Pro sports players next in the line for wage cuts?
Even at a time where it seems like every day brings new surprises delivered from someone at a podium, it would be quite something to see federal Health Minister Patty Hajdu stand up and say the likes of Connor Mcdavid and Carey Price should take a pay cut to help combat the coronavirus.
But something not far off has taken place in the United Kingdom, where some members of Parliament, including Health Secretary Matt Hancock, have suggested that players in the Premier League, England’s top soccer division, ought to have their wages trimmed as that country wrestles with the economic and public- health fallout of the COVID-19 outbreak.
“Given the sacrifices many people are making, the first thing ( Premier League players) can do is make a contribution,” Hancock said at a media conference on Thursday. “Take a pay cut and play their part.”
On Friday, the Premier League’s 20 clubs agreed, deciding to ask players to take a 30 per cent cut on their annual wages to help the league direct financial aid to England’s lower- tier soccer divisions, plus financial support for the federal health ministry.
In North America, there has been no such suggestion, at least on behalf of anyone in a position of influence, that well- paid professional athletes should be forced to take a financial hit for the public good. At least not yet. But could we be headed that way?
The situations on either side of the Atlantic Ocean are admittedly not apples-toapples. The United Kingdom is offering wage subsidies to private businesses during this period of economic shutdown, similar to that being offered by the federal government in Canada, and at least four Premier League clubs — Tottenham, Bournemouth, Norwich City and Newcastle — have said they will take advantage of the program to pay non- playing club staff.
Some politicians have tut- tutted this as inappropriate, complaining that wealthy clubs should not use public money to pay their maintenance staff and cafeteria workers while not touching the wages of their players.
Tottenham striker Harry Kane makes about US$ 17 million per year, for example. Or at least he did, pending the forthcoming negotiations between the Premier League’s clubs and its players’ association.
What is striking about the situation in Europe, where other huge clubs such as Barcelona, Juventus and Atletico Madrid have also agreed to wage freezes or cuts for their players, is there is an evident sentiment that players should supplement the wages of non- playing staff, even when the clubs themselves have generated vast revenues for many years. The problem the players have is they are both wealthy and visible; it’s easier to point a finger at Lionel Messi than it is to point one at Barcelona’s balance sheet.
In North America, while a few teams like the Boston Bruins have cut payrolls or laid off workers during the pandemic, most have said they will cover the wages of game- day staff, although some of them had to be publicly shamed into doing it.
But it all feels like the big reckoning is still to come. These promises to pay staff, and at the same time to leave player salaries untouched, were made in the early days of the sports shutdown, while there was still plenty of optimism that it would be something of a pause.
That optimism has been cranked sharply downward, and even the best-case scenarios imagine many lost games and awkward playoff sprints. The league offices know their 2020 seasons are now in serious peril. What happens when a few weeks of missed games becomes several months of lost revenue? Will teams in Canada and the United States still be keen to cover the pay of the hourly- wage staff who have no hours to work? Will they look to their athletes to help cushion the blow?
The discussion and debate around North American sports teams so far has mostly been about the legalities of whether clubs can refuse to pay salaries for games that don’t happen, and about how all of the lost revenue will affect salary- cap and luxury- tax projections for their next seasons. Those issues could be resolved together: players conceding lost wages this season in exchange for protections that salary-cap levels won’t crater next year. Those discussions will pick up increasing urgency with each passing day, especially as coronavirus cases here and in the United States continue to rise.
But at some point there will be questions about covering the pay of workers amid drastically altered seasons. Will it come from teams, from governments, from their well- paid colleagues who take the field of play?
The situation in the United Kingdom provides a preview. The Premier League said on Friday that its clubs will give the equivalent of about $ 35 million to the U. K.’s health service and certain “vulnerable” communities. Player salary cuts would cover some of that. Some players have said they don’t want to give up wages if it just ends up going back to club owners. Others have noted that the problem of an underfunded health service is an odd thing to expect soccer players to solve. On that point: Well, yes. How many of the well- compensated executives who fill London’s office towers will avoid a public shaming while ire is directed at midfielders and fullbacks?
But the players probably know this is a fight they can’t win. They will take their cuts. The players in the leagues on this continent should take note.