Chelsea: Clubs should not tax goodwill by tapping tax base for furloughs

Chelsea Football Club, like just about every other business and person in the world, has its usual slate of expenses and few to none of its usual revenue streams. Precisely because of that common plight, football clubs should not go on the government dole.

Football clubs around the Premier League started various forms of employment cost cutting this week, furloughing staff under whatever provisions of English law allow the clubs to boot some of the cost of the staff salaries to the government. In an episode that further proves Spursiness is not limited to the pitch, on the same day that Tottenham furloughed many of their employees, the news came out that Daniel Levy’s £7 million compensation package this year included a £3 million bonus for the completion of their new stadium, without regard for it being late and over budget. Further evidencing character, Eddie Howe was the first Premier League manager to voluntarily accept a wage cut.

So far, Chelsea have only been in the coronavirus-affected financial news cycle for positive reasons: player charity and Roman Abramovich donating the hotel at Stamford Bridge to the National Health Service.

Chelsea should keep themselves in the “good guy” column by not turning to the government for any furlough-masked corporate welfare. If nothing else, it will give Roman Abramovich one more thing to throw in the UK government’s face the next time he applies for a visa. What could be more deliciously but benevolently spiteful than a persona non grata like him paying his English employees in support of the English game without burdening the English fisc while the “propa Brit” owners go on Her Majesty’s dole?

As much as spite can be a powerful motivator and I encourage it in others, not turning to the government – particularly in these circumstances – is just good business.

So far, the coronavirus economic crash has not led to any more “eat the rich” blather than we had before, just a few short months ago. The usual people are mouthing the usual syllables about “fair share,” but the role that football plays in our lives and the acuity with which we miss the game, the diversion and the community protects it from otherwise broad resentment. That will change, though, as time goes on.

If our football-less existence drags on, it will be because our social quarantine / lockdown / shelter in place / authoritarian euphemism has dragged on. As that happens, our social ties will become increasingly frayed in parallel with economic ruin: social distance will not make the heart grow fonder when scarcity kicks in. When we’re in that phase, football may still be a point of community and common interest, but not if it is a manifestation of resentment. It won’t just be about the people in the upper stand vs. the prawn sandwich section. The reaction to teams that draw on public welfare will make the AFC Wimbledon – MK Dons thing or German fans’ disdain for Dietmar Hopp look like a children’s slap fight.

Maybe because people have so much else on their minds, they don’t particularly care about how much money the owners have or the players make… until someone does something publicly stupid and tone deaf.

Looking at you, Daniel Levy. But also all the clubs tapping the furlough money.

And, very soon, people will be looking at the players.

The Telegraph reported on Thursday that the Professional Footballers Association will not agree to an across the board wage reduction. Perhaps they figure that the owners have enough money to cover their salaries, so why should they accept less. But if they don’t understand that the optics of making this demand while the owners are furloughing staff is worse than any Paul Pogba dance video in the aftermath of a Manchester United loss, well, we can’t help them.

This, then, is the second place where the owners need to intervene.

After doing whatever they must to keep their staff off the government furlough rolls, the owners need to break this latest version of player power. And by “break,” I mean be leaders and achieve buy-in from the players. If, after making a professional effort at that, the players still refuse, the owners can get as creative as they want to with the word “break.”

My colleague Barrett writes regularly about the lack of a sense of club, community and belonging in modern football – including at Chelsea. Unsurprisingly, the clubs he cites as the rare examples of being true clubs within their communities – Barcelona, first amongst them – have already seen their players voluntarily agree to a major reduction in wages for at least this season.

For clubs that have that spirit, this is an easy decision and an easy process. For those that don’t, it’s an opportunity to build it, perhaps with a bit of enforcement up front.

Right now, people miss football desperately. The sport would be moronic to do anything that could jeopardize that emotion. Tapping into public funds would flare a completely unnecessary and equally avoidable resentment.

Owners should pay their workers and players themselves, and the players should get on board with lessening the cost to the clubs and owners. Not because “they’re rich so they can afford it,” but because it’s the right move for their business and, not coincidentally, the smartest move for the long term.