Manchester City are facing a grassroots supporters’ campaign to “name the date” on which they will ensure all staff, including those employed by external contractors, are paid the Living Wage. To date, only Chelsea of the 20 Premier League clubs have made this commitment, vowing to achieve it by 2017. City, whose first-team players are the highest paid in world sport with average earnings in excess of £100,000 a week, at present pay the Living Wage to directly employed staff and have also pledged to do the same for those working on capital projects (such as building works). Everton and West Ham have made similar promises but the numbers benefiting are limited as the vast majority of low-paid staff at football clubs – such as those in catering, stewarding, security and manning car parks – are employed on match-days via outside contractors. As such, many are paid the minimum wage, £6.50 an hour, which equates to £260 over a 40-hour week. The Man City Fans Living Wage Campaign will launch an appeal to persuade the Premier League champions, and ultimately also their rivals, to ensure everyone working for them, directly or indirectly, receives at least the Living Wage. This is the sum independently calculated to provide enough to cover basic living costs such as housing, heating and food. It is currently £7.85 an hour outside London, (£314 a week) and £9.15 per hour in the capital. please log in to view this image Would it not be possible for City to set £150,000 aside to lift the wages of the army of match-day contractors? (Getty Images) The campaign group are going public having felt that they have exhausted their efforts to persuade City by lobbying. Initial contact was made via the club chaplain, Rev Pete Horlock, in 2013 and this was followed by payment of the Living Wage to directly employed staff. The motivation of the activists was both a desire to see football club employees – the ones who serve their half-time burger and clean the stadia after them – paid a decent wage and the hope they would be able to take pride in City leading the way. City feel that the group misrepresented the last scheduled meeting with them and are subsequently working on the issue internally. They say they are among the most pro-active of clubs in improving staff pay with the majority of contracted employees now on the Living Wage, but are tied by existing contracts. As these come up for tender – with the most significant being in 2018 – companies pledging to pay the Living Wage will be viewed more favourably in negotiations. Failure to do so is not, however, a deal-breaker. The supporters are to write to City urging them to “name the date” when all staff will be paid the Living Wage. They are also writing to all City fan groups urging them to join the campaign and lobbying local politicians. City’s wages were revealed to be the highest in sport by the Sportingintelligence’s Global Sports Salaries Survey 2014, published in conjunction with ESPN. The survey, which only includes earnings for playing sport, not for external income such as endorsements, covers 294 teams in 15 leagues in 12 countries across seven different sports. After City, the highest payers were the New York Yankees and LA Dodgers of Major League Baseball, Real Madrid and City’s Champions League conquerors from Wednesday night, Barcelona. The figures for City came from the 2012-13 season, then the latest available. Premier League wages have since increased and are likely to explode again with the new £5.1bn TV deal that comes into force next year. When that deal was announced the Premier League’s chief executive, Richard Scudamore, said in response to suggestions that it should make the Living Wage mandatory, that the organisation was not a charity and it was the job of politicians – not football clubs – to raise the minimum wage. Yet Sophie Stephens, the lead organiser of Citizens UK, the charity that created the Living Wage Foundation, said: “We believe that prioritising the pay of those who work at the bottom of the pay scale at the clubs is important to fans and local communities. “The recent bumper TV deal the Premier League has made demonstrates the amount of money available in the world of football.” Besides Chelsea, only Hearts, of the Scottish Championship, and non-League FC United are accredited by the Living Wage Foundation. League Two Luton Town are understood to be close to joining them. Stephens added: “The differing size and scale of these clubs show that accrediting as a Living Wage employer is a choice that any club can make.”
Manchester City’s Champions League exit means their earnings from the competition are likely to be “only” £28.4m this season. Not bad for failure. The likelihood is most of this income will be invested in transfer fees and salaries in the hope that different, better players will next season produce a different, better outcome. But would it not be possible for City to set £150,000 aside to lift the wages of the army of match-day contractors, the men and women who make the stadium experience a largely pleasant one, to a level where they can afford to feed, heat and clothe themselves decently? That is the estimated figure needed each season to ensure that everyone working for City, including those working indirectly, is paid the UK Living Wage of £7.85 a hour. This is £1.35 an hour above the National Minimum Wage. Not much of a rise, £54 a week, though the raise these part-time workers would actually receive is more like a tenner. Just enough, perhaps, for a birthday cake for Yaya Touré. For the people receiving it, though, it would be significant – both in real terms and in the sense of dignity that it would provide. City argue they have limited control over contracted workers, are better employers than many other Premier League teams and do a lot of good work which receives far less attention. please log in to view this image Manchester City’s players are the highest paid in world football, according to a survey conducted last year (Getty Images) There is much truth in this. City have an excellent community scheme and the impressive Eastlands regeneration project has provided hundreds of jobs, many for people who had previously struggled to find employment. All directly employed staff receive the Living Wage, as do many contracted ones. So why pick on City? Partly because enough of their fans are motivated enough to make a fuss about the issue. Partly because they are the Premier League champions. And, yes, partly because they pay their players more than any sports club on the globe. Even if they have to pay a “City bonus” to staff while existing contracts run down, City can afford it. Indeed, every Premier League club can and it is slightly mystifying why there is so much resistance at clubs, not least Arsenal, who have also faced a concerted campaign and, as a club, used to be a byword for doing the right thing. Football clubs could point to The Independent’s front page on Monday, which highlighted how the main high street retailers – large employers of low-wage staff – have not committed to the Living Wage. However, football clubs receive hugely disproportionate attention for the size of their businesses, which is why it would be such a powerful statement if they paid the Living Wage. It would also burnish the image of a sport that has become a byword for excess and greed, to the extent that the good work which clubs such as City do and the contribution they make to the national and local economy tend to be lost amid the negativity. There is a momentum behind the Living Wage issue. It will come. So why does football not lead the way for once?
because football clubs and football players are the most greediest organisations and the players the most greediest people in the world....
I agree with Dai, what is a crap player like Dyer getting paid a week and for what, sitting on the bench, ffs I can sit on the bench for sfa a week, football wages are out of control
Surely you should be paid based on your contribution not based on what others earn. Should a cleaner at Man City earn more than a cleaner at Bonymaen FC just because Man City have well-paid players? If they don't like the wage they can just leave and get another job. That's what I'd do.
By not paying a living wage people need to rely more on tax credits, so in other words you work and still need benefits to get to an income you can live on. By paying people a living wage it reduces or removes the need for a benefit payment. The thing is benefits are paid by the government so in effect us as tax payers. In other words we as tax payers are supplementing businesses that don't pay enough to their employees to live on, how can that be right that tax payers are propping up businesses? Virtually all premier league clubs are helped to not pay a wage to live on. And every large retailer like Tesco, Asda, Currys, Argos and so on are aided by the tax payer! Bet that must make you feel proud plastic, perhaps all these staff should leave as well?
The solution to that is not to have tax credits. Let the market work it out. Those companies maybe rely on the tax credits, but would pay more if they weren't available. Maybe people also need to take more responsibility for making themselves better skilled. Many minimum wage workers have no work ethic and practically zero skills. Many on the minimum wage are overpaid, because they contribute so little. If people care so much (which I don't think they do), they could boycott clubs that don't pay a minimum wage. But that fact is that most people don't care at all. They may so they do, but their actions say otherwise. It's very easy to boycott companies that you don't agree with.
Nobody that is in full time employment should be living in poverty but sadly there are.......A road sweeper is just as an important job as a banker but where a banker gets overpaid the road sweeper is underpaid and that is not right......The minimum wage should not be lower than £10 per hour rising annually and do away with tax credit all together.
That's a 20k annual salary for unskilled work!!! Crikey there are not many businesses out there that can pay that.
But many do have good work ethics, you can't generalise on people who are paid below a certain amount. I know a number of people who earn not a lot but work their arses off. They do it because the job market such as it is not good ! Tax credits are there to help people have a living wage, so without it means people would really struggle. If the government stopped it they would have lower taxes to compensate, that obviously would please the higher rate tax payers! By the way I would have no problem boycotting the Swans as they are a company after all, I simply would stop buying the season ticket. As it is work and family commitments mean I'm only attending 8 or 9 games a season so it won't be much of a loss. I give my tickets to a mate's kid right now for when I don't go.
You let yourself down here plastic with this reasoning if you don't mind me saying, there are plenty of young people that I know with 'A levels' and 'Degrees' on Zero contracts and minimum wage who are keeping down more than one job to make ends meet, and if they read your comment they would rightly be incensed, to say they have a poor work ethic would be doing them a very bad disservice, so my advise to you is to reflect with a little more substance on the reality of the job market and capitalism as it is today, which is well out of control and needs reining in, corporations have no moral compass these days, not that they ever did anyway, but with the Unions smashed to bits, it's a turkey shoot out on the working class especially the young coming through, and it's not helped by voters like you, who's underlying view comes through as I'm alright Jack.
I hate exploitation in any form and there are far to many people especially Tory voters who think its ok for people to work full time earning no more than their basic wage allows them to live.......there is nothing to spare for savings or even emergencies in a lot of cases and that is sad in 2015. Don't buy into this Tory propaganda of the unemployment list coming down as its rubbish as there are more people unemployed now than there has ever been but are hidden under the Tory governments other lists that are not counted like for example ...zero hours where nobody works, youngsters who have to work in the community under the slave trade for no wages, countless and waste of time schemes that most dont need or dont want but has to do.....there is so much corruption and fiddling the books you would not believe and the Tories are winning the war in suppressing the working class and lying through their teeth trying to convince that we are all in this together......dont fall for it as another 5 years of Tory rule will be the final nail in the nearly closed coffin.
Yes indeed Dai does have it spot on, I just hope they do not get back in, because if they do well it doesn't bare thinking about. You know one thing that always made me think about these billions of £'s of cuts these last 5 years was that they would rather hit the most poor and disadvantaged in society than rein in their £12 Billion overseas aid budget? they would rather give Billions away to foreigners, than look after their own countryman, and that for me is a big indictment on the Tory party, who in my opinion are not fit to govern.
I mean a proper education not meaningless A levels and degrees. I agree that some do work hard and deserve more, but youngsters in general these days seem to be a bit lacking in common sense. I know many people with degrees that just come across as plain stupid. The vast majority of people I see on minimum wage don't rally deserve much more. Yes, there may be some exceptions, but that's what I see. Some people with degrees can't even use grammar and punctuation properly. It makes me wonder what exactly they did for the 3-4 years of their degree, not to mention their schooling before that. Surely 16 years is enough time to learn basic grammar. Educational standards in the UK are pretty shocking these days. Even people that do have jobs don't seem to want to put in the effort so that they stand out and get on. They just want the day to end so they can leave. Their attitude sucks. Just the way I see it. But, as I said, there are exceptions. If we didn't have tax credits, employers would pay more because they'd have to. It's simple economics.
