Why Can't Football Pay The Living Wage?

greendom · 09-02-2015 12:25am #1

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

Will I Amnt · 09-02-2015 12:30am

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

greendom · 09-02-2015 12:35am

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 · 09-02-2015 12:45am

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 · 09-02-2015 12:50am

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 · 09-02-2015 12:53am

Gesture of goodwill doesn't equal law sadly.

Will I Amnt · 09-02-2015 12:58am

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 · 09-02-2015 1:20am

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 · 09-02-2015 1:50am

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 · 09-02-2015 5:26am

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 · 09-02-2015 5:45am

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 · 09-02-2015 5:53am

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 · 09-02-2015 6:06am

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 · 09-02-2015 6:18am

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 · 09-02-2015 6:19am

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 · 09-02-2015 7:44am

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.

Liam O · 09-02-2015 9:28am

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 · 09-02-2015 9:32am

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 · 09-02-2015 9:38am

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 · 09-02-2015 9:45am

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 · 09-02-2015 9:54am

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 · 09-02-2015 10:00am

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 · 09-02-2015 10:02am

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 · 09-02-2015 10:17am

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

Guy:Incognito · 09-02-2015 10:37am

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 · 09-02-2015 10:48am

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 · 09-02-2015 10:51am

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 · 09-02-2015 12:47pm

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 · 09-02-2015 12:53pm

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 · 09-02-2015 12:58pm

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 · 09-02-2015 1:13pm

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.

CSF · 09-02-2015 1:17pm

elefant wrote: »

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.

To be fair, it's the article that quotes the salaries of these people.

elefant · 09-02-2015 1:26pm

CSF wrote: »

To be fair, it's the article that quotes the salaries of these people.

It's not at all saying that they should have their wages reduced, or settle for the living wage though.

It only makes the point that other clubs should follow the likes of Chelsea and Luton and commit to making sure the menial workers in the clubs can live to an acceptable standard too. Stating the high salaries of the people in top positions only serves to show that it's not as if the clubs can't afford to pay a couple of pounds an hour extra.

EuropeanSon · 09-02-2015 1:32pm

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

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

Obviously not. I don't have proof that OJ Simpson murdered anyone either.

Read up on the aluminium wars in Russia if you want information. I doubt you do, though.

CSF · 09-02-2015 1:35pm

elefant wrote: »

It's not at all saying that they should have their wages reduced, or settle for the living wage though.

It only makes the point that other clubs should follow the likes of Chelsea and Luton and commit to making sure the menial workers in the clubs can live to an acceptable standard too. Stating the high salaries of the people in top positions only serves to show that it's not as if the clubs can't afford to pay a couple of pounds an hour extra.

It's using them as a point of reference, as is the other guy's post.

I'm not against the idea of paying the living wage by any means, I'm for it, but the notion that many businesses (which at this stage is all Premier League clubs are) are going to pay people more because they can afford to, rather than because of chasing after someone's skillset is probably unlikely until such roles command that sort of wage, usually due to a shortage of suitable applicants, which due to the nature of the work is probably unlikely

RoryMac · 09-02-2015 1:36pm

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.

I'd like to see this the living wage being introduced but I would agree with Gazidis that it is complicated, most if not all people being paid lower than the living wage at football clubs are not being paid directly by the club. Catering, cleaning, stewarding staff would all be paid by a company contracted to the club so it would be hard for the clubs to ensure the staff that attend their games are paid in excessive of the staff for the same company that work in other places.

Still something the clubs should be pushing though

greendom · 09-02-2015 1:45pm

RoryMac wrote: »

I'd like to see this the living wage being introduced but I would agree with Gazidis that it is complicated, most if not all people being paid lower than the living wage at football clubs are not being paid directly by the club. Catering, cleaning, stewarding staff would all be paid by a company contracted to the club so it would be hard for the clubs to ensure the staff that attend their games are paid in excessive of the staff for the same company that work in other places.

Still something the clubs should be pushing though

In a similar situation to Chelsea then. There will be contractual issues to be sorted through with certain sub-contractors, but there is nothing stopping that from being a stated aim of the club within a certain time frame.

09-02-2015 1:53pm

Most successful multi nationals outsource the cleaning, catering & security etc so even though their staff get paid a decent lash in menial, unskilled roles they don't have to worry about how badly paid the cleaner is as it's an outsourced role.

My ole lad and an uncle both worked in security roles for large plants, they were staff and on the same cash (lots) as the production operators, nowadays those security roles are outsourced and the chaps doing them are on about a third what the production folk get.

Guy:Incognito · 09-02-2015 1:53pm

At the end of the day, they don't have to pay over the min wage and they shouldn't be pressured or obliged too.

There are big financial sector companies in London turning over billions and paying people huge sums who probably pay their cleaners and other low level workers similarly.

The minimum wage is a government issue, not a football club one.

elefant · 09-02-2015 1:53pm

CSF wrote: »

It's using them as a point of reference, as is the other guy's post.

I'm not against the idea of paying the living wage by any means, I'm for it, but the notion that many businesses (which at this stage is all Premier League clubs are) are going to pay people more because they can afford to, rather than because of chasing after someone's skillset is probably unlikely until such roles command that sort of wage, usually due to a shortage of suitable applicants, which due to the nature of the work is probably unlikely

The point made above was about 'what high level employees would be happy to take the the living wage' instead of big-money contracts. The article says nothing about this; it just muddies the issue.

Obviously in-demand workers will get paid more, but De Maria and Ferguson don't need to be paid less for the cleaner to be paid a decent wage. Now, from a business point-of-view it might be said that football clubs don't have any more moral responsibility to pay their workers the living wage than Macdonald's or Google do, and it might well be complicated to change payment structures, but to put it in terms of 'De Maria deserves his wages', as if that in someway affects this, only obscures the point the article was trying to make.

RoryMac · 09-02-2015 1:57pm

greendom wrote: »

In a similar situation to Chelsea then. There will be contractual issues to be sorted through with certain sub-contractors, but there is nothing stopping that from being a stated aim of the club within a certain time frame.

Yes but the realistic time frame for that is probably when the contract is up for renewal, I can't see contractors upping their costs mid contract so the clubs either need to re-negotiate the contracts or make it a condition of the new contract whenever that comes around. So for Gazidis to say it is complicated is in my mind true.

I agree that the clubs should be stating that it as an aim and providing a time frame where possible but the time frame could be several years depending on contracts

CSF · 09-02-2015 2:01pm

elefant wrote: »

The point made above was about 'what high level employees would be happy to take the minimum wage'. The article says nothing about this; it just muddies the issue.

Obviously in-demand workers will get paid more, but De Maria and Ferguson don't need to be paid less for the cleaner to be paid a decent wage. Now, from a business point-of-view it might be said that football clubs don't have any more moral responsibility to pay their workers the living wage than Macdonald's or Google do, and it might well be complicated to change payment structures, but to put it in terms of 'De Maria deserves his wages', as if that in someway affects this, only obscures the point the article was trying to make.

Well that particular point you first mentioned is nonsense obviously.

But to be fair, the article obscured its own point by mentioning those people's wages. If you're going to use someone's wages as a point of reference, don't be surprised when it becomes a significant part of the argument.

To be honest, I'm not a massive fan of the notion of a Living Wage myself anyway. The minimum wage is the one that should be adjusted in all cases IMO. Not of the opinion that someone should get to earn more money than someone from a different part of the country because they get to live in a higher residential pricing bracket.

greendom · 09-02-2015 2:03pm

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

At the end of the day, they don't have to pay over the min wage and they shouldn't be pressured or obliged too.

There are big financial sector companies in London turning over billions and paying people huge sums who probably pay their cleaners and other low level workers similarly.

The minimum wage is a government issue, not a football club one.

Sometimes, the government doesn't act in the way it should, hence pressure groups such as the Living Wage Foundation. EPL clubs are the ideal target as they have huge media exposure, not to mention the fact that they are always talking about their great efforts in supporting the local community. What better way than providing a living wage for all its employees, whether directly or indirectly employed

Clearlier · 09-02-2015 2:23pm

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.

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?

Google do pay the living wage. Apple don't but then they haven't got a great history when it comes to social responsibility. I think that others have said it but nobody was calling for football players to be paid the same amount as cleaners or vice versa.

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.

I bet that there are quite a few reputable organisations that you haven't heard of.

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

I find things generally cheaper in the UK than here.

I moved over nearly 6 years ago and I've found public transport and accommodation to be more expensive - otherwise most things are a little cheaper.

RoryMac wrote: »

I'd like to see this the living wage being introduced but I would agree with Gazidis that it is complicated, most if not all people being paid lower than the living wage at football clubs are not being paid directly by the club. Catering, cleaning, stewarding staff would all be paid by a company contracted to the club so it would be hard for the clubs to ensure the staff that attend their games are paid in excessive of the staff for the same company that work in other places.

Still something the clubs should be pushing though

It's really not that complicated. It can take a little while to put in place because of the difficulties around what you mentioned but if the article is correct most of the clubs aren't interested in trying.

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

At the end of the day, they don't have to pay over the min wage and they shouldn't be pressured or obliged too.

There are big financial sector companies in London turning over billions and paying people huge sums who probably pay their cleaners and other low level workers similarly.

The minimum wage is a government issue, not a football club one.

It doesn't follow that companies shouldn't be pressured into paying a living wage just because they're not legally obliged to. Football clubs are very high profile companies and they absolutely should IMO be pressured into paying a wage that allows all of the people that work for them to live life and not just exist.

Why Can't Football Pay The Living Wage?

Comments