lost that loving feeling - The Empire strikes back

It’s common knowledge that footballers get paid too much, isn’t it....?

Wrong. How can you be paid ‘too much’ for bringing joy to thousands of fans with your talent? How can you be paid ‘too much’ for keeping your team top of the league?

While many feel that wages for professional stars such as David Beckham and Sol Campbell are too high, I believe that they deserve it. David Beckham has been gifted with exceptional talent so why shouldn’t he use it to get as much as he can? Any of us would do the same given the chance. Not only that, but he also works very hard to keep his game up and has earned every penny he owns off his own back. He deserves what he gets and more, simply because he is worth that.

Compared to pop stars and American sportsmen, our players actually come off pretty poorly, which is surely unfair as Beckham must bring as much enjoyment into people’s lives as Robbie Williams or Britney Spears, yet will not reap the same rewards.

Another thing I don’t understand is the resentment people feel towards players on the basis that they are ‘bleeding the game dry’. It is not the players themselves who have pushed wage bills up, but the clubs who are willing to pay out (and those who wish to compete). Sol Campbell caused uproar when he demanded £70,000 a week from Arsenal in the summer. But Sol wouldn’t have asked for such a high wage if he didn’t think the club would pay him this much. Let’s be honest, how many of us would turn down the chance to double or triple our salary if we knew all we had to do was ask?

So why should we expect footballers to be any different? As long as clubs are prepared to splash the cash then the players will accept it. If clubs draw the line then players wanting more than is being offered will have to re-think their demands.

Of course the reason clubs can afford these high wages is because of the rise in popularity of the game which is, again, down to the merit of the players themselves.

So why the bitterness among fans? Apart from the obvious factor of jealousy, there can often be a sense that it is the fans themselves who have to fork out to keep Mr Beckham, Mr Keane and Mr Campbell happy. This is partly true as the game would cease to be without the fans putting money in – even Chess would vanish without its followers. But it does not extend to the state where a fan can show his frustration at a poor performance by a star by shouting “I pay your wages” at them with any real justification.

The percentage of a players wages being paid for by your season ticket money is comparable to the McDonald’s ‘This is the amount of work a plumber has to do…’ adverts. You may be paying £200-£500 or more on your ticket, but you really are only paying for about 5 minutes of work from your player. Yes, the average person does contribute to the wages but the majority of turnover clubs get is from TV revenue and that is mostly funded by advertising which is what the current rows are over.

But the end result is that those without the facts, upon seeing the story ‘PFA to strike for more money’, assume that it is just the greedy superstars wanting an even bigger slice of the cake than they already get. This is far from the truth.

The actual row is not over how much money players get paid - the clubs look after that at their own risk - but is in fact about how much funding the Professional Footballers Association get. In the old TV deal the PFA used to get 5% of money that was being paid by TV companies for the rights to broadcast games. The rest of this was split between the FA, the Premier League, the Football League and the clubs. The 5% the PFA got (around £10m) did not go to players directly but was instead used to ensure players rights, help those who had to deal with serious injury or those who had left the game but need support in finding another career. However, in the new deal the PFA will now only get 2% of the total payment.

While they will still get the same amount of money to use, argues the PFA, they are losing out. After all, it is the PFA’s members themselves, as I previously stated, that have worked to get this new deal. But if the PFA must take a cut in their share of the money, then the FA and the leagues are getting more from the efforts of others.

On Friday, members voted in favour of strike action over the issue with over 99% in favour. The PFA have told the other parties involved that unless a new deal can be negotiated, their members will refuse to play in televised games. The actual details of how they will strike however, are not clear. I e-mailed the PFA in order to get some more information for this article, asking what exactly the strike action will involve and how it would affect the fans, but having had no response, I am assuming that the PFA don't know for sure themselves yet. Certainly, both parties would like to avoid strikes and more talks are being held this week.

The FA’s defence is that the 5% figure was never put in writing so the PFA are only entitled to what has been offered. They have promised to take the case to the courts to gain an injunction against strike action unless the PFA back down. If this does not succeed then they will inevitably have to give in to the demands of the PFA as there is no way the game can continue without the players.

The PFA have received support from a number of people high up the game such as Alex Ferguson and David Beckham. David Beckham’s involvement has probably not been entirely positive for the PFA’s cause as again it seems like the rich wanting to get richer. The likely-hood is that David Beckham will not benefit financially from any new distribution of money.

Now that the issue of PFA funding has been raised, some people have suggested that it should re-think its entire funding. Currently all its members (about 3,500) pay a flat fee of £75 each year for membership. Some have suggested that this should be replaced by a sliding scale membership fee - those who get paid more in their wages must contribute more to the PFA and vice versa. This would probably be the best solution should strike action fail if the PFA feels it does not have enough funding. Personally, I stick to my belief that footballers are entitled to what they have earned and there is no reason why anyone at the top end of the game should have to pay from their own pocket to support those below them, especially when the FA help themselves to even more money which could be used better elsewhere.

In fact, top players already have sacrificed a personal cut of TV money for their own appearances so as far as I'm concerned the players are in the right and have nothing to be ashamed about.

The overall issue at stake here is about the disparity between the top and bottom of the game. As the Premier League gets more money from TV deals, the PFA, which funds grass-roots football, gets less so the divide grows greater. The players have shown which side they are on and the fans should definitely be on the same one.