be. Football has GOT to take a pay cut!’ 

Some politicians, meanwhile, have also weighed in. Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London, spoke to BBC Radio 5 Live and insisted that top-flight players need to ‘carry the burden’.

‘My view is always that those who are the least well off should get the most help,’ he said. 

‘Highly paid football players are people who can carry the greatest burden and they should be the first one to, with respect, sacrifice their salary, rather than the person selling the programme or the person who does catering or the person who probably doesn’t get anywhere near the salary some of the Premier League footballers get.

‘It should be those with the broadest shoulders who go first because they can carry the greatest burden and have probably got savings, rather than those who were in catering or hospitality who have probably got no savings and live week by week and who probably won’t get the [government] benefits for five weeks.’

Why aren’t the club’s owners dipping into their own pockets rather than taking the government’s money?

To borrow the line from the Mayor of London above, it should indeed be those with the broadest shoulders who go first. Yes, the players are wealthy, but those above them are even more so.

To use Tottenham as an example again, their owner Joe Lewis reportedly had a net worth of £4.36billion in 2019, up £462m from the year previous. Spurs were one of the first to use the government’s furlough scheme, meaning they don’t have to pay their 550 non-playing staff’s wages.

Again, this is all a question of morals but it seems ludicrous that clubs like Spurs, and owners like Lewis, are deciding to hide behind the government’s bail-out and letting their most in-need staff take home less money, while their superstar, mega-rich players get their full wage week in, week out.

They have more than enough cash to allow the government’s money to be divided out elsewhere, and it is simply obscene that they are yet to cut the players’ wages, especially given there is no football being played.