As Morecambe becomes the latest football club to teeter on the edge of oblivion, perhaps it is a good time to take another look at why so many clubs, across the entire professional pyramid in England, are struggling with the most basic requirement of making sure they can pay wages on time. The focus of much of the debate about football finances in the last 2 years has been around seeking to increase the amount of revenue that flows down the pyramid from the EPL, and the potential for a football regulator to force that to happen if no agreement can be reached between the two bodies. But this misses the point; there is no purpose in pouring more water into a funnel when it runs straight out of the bottom. If every club in the EFL received another million pounds tomorrow, it would do nothing to stabilise their finances, but would simply throw more petrol on the wage inflation flames. One issue guaranteed to cause controversy amongst all of those interested in football is salary...
A couple of clubs have recently announced the signing of new players in the January window and the simultaneous furloughing of players who are, as a consequence, deemed to be surplus to requirements or who need to be de-registered to stay within squad limits. One is reported to have brought in 9 new players and furloughed 6 as a direct consequence and others are reported to have done similarly. This was surely not what the furlough rules were designed for, and it will doubtless stick in the throats of many taxpayers to be paying the salaries of football players when their employers can afford to bring in, and pay, others in their place. Some people have sought to defend the practice saying that the vast majority of clubs outside the top flight have used the furlough scheme (undoubtedly true) and many brought in new players in the window (also true). But there is a huge difference between the situation where a club used the furlough scheme for players befor...