Why has the Professional Footballers’ Association decided to hold a review?
The union and its long-serving chief executive, Gordon Taylor, conceded to a review by a QC, following intense pressure and criticism. That came in particular from former players, more than 300 of whom endorsed an open letter calling for reform, for Taylor to step down and for an election. The families of some former players with dementia, who feel the PFA has not done enough for them, were also critical.
The PFA’s members, current professional footballers and former players who are non-voting members, have a range of difficult welfare problems, including mental health, education and career planning. In addition, the union has to help with the physical and mental health of retired players and, increasingly, severe financial difficulties, plus dementia and other physical and health problems suffered by older former players.
The PFA chairman, Ben Purkiss, called for a review first, arguing the PFA needed to “modernise and evolve” to meet welfare needs. The PFA’s reaction was to issue a statement saying Purkiss was ineligible to be a member because he is a non-contract player with Walsall.
Only after the storm of criticism levelled at the union, the work it does and Taylor’s £2.3m salary, did the PFA agree to hold a review.
How has the PFA described the review?
It said it had agreed to “a full and open review into the structure and operation” of the union, by an independent QC. In a statement, and accompanying open letter from Taylor, the union defended its work but acknowledged: “We accept there are areas we can improve” and “criticism must not be swept under the carpet”.
What form will the review take?
As with any form of inquiry, that is a key question and some former players are sceptical about how the review will be set up. The abilities of the person appointed to conduct the review, its scope – or terms of reference – and level of independence will be crucial to achieving a credible outcome.
The PFA’s statement indicated that the recommendation for a review had come from the administration, headed by Taylor, rather than the union’s trustees, who are responsible for its governance as a charity, or management committee, responsible for its running. It said an independent QC would be appointed but not how the appointment would be made or independence safeguarded. The statement also said that “we” – meaning the PFA administration headed by Taylor – “will work closely with the trustees and management committee to finalise the parameters and timeline of the review”.
Purkiss, who has refused to step down, arguing he has a legal opinion that concludes he is eligible as a PFA member, remains chairman and on the management committee – as is Taylor – so there could be an internal battle over the review’s scope.
What areas of the PFA’s activities will the review consider?
Another crucial question. Broadly, there are two main areas of concern: whether the PFA’s welfare work is adequate to meet members’ needs and whether the organisation’s governance and internal workings are adequate and have been adhered to.
What are the questions over its welfare provision?
In modern times, the PFA has effectively become a footballers’ welfare organisation, particularly since Taylor and the PFA secured a share of the Premier League TV money after threatening strike action in 2001.
Last year’s PFA accounts showed the union received £26.6m in television fees. The Premier League says it requires “a significant majority” of the money to be spent on “charitable good causes and football development”. The beneficiaries of this money are tightly prescribed by the Premier League and it looks odd that the footballers’ union should be funding EFL clubs’ youth development programmes (£3m last year) and community programmes (£3.5m); that £3m goes back to the Premier League for youth development and £1.2m to the National League clubs’ community programmes.
By contrast only £530,000 was paid in benevolent grants. The accounts stated the union had more than £53m in reserves – so many players are asking why more of this money is not spent on welfare.
What are the questions over the PFA’s governance?
Unknown and should be the focus of a review. Critics will want to be satisfied proper procedures are in place and have been followed for the allocation of benevolent grants, for the determination of Taylor’s huge salary and for at least proposing elections every five years as required by law – Taylor has not faced a vote for his position since he got the job in 1981.
Are any other investigations being conducted?
No, but the Charity Commission has said it will seek clarification from the PFA trustees about how its money is spent – which will include Taylor’s salary. The commission stressed that: “As regulator we expect all charities to carefully steward funds – to maximise their benefit to society.”
The money to be contributed from the 2019-22 TV deals has not yet been finalised but the Premier League has clarified it is not withholding funding owing to the outcry and is not intending to.
How long will the review take?
Unknown as yet.
Will the review be published?
That has not been made clear but it would be an odd “full and open” review if it were not to be published.
