can any one understand the players union not supporting the players?

[Never to the dark side]

Think I got this right

The National league are planning to not pay players wages if the player is INJURED for more than three months,and the player will have to claim Government sick pay

The BBC article states that the PFA does not represent the National league players,

although I presume that most footballers, even in National league, are  PFA members.

[MarcusX]

As someone who would have been impacted by this back when I had a nasty injury I think it’s awful (from what I’ve read).

I’d like some more insight into why they are doing this and what they hope to improve (other than the obvious club finances)

[exAtyeoMax]

1 hour ago, Never to the dark side said:

Think I got this right

The National league are planning to not pay players wages if the player is INJURED for more than three months,and the player will have to claim Government sick pay

The BBC article states that the PFA does not represent the National league players,

although I presume that most footballers, even in National league, are  PFA members.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/65089980

[Rocking Red Cyril]

Will.tbis lead to full scale strike action ?

[1960maaan]

 

The PFA, which does not represent National League players, has told the FA it cannot support the measures which come into effect on 1 July.

Brennan, speaking after Saturday's 2-0 win at Wealdstone, said the clubs themselves would not want this for the players.
"If you look at the game nearly every one of those players will be a PFA member. I'm a PFA member. It's scandalous,"

As someone that has been in and been supported by Unions through the years, I really don't understand this. How can they accept dues and yet say they don't represent National League players ?
I have worked in places that said they don't recognise the Unions, that doesn't matter, the Union would still represent , advise and look after your interests. But to not represent ? Strange.

Also, if they don't get paid for a time, how does that stand with contracts and being able to sign for another Club?
I get that having a player unable to play, yet having to pay his wages can be a strain on a club and insurances are too expensive even for League Clubs these days. But I doubt they can change current Contracts and "bigger" player will be unwilling to accept that clause, could be a long running mess this.

[Davefevs]

https://www.thepfa.com/news/2023/3/22/significant-changes-to-non-league-contracts-from-next-season
 

there is an opt-in for the player but it sounds a bit ambiguous???

[exAtyeoMax]

1 hour ago, 1960maaan said:

 

The PFA, which does not represent National League players, has told the FA it cannot support the measures which come into effect on 1 July.

Brennan, speaking after Saturday's 2-0 win at Wealdstone, said the clubs themselves would not want this for the players.
"If you look at the game nearly every one of those players will be a PFA member. I'm a PFA member. It's scandalous,"

As someone that has been in and been supported by Unions through the years, I really don't understand this. How can they accept dues and yet say they don't represent National League players ?
I have worked in places that said they don't recognise the Unions, that doesn't matter, the Union would still represent , advise and look after your interests. But to not represent ? Strange.

Also, if they don't get paid for a time, how does that stand with contracts and being able to sign for another Club?
I get that having a player unable to play, yet having to pay his wages can be a strain on a club and insurances are too expensive even for League Clubs these days. But I doubt they can change current Contracts and "bigger" player will be unwilling to accept that clause, could be a long running mess this.

Yes I was thinking the same. Possibly badly written by the BBC.

[Hxj]

2 hours ago, exAtyeoMax said:

But I doubt they can change current Contracts and "bigger" player will be unwilling to accept that clause, could be a long running mess this.

The changes are to the 'Minimum' contract requirements for new contracts for periods on of after 1 July 2023.  No one is stopping a player and a club agreeing better terms.  

 

Edited March 28 by Hxj

[Sir Geoff]

Fully explained in the last episode (podcast) Price of football by Kieren Maguire.

As Dave Fevs says there is an opt in clause but if you don't opt in maybe you don't get a contract.

[exAtyeoMax]

1 minute ago, Hxj said:

The changes are to the 'Minimum' contract requirements for new contracts for periods on of after 1 July 2023.  No one is stopping a player and a club agreeing better terms.  

 

that's weird, I didn't post what you quoted

[phantom]

Out of interest is this any different to someone say employed as a builder?

[RoystonFoote'snephew]

8 hours ago, 1960maaan said:

 

The PFA, which does not represent National League players, has told the FA it cannot support the measures which come into effect on 1 July.

Brennan, speaking after Saturday's 2-0 win at Wealdstone, said the clubs themselves would not want this for the players.
"If you look at the game nearly every one of those players will be a PFA member. I'm a PFA member. It's scandalous,"

As someone that has been in and been supported by Unions through the years, I really don't understand this. How can they accept dues and yet say they don't represent National League players ?
I have worked in places that said they don't recognise the Unions, that doesn't matter, the Union would still represent , advise and look after your interests. But to not represent ? Strange.

Also, if they don't get paid for a time, how does that stand with contracts and being able to sign for another Club?
I get that having a player unable to play, yet having to pay his wages can be a strain on a club and insurances are too expensive even for League Clubs these days. But I doubt they can change current Contracts and "bigger" player will be unwilling to accept that clause, could be a long running mess this.

It's not that the PFA wouldn't represent their members in the national league but they can only do so as, effectively, a colleague or friend as they have no agreement in place to negotiate on the players behalfs. I would hope that they are working on getting an arrangement in place for the future. 

[jj77]

2 hours ago, phantom said:

Out of interest is this any different to someone say employed as a builder?

I'm only guessing but it's up to the employer.

They could claim SSP for 28 weeks.

I also assume they could also claim for compensation for loss of earnings for sustaining an injury at work.

[Lrrr]

Any player of league 2 quality will now just look to move to the league even if they could make a bit more money in the national league so they don't risk a bad injury and falling foul of this.

Edited March 28 by Lrrr

[Sir Geoff]

1 hour ago, Lrrr said:

Any player of league 2 quality will now just look to move to the league even if they could make a bit more money in the national league so they don't risk a bad injury and falling foul of this.

Or you will start seeing a complete lack of tackling and risk averse football. Bearing in mind contracts are only for 10 months at that level. Who would risk getting any kind of injury to either end up out of contract or on £99 per week ssp.

[Lorenzos Only Goal]

12 hours ago, MarcusX said:

As someone who would have been impacted by this back when I had a nasty injury I think it’s awful (from what I’ve read).

I’d like some more insight into why they are doing this and what they hope to improve (other than the obvious club finances)

I think that’s it, small clubs can't afford insurance and can't pay injured players.  The easy answer would be for the new government body to force there to be a fund from premier league revenues to support grass roots players during such situations.