Great Interview with a Premier League player who gives all his wages to charity

https://www.football365.com/news/fea...t-matt-hancock

Hasn’t taken a penny in the last 3 years, thinks it’s obscene what they earn and thinks during the virus every premier league player shouldn’t be paid.

Troy Deeney

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chris lee

Troy Deeney

---

It’s gotta be someone like that from the language

What a bloke

Piss off Hancock you rich tory tosser , get your backers to stump up some money as well

Great interview. I'm someone who often plays devil's advocate with footballer wages but he's changed my tune a bit.

Deeney must be one of the senior players. He says he is earning below average - but is that squad or league?

If it's Deeney, didn't we try and sign him last year but his wages were too high?
Refreshing though to hear someone who understands the real world and total respect to him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SLUDGE FACTORY

What a bloke

Piss off Hancock you rich tory tosser , get your backers to stump up some money as well

---

Are you saying that Prem League players, who just to clarify earn on avg £64k per week, SHOULDN’T be made to contribute? I’m confused.

I note that Danny Rose, who made some perplexing comments about players being asked to contribute, was lauded for making a £19k contribution to a hospital in the South East which is very good of him. That is........30% of the avg weekly wage. So if Rose earns the avg weekly wage (very unlikely as he is contracted to Spurs and so probable earns quite a bit more) then he has contributed 30% of ONE week’s salary.

Whereas the actual number sounds big the effect to him will be virtually unnoticeable.

Am I missing something here? :-0

Read the interview, it says plenty about Hancock.

fair play, whoever he is deserves a big pat on the back. when he retires perhaps then he can be named.

I've always wondered this.

A player goes into negotiation for a new contract. He is on £100,000 a week. The club offers him £125,000 because he's doing well, but he demands £140,000. At that level, what difference does it really make?

Like the player says, he bought his house and cars in his first 5 months on a big wage.

What are our biggest loans? Usually house, car, and then the bills. For us £100 on electric and gas is a load of money, because it's probably about 5-10% of our take home. But, they pay the same for their electric and gas (maybe a bit more because of higher prices). What can they spend the money on? Savings for when they retire? But, they have no loans to repay at that stage.

So, when a player is 25, and he has everything he needs, what is the motivation to earn even more money that he is incapable of spending?

I do the lottery, and have always said that if I won £100m the chances are I'd be sorted with £1.5-£2m for life (I am 38) - so the rest would make sure other people I know would not have to work again. They are just numbers on a piece of paper when you have nothing to worry about. But, the NHS nurse who could get stricken by the disease is also the main earner in the family. And that nurse will be worrying about their own finances as well as doing a job - we all do really - but I am just an office worker and my work is only critical to me because it puts money in my account to pay off my mortgage. I think people are waking up to this now, and football as an industry is going to get a backlash for being out of touch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TISS

fair play, whoever he is deserves a big pat on the back. when he retires perhaps then he can be named.

---

His name isn't important. His message is.

Yeah I’d never really considered how much it is coming in every month. Like what do you even do with that sort of money?!

I always thought the reason I’d most like to win the lottery is to give a load to family and friends.

I see the PFA have come out this morning criticising plans for a 30 % wage cut for Premier League players arguing about the lost tax revenues this would result in - I think they are on a loser there when it comes to public opinion.

This bloke strikes a chord with me because even if I were, say, in my thirties now, I could easily live the rest of my life in a manner which I would call comfortable for the rest of my life on two months payment for a good Premier League player as long as the money was invested sensibly.

Jug ears Lineker this morning said all "high earners" should have wage cuts.

Nobody seems to want to explain how the hole caused by loss of all that tax will be filled.

As far as the Prem, it's crap. Liverpool who made 48m profit last season, can't pay 20k a year max workers? Utter bollocks. The government scheme was intended to help small businesses facing cash flow issues get through this - not for large companies to take the piss and get taxpayer subsidies. Lower league and non-league clubs you can understand would be in need of that help, but the rest? Crap.

Unnamed player claims to have given 200k a month to charity for 3 years? Bollocks. Conveniently unidentified player, the sneering political tone of the conversation... DHOTY candidate.

Funny how the majority of posters are taking this as a genuine interview presumably because it corresponds with their own views, political and otherwise. If it was the other way around no doubt they would jump on it straight away and accuse it of being a load of made up twaddle produced by the interviewer (which it almost certainly is).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bobby Dandruff

Are you saying that Prem League players, who just to clarify earn on avg £64k per week, SHOULDN’T be made to contribute? I’m confused.

I note that Danny Rose, who made some perplexing comments about players being asked to contribute, was lauded for making a £19k contribution to a hospital in the South East which is very good of him. That is........30% of the avg weekly wage. So if Rose earns the avg weekly wage (very unlikely as he is contracted to Spurs and so probable earns quite a bit more) then he has contributed 30% of ONE week’s salary.

Whereas the actual number sounds big the effect to him will be virtually unnoticeable.

Am I missing something here? :-0

---

Yes you clearly are confused

I fully agree that premier league players should contribute and hancock , the tory health minister , who had donations from private healthcare companies during the election campaign should get his rich backers to stump up too

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dml1954

Funny how the majority of posters are taking this as a genuine interview presumably because it corresponds with their own views, political and otherwise. If it was the other way around no doubt they would jump on it straight away and accuse it of being a load of made up twaddle produced by the interviewer (which it almost certainly is).

---

You sure about that ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dml1954

Funny how the majority of posters are taking this as a genuine interview presumably because it corresponds with their own views, political and otherwise. If it was the other way around no doubt they would jump on it straight away and accuse it of being a load of made up twaddle produced by the interviewer (which it almost certainly is).

---

People are always going to agree with the side that makes sense to them, both morally and politically, the same as you do almost constantly. Although i do agree in terms of the authenticity of this article, there's no way of proving it to be true, and that is a little at odds with some of the replies from certain posters who slam others for putting up artlicles based on zero evidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tuerto

People are always going to agree with the side that makes sense to them, both morally and politically, the same as you do almost constantly. Although i do agree in terms of the authenticity of this article, there's no way of proving it to be true, and that is a little at odds with some of the replies from certain posters who slam others for putting up artlicles based on zero evidence.

---

I liked the way the player rationalised anonymity because kidnappers could target his family knowing he is a loaded Prem footballer and gives money. After all, they'd not target him for being a loaded Prem footballer not giving money away.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tell it like it is

I liked the way the player rationalised anonymity because kidnappers could target his family knowing he is a loaded Prem footballer and gives money. After all, they'd not target him for being a loaded Prem footballer not giving money away.

---

If this was true (and i'm not saying that it isn't) The player in question would be known by the wider public (If they actually gave a shit) This isn't the kind of stuff that is top secret, sworn to secrecy etc, players would tell journos, their mates and missus, it would be common knowledge in the football world. He's apparently giving away a load of his wages, not devised a fool proof formula to stop poverty and disease.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tuerto

If this was true (and i'm not saying that it isn't) The player in question would be known by the wider public (If they actually gave a shit) This isn't the kind of stuff that is top secret, sworn to secrecy etc, players would tell journos, their mates and missus, it would be common knowledge in the football world. He's apparently giving away a load of his wages, not devised a fool proof formula to stop poverty and disease.

---

Agents would publicise it too - player looks a saint, players gets nice PR, external deals as a result, agent makes more money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tell it like it is

Agents would publicise it too - player looks a saint, players gets nice PR, external deals as a result, agent makes more money.

---

Absolutely.

Surely the point that Hancock was making, was that some clubs were cutting the wages of their lower paid staff, or even laying them off, while at the same time, players earning mega amounts continued to receive full pay? And to be fair to the guy, he has a good point.
Also, the clubs were openly stating that they would take advantage of the government scheme to pay 80% of wages (of those lower paid staff), while again, they were paying players millions. That is outrageous, And at the same time, the Players Union was advising its members to refuse any reduction in their wages. Even worse.
I'm sure that the vast majority of players make charitable contributions as a matter of course. They have a lot of money (and I'm quite happy with that - supply and demand, etc), and it would be a bit weird if they didn't give some of it away. But that's a different argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tforturton

Surely the point that Hancock was making, was that some clubs were cutting the wages of their lower paid staff, or even laying them off, while at the same time, players earning mega amounts continued to receive full pay? And to be fair to the guy, he has a good point.
Also, the clubs were openly stating that they would take advantage of the government scheme to pay 80% of wages (of those lower paid staff), while again, they were paying players millions. That is outrageous, And at the same time, the Players Union was advising its members to refuse any reduction in their wages. Even worse.
I'm sure that the vast majority of players make charitable contributions as a matter of course. They have a lot of money (and I'm quite happy with that - supply and demand, etc), and it would be a bit weird if they didn't give some of it away. But that's a different argument.

---

The problem is that most People who are non playing staff at football clubs aren't in a union so have zero representation, that's because alot of football clubs probably wouldn't recognise Unions who could negotiate for and represent the lowest paid members of staff, the clubs don't want this because when they feel the need to cut costs it's easy for them to lay off matchday staff, office workers, ticket sales team etc who have very little clout in terms of support. This has been happening for years, when we were relegated first time round the club sacked loads of non playing staff in order to save money and make those who were left behind work even harder, it's a theme with all football clubs, i can't remember fans giving a flying **** about their plight. The ironic thing is that those poor souls who lost their jobs weren't being offered 80% of their wage by the government at that time, while fans only cared about player recruitment and performances on the pitch.

There are poor people all year round, people losing their jobs, houses, can't pay their rent or feed their kids properly or even heat their homes. Why are people getting so moralistic about this now when those at the bottom of the chain have been royally ****ed for decades. In my opinion it's an emotive argument that'll soon waver as soon as the 'Footy' gets going. All that the PFA are doing is representing their members interests, they may well be on a shitload of cash but the their circumstances are not the the making of football club owners treating lower paid staff like shit. A bit of solidarity with these people all year round would make more difference than fans getting moral due to this horrendous situation.

Footballers wages are obscene. But there is only 1 set of people that I blame for that. The people that pay the obscene TV subscriptions for sky sports etc. That's where the majority of the money comes from. I'm no socialist, but I would love to see football fans around Europe come together with a specific set of demands before they give any money to football clubs or sky again, £20 max ticket price and £10 a month for sports subscription. It'll never happen, but I'd love to see it

I wonder if the prime motivation of some in this thread is to defend Premier League footballers in general or to defend the Conservative party?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the other bob wilson

I wonder if the prime motivation of some in this thread is to defend Premier League footballers in general or to defend the Conservative party?

---

Mine is to defend workers and not put the responsibility of bosses on to footballers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chrisp_1927

Footballers wages are obscene. But there is only 1 set of people that I blame for that. The people that pay the obscene TV subscriptions for sky sports etc. That's where the majority of the money comes from. I'm no socialist, but I would love to see football fans around Europe come together with a specific set of demands before they give any money to football clubs or sky again, £20 max ticket price and £10 a month for sports subscription. It'll never happen, but I'd love to see it

---

That's bollocks, I'm afraid. The fans had no choice in the formation of the premier league. They didn't choose for the majority of fans to be priced out of subscribing.

The fans who do pay can't go elsewhere for top flight English football (legally anyway) as this is a monopoly. We'd all love it to be free to air again and it's not the fans fault that it isn't. If sky and the PL were still making big money they wouldn't care if only 500 people subscribed, and in those circs it also wouldn't be the subscribers fault.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the other bob wilson

I wonder if the prime motivation of some in this thread is to defend Premier League footballers in general or to defend the Conservative party?

---

For me it's highlighting the lies of the Prem clubs but if you want to politicise it, carry on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tuerto

Mine is to defend workers and not put the responsibility of bosses on to footballers.

---

Yes, I have some sympathy, albeit limited, for Premier footballers here. Even when they're playing every week, they're there to be shot at when it comes to their pay, but, as I said earlier in this thread, I'd say that their union has an almost impossible job in persuading the public that they shouldn't take a compulsory wage cut currently.

I'm pleased to not be cynical enough to read that article and think it was a fake, but,if it is,the points being made by the player are, I believe, still entirely fair ones.

I should also say that I agree that there are others within the game with more responsibility in matters like this than individual players, hence that limited sympathy I mentioned.