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.