AFL stars accused of greed

[Mr Miyagi]

It needs to be clarified that the AFL negotiated this deal with the government.

https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl-2020-coronavirus-updates-covid19-afl-aflpa-player-contracts-brodie-grundy-mega-deals-finances/news-story/d0f2e418ecca4858f174e306f120e812

Some AFL players will be eligible for the Australian Government’s JobKeeper assistance package, on one provision.

Their clubs must also receive the government’s tick of approval to claim a share of the $130 billion stimulus plan, which is expected to be ratified in the coming days.

The financial help will provide relief to players, coaches and staff members across the league once it’s formally signed off on.

The one-in all-in approach was relayed to AFL player managers in a 45-minute teleconference hook-up with the AFL Players’ Association on Tuesday afternoon.

While clubs and players are still awaiting final confirmation, it appears:

- AFL clubs will be eligible employers, which means players under a certain pay bracket will be too;

- Eligible employees only need to have been full-time as of March 1, so 2019 draftees are covered;

- With a 50 per cent reduction in wages across April and May, rookies (on a base salary of $85,000) will receive a top-up to $1500 per fortnight, and;

- Players earning less than $140,000 will have their wages topped up to $1500 (before tax) if a 70 per cent wage cuts come into effect from June.

I'm so glad these overpaid ball kickers get to continue living their privileged lifestyles. I love footy, I love some of the players and the good they do in the community... but come on. I've got a partner and kid to support, and I'm only getting the basic dole payment. Yet the AFL negotiates a special deal for the special people. I'm middle-aged, I'm absolutely f***ed looking for employment in the next year competing against younger and more qualified job seekers. These guys are only taking a pay cut for 6-12 months, and even with the pay cut they're on good coin. AFL and club staff who are on lower middle income salaries deserve financial top ups. Remember when most players had to work jobs during the week and were lucky if they got a car from the club. Players these days think they're entitled to be able to retire as millionaires by the age of 25.

Base wage $85,000 minus 30% pay cut is $60,000!!! Seriously, you're still pocketing $60!! If first year players are whinging about that, then they can take a flying leap. Maybe spend less on the expensive tattoos and investment properties, and live like the rest of us do -- within our means.

[think positive]

[Pies4shaw]

[K]

[Uncle Jack]

[Pies4shaw]

^ I think that's incorrect. As I understand it, everyone on jobseeker, including existing recipients, will get the $550 supplement, even if they were only getting a partial newstart payment because their assets or income were such as to prevent them qualifying for the full benefit.

[Uncle Jack]

[K]

Thanks for the discussion. Given asset tests have been dropped for this crisis period, I assume assets won't matter for anyone, existing recipients or new, covid-related or not, though income will still matter.

[Mr Miyagi]

Sorry for the rant. It just does my head in people are getting handouts who don't need it, but myself and people I know are struggling on the bare minimum through no fault of our own. Base wage of new player $85k, minus 30% virus paycut they're still getting at least $60k before tax. For a 19 or 20 year old, that's bloody good!!! Please explain why they still need a $1500 a fortnight top up?

[think positive]

Exactly this

[Pies4shaw]

I feel like we are going in circles. It is not a "top up". It is a subsidy to employers to assist with their payroll obligations in certain circumstances. I understand why people might disagree with the whole policy but I don't understand the fixation on footy players. As I understand things, if the big 4 banks suffered a sufficient decline in revenue, they would be entitled to claim the $1,500 as a contribution to the fortnightly salaries of, amongst many others, their CEOs. There is, so far as I am aware, no income cut-off for the support. That's because it's payroll support for the employers, not some kind of hand-out to well-paid employees. Argue all you like about the policy of the jobkeeper scheme but it seems to me to be quite misconceived to accuse the players of being greedy when what is actually happening is that they have negotiated a very substantial pay reduction and the clubs are entitled, because of their revenue circumstances, to receive $1,500 per player from the Federal Government towards that reduced pay. It isn't a "top up" - it is just an entitlement that the clubs are applying to meeting their newly negotiated, reduced obligations.

[K]

So really it's the employers, i.e. AFL clubs, who are getting the $1500. Maybe they can pass it on to their members.

[Pies4shaw]

^ To go full circle, they are obliged to apply it to their payroll at a rate of $1,500 per identified individual. The way it works is that even if an employee agreed to accept $500 per fortnight to remain employed, if their employer was eligible for the jobkeeper payment, they receive it but are obliged to pay their employee the whole $1,500 (ie, they don't just pay the employee $500 and pocket the rest). To take a practical example, if you have a permanent part-time person employed by a business that qualifies for jobkeeper and that person's permanent part-time wage was at all relevant times, say, $1,200 per fortnight, the employer would be able to keep that person employed at no cost to the employer but would have to increase the permanent part-time employee's wage to $1,500. I presume the obligation to pay the full sum on is an anti-fraud mechanism to prevent employers making money out of the scheme or, to put it less unkindly, to preclude there being an incentive for employers to bargain the continuing wages of "qualifying employees" below $1,500, so that the employers gain a net benefit by pocketing the difference but the employees all lose.

[think positive]

you would think it would be means tested though, I mean id rather see the money go to those not getting even 40% of their pay, can the club take it off what they are paying the players?

[5 from the wing on debut]