I’m not entirely sure where this person gets this particular theory from. And quite frankly I’m not sure if it has any practical merit or chance of happening, but either way, let’s explore.
According to a report from The Sun, there are a number of key figures from EFL clubs that aren’t too happy with the idea of clubs making players defer their wages whilst there is no football going on, resulting in less income for the clubs. They believe that those clubs who have taken up such a scheme rather than playing their players in full should not be allowed to sign players in the upcoming window, when indeed that does happen.
I think the logic is that if you don’t have the money now to pay players, there’s no way you should be spending more money later in the year when you haven’t had anything coming in. I think that’s it, but as I said, I’m not entirely sure of the thought process behind it.
If that is the logic though, I could kind of understand it if they were going after Premier League teams that have done so given the amount of money that teams generate in the division, with Sheffield United potentially earning as much as £200m this season.
Should clubs be punished in this way?
However to go after the teams in the Championship like this, when income levels are vastly different (something that Birmingham City can clearly attest to) is just nonsensical to say the very least. Teams are doing this just as a means to help themselves get by during these difficult times, and they should be made to be punished further down the line for what is essentially an act of kindness that the players are undertaking.
If anything, those teams with players taking a pay cut should be rewarded in some way. I’m not sure what with, maybe a year’s grace from FFP implications (although that’s probably too much to ask for)? But punishment shouldn’t even be talked about seriously.