It is with great surprise but also with disappointment that we have received today the letter of the Cyprus Football Association (CFA) which includes the proposal of the clubs towards the footballers. Disappointment because a “proposal” that “offers” a 92% pay cut on the salaries that footballers are due to receive for the period from 15.3.20 to 31.5.20 is not what one would expect in the context of a serious and with good faith discussion. Especially when it comes from the side that is the one that asks for assistance.
(a) The players have played regularly until mid-March and this corresponds to 75% of a typical 10-month contract. As a result, 75% of the contract is accrued, which the players have worked for under normal circumstances, before the problem of the pandemic arisen, which will cause any damage (of course after the pandemic). We cannot, therefore, understand with what logic any proposal should be based on annual revenues and not be limited to the “damages” that may arise from the spreading of the pandemic problem and beyond. A discussion on the basis of the proposal will distort the facts and put the unions’ demand on a different footing than it was before. In short, it will mean that the clubs are no longer asking their players to shoulder the damage that will result from the pandemic but also the damage they have caused due to mismanagement and / or wrong decisions before the pandemic.
(b) Based on the proposal submitted to us, from the remaining annual 25% that remains to be paid to the players for the period from the beginning of the problem, ie from 15.3.20, and until the completion of their contracts, the clubs demand that the footballers are paid only 2% (25% – 23% = 2%). In short, the clubs demand that the “damage” be shared between clubs and footballers in a ratio of 2 to 23. Translating into mathematical terms the proposal of the clubs to the players, this corresponds to a 92% reduction in the amounts they have to receive from 15.3.20 until 31.5.20. With this proposal, the players will receive, for the entire period from 15.3.20 to 30.6.20 (during which the championships its expected to end), a fee corresponding to only 20% of a monthly salary (2% of the remaining annual income)! Unfortunately, we do not see in the club’s proposal any elements of honesty and good faith that, we repeat, are necessary for us to have a constructive dialogue that will hopefully find a just solution, such as the instructions of FIFA and UEFA.
(c) Let’s not forget that if the Championship resumes, the Clubs will ask their players to play for at least one more month (in June, if not also July) beyond the two and a half months remaining until the end of their contracts. Do the clubs expect that they will be persuaded to do so on the grounds that they will receive for the period from 15.3.20 to 30.6.20 a 20% of a monthly salary or, in other words, 2% of the annual income they would receive until the end of May, while in the end they will play for another 1-1,5 month?
According to the instructions of FIFPRO, PA.S.P. calls for full transparency regarding the amount of damage that clubs claim to have suffered as a result of the pandemic in order to have a proper basis for dialogue and to be able to reach a fair result. No one should seek to be benefit over the other. Given that the competition period was normally completed up until 15.3.20, in the context of the dialogue we should discuss salaries adjustments for the coming months.
Based on the above, we expect the CFA to return with a new logical proposal in the context of the FIFA guidelines and based on the actual damage caused or expected to be caused by the pandemic. And it is necessary that for the calculation of the damage the clubs claim to have been subjected to, all the information requested need to be given.