nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Why Can't Football Pay The Living Wage?

greendom

Surely the EPL has to cop on to itself and treat it's lowest paid workers fairly...

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/07/why-wont-premier-league-football-clubs-pay-staff-living-wage?CMP=fb_gu

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Will I Amnt

Why can't I be paid the same as the highest earning person at the company I work for?

greendom

Will I Amnt wrote: »

Why can't I be paid the same as the highest earning person at the company I work for?

Who's suggesting that? Not talking about equality just to pay people above the level of subsistence. If Luton and FC United of Manchester can do it, there is absolutely no excuse for any EPL club not to.

Will I Amnt

greendom wrote: »

Who's suggesting that? Not talking about equality just to pay people above the level of subsistence. If Luton and FC United of Manchester can do it, there is absolutely no excuse for any EPL club not to.

The article seems to focus more on the huge wages of the people at the top rather than give figures for the lower paid workers.

greendom

Will I Amnt wrote: »

The article seems to focus more on the huge wages of the people at the top rather than give figures for the lower paid workers.

Nowhere does it suggest that a cleaner be paid the same as Angel Di Maria (for example)

Diabhal Beag

Gesture of goodwill doesn't equal law sadly.

Will I Amnt

greendom wrote: »

Nowhere does it suggest that a cleaner be paid the same as Angel Di Maria (for example)

It doesn't say what they are paid though. If they're paid a cleaners wage is that not ok?
The article says that only a few clubs have pledged to pay the living rate, it doesn't say the rest are not paying it.

greendom

Will I Amnt wrote: »

It doesn't say what they are paid though. If they're paid a cleaners wage is that not ok?
The article says that only a few clubs have pledged to pay the living rate, it doesn't say the rest are not paying it.

Chelsea have committed to it and Mancestor City are looking into it. None of the other EPL clubs have made any such commiment. Why miss out on a bit of good pr if the living wage was already being paid?.

Ivan Gazidis. the Arsenal chairman, has called the issue complicated and political. Absolutely pathetic.

batistuta9

same as any other business/company they'll pay for what's worth paying for
for the rest they'll keep costs as low as possible, & replace them easily if needed

COYVB

This is relatively straightforward. Look at the amount of money a premier league club makes. Then look at who makes them that money: the players and the manager. Rightly or wrongly, however you see it, those guys are the ones that earn the club that money. They bring fans in, they bring sponsors in, and they bring TV money in. They're entitled to their cut of the club's income, and the more a club makes, the more the players will get paid for doing their job in earning the club additional money.

The players and manager are the star employees. They're the face of the company. Name me one other line of work where the employees who bring in tens of millions directly for their employer, and are visible to the public as being ambassadors for the company, would be happy enough with the living wage? There aren't too many.

And just like those big name, big wage players, the lower paid staff will be paid an wage in line with their position. They don't bring in tens of millions a year, they're making tea, cleaning boots or answering phones, so they should be paid accordingly, not paid more because they work for a football team. Do you reckon Google or Apple are paying their cleaners huge money?

Turtwig

COYVB wrote: »

They don't bring in tens of millions a year, they're making tea, cleaning boots or answering phones, so they should be paid accordingly, not paid more because they work for a football team. Do you reckon Google or Apple are paying their cleaners huge money?

It's not about "huge" money it's the living wage. Do you realise how little that is?

Nobody is demanding cleaners get 100,000 a year.

Put it bluntly if it was legal for these clubs to pay these service staff nothing would you support it? Nope, you wouldn't. So why on earth is it suddenly acceptable when there's pittance pay involved?

It's exploitation if you can easily afford to pay more.

COYVB

Nothing in that article says clubs are paying their staff less than the going rate though. Why would they pay them more than the going rate, even if it's below living wage?

Turtwig

COYVB wrote: »

Nothing in that article says clubs are paying their staff less than the going rate though. Why would they pay them more than the going rate, even if it's below living wage?

Ethically that's the responsible thing to do. It's not your local restaurant where the daily economics might make it unfeasible. It's the premier league where if the length from your elbow to your fingers was the revenues of elite clubs, those light specs of dust from filling a nail are the wages of some service personnel.

COYVB

So just because it's a premier league club they should pay more? Should McDonalds pay more because it's one of the biggest companies in the world? Far bigger than any premier league team. Nobody should be obliged to be paid more than their job deserves, whatever their job, just because their employer makes a lot of money.

If there are clubs paying below minimum wage, or abusing internship schemes, then by all means have a go, but there's nothing to suggest there's anything along those lines going on within the article

SM01

Because a minimum wage (or close to) in the uk is pretty fücking miserly and it can be difficult, living in a medium to large sized city, to maintain a reasonable standard of living on it. Just because it's legal shouldn't deem it acceptable, just like those abhorrent zero hour contracts that gloss the employment statistics beloved of politicians but screw over the folk who are on them. Also the perception (rightly or wrongly) is that some footballer's wages are vulgar and the price of attending football games is getting prohibitive. Football is becoming increasingly distant from the working classes. Paying a living wage will do a club no harm from a pr and community relations perspective.

Fromvert

You get paid what you're worth to the company, if you think you're worth more go ahead and ask for more or get what you're worth somewhere else.

The size and profitability of a company does not mean you get paid more for doing the going rate for your job. You decide that by bringing something someone else can't to that job.

[Deleted User]

greendom wrote: »

Chelsea have committed to it and Mancestor City are looking into it. None of the other EPL clubs have made any such commiment. Why miss out on a bit of good pr if the living wage was already being paid?.

Ivan Gazidis. the Arsenal chairman, has called the issue complicated and political. Absolutely pathetic.

But ironic considering where the money Chelsea and City were bought by came from that you'd use them in any sort of justice for the common man/woman campaign.

Dozen Wicked Words

Liam O wrote: »

But ironic considering where the money Chelsea and City were bought by came from that you'd use them in any sort of justice for the common man/woman campaign.

And yet here we are. I look forward to all "the peoples clubs" stepping up as well, though it doesn't look like it's going to happen.

I suspect anyone rich enough to own a premier league football team has enough in their history to keep them off the saints list.

jaykay74

SM01 wrote: »

Because a minimum wage (or close to) in the uk is pretty fücking miserly and it can be difficult, living in a medium to large sized city, to maintain a reasonable standard of living on it.

Seems to me to make more sense to try to increase the minimum wage rather than the living wage. If the minimum wage is not good enough for a cleaner in a football club then its not good enough for a person cleaning a warehouse. Why the fight for football low paid and not the overall low paid ? Cheap shot journalism perhaps ?

Dozen Wicked Words

jaykay74 wrote: »

Seems to me to make more sense to try to increase the minimum wage rather than the living wage. If the minimum wage is not good enough for a cleaner in a football club then its not good enough for a person cleaning a warehouse. Why the fight for football low paid and not the overall low paid ? Cheap shot journalism perhaps ?

London living wage is more than rest of UK, so an overall rise in minimum wage is never going to happen to bring it in line.

Football is a great angle for the campaign to pursue, massive profile and great way to get their message over. I thought the article was interesting, don't think it's cheap shot journalism myself.

http://www.livingwage.org.uk

greendom

Liam O wrote: »

But ironic considering where the money Chelsea and City were bought by came from that you'd use them in any sort of justice for the common man/woman campaign.

True, still little steps. Not sure the living wage foundation would get much shrift in the Middle East or Russia today.

jaykay74

Dozen Wicked Words wrote: »

London living wage is more than rest of UK, so an overall rise in minimum wage is never going to happen to bring it in line.

So London should have a higher minimum wage than the rest of country then. Flexible minimum wage amounts based on living costs in different areas... Thats my solution.

EuropeanSon

Dozen Wicked Words wrote: »

And yet here we are. I look forward to all "the peoples clubs" stepping up as well, though it doesn't look like it's going to happen.

I suspect anyone rich enough to own a premier league football team has enough in their history to keep them off the saints list.

There's a long way between the "saints list" and being complicit in human rights abuses (Abu Dhabi) or dozens of murders (Abramovich). Most other owners fall somewhere in there, I suspect.

Lovely Bloke

You got some proof that Abramovic has been "complicit in dozens of murders"?

Guy:Incognito

SM01 wrote: »

Because a minimum wage (or close to) in the uk is pretty fücking miserly and it can be difficult, living in a medium to large sized city, to maintain a reasonable standard of living on it. .

Minimum wage in the UK is £6.50. That's €8.72 according to XE. So more than here.

ArmaniJeanss

greendom wrote: »

Chelsea have committed to it and Mancestor City are looking into it. None of the other EPL clubs have made any such commiment. Why miss out on a bit of good pr if the living wage was already being paid?.

I've never even heard of the Living Wage Foundation who contacted each club. Perhaps the clubs are correct to be wary of getting involved with information requests from such organisations who may be only looking for good pr themselves.

greendom

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

I've never even heard of the Living Wage Foundation who contacted each club. Perhaps the clubs are correct to be wary of getting involved with information requests from such organisations who may be only looking for good pr themselves.

They have some pretty high profile corporate organisations on board. Can't see much to be wary about to be honest...

http://www.livingwage.org.uk/

SM01

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Minimum wage in the UK is £6.50. That's €8.72 according to XE. So more than here.

But that reveals little without context ie. the actual cost of living.

Guy:Incognito

SM01 wrote: »

But that reveals little without context ie. the actual cost of living.

I find things generally cheaper in the UK than here.

greendom

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

I find things generally cheaper in the UK than here.

Also the drop in the exchange rate has since the value of the euro fall against the pound in recent months.

elefant

COYVB wrote: »

This is relatively straightforward. Look at the amount of money a premier league club makes. Then look at who makes them that money: the players and the manager. Rightly or wrongly, however you see it, those guys are the ones that earn the club that money. They bring fans in, they bring sponsors in, and they bring TV money in. They're entitled to their cut of the club's income, and the more a club makes, the more the players will get paid for doing their job in earning the club additional money.

The players and manager are the star employees. They're the face of the company. Name me one other line of work where the employees who bring in tens of millions directly for their employer, and are visible to the public as being ambassadors for the company, would be happy enough with the living wage? There aren't too many.

Either you didn't read the article, didn't understand it or you are trying your best to come up with a strawman argument.

None of this has anything to do with the issue of football clubs not paying employees enough to be able to live at a decent standard.