[ad_1]
Several Premier League players have been warned that they should also consider their financial future as they weigh whether they support restarting the project.
Sportsmail understands that a series of high-flying stars have the possible long-term implications that soccer will not return soon, for themselves and their lifestyles, spelled out amid their huge doubts about the return.
A large number of players have voiced their understandable fears of returning too soon after the coronavirus outbreak, including Sergio Agüero, Antonio Rudiger, Manuel Lanzini, and most recently Raheem Sterling and Danny Rose.
Players with young children and those living with vulnerable relatives are also reluctant to continue playing soccer.
One of the top six Premier League teams is among clubs concerned that their squad will weaken if football resumes with at least two of their players who have told their teammates they don’t want to play.
However, Sportsmail understands that some players are also urged to be aware that it may be some time before the current uncertain situation around the world ends and football remains in limbo, the greatest financial pressure there will be on the clubs that could have a knock on effect.
Clubs discussing the matter with their stars this week hope that the distances they will create to create sterile environments on their training grounds will help assure them how safe it is to return, a point that players are also reinforcing privately for players. . respective camps.
A source described the situation as a ‘health and wealth’ dilemma for players, with the latter a factor that a number is said not to be completely discounted in the decision-making process.
Another concern voiced to players is that refusing to play could legally leave them in breach of their contract terms and potentially vulnerable later on.
Leading sports attorney Liz Ellen, founder of Livida Sport, said: ‘It is the responsibility of the clubs, as employers, to provide a safe environment in which their players and staff work.
‘If they do, based on compliance with government advice and appropriate risk assessments, then players must fulfill their own contractual obligations and’ go to work ‘as usual.
“If the players refuse to do it, it can be considered that they are breaking their gaming contracts.”
Clubs are expected to respect the wishes of anyone who prefers not to play, considering that putting pressure on them will reflect poorly and send the wrong message.
“Given the delicacy of the problem at the moment, I wouldn’t expect clubs to take a strict line with players who have good reason to be particularly cautious,” added Ellen.
“This is a time for players and clubs to demonstrate understanding and maintain an open dialogue to try to resolve any dispute.”
Chelsea did the same in 2001 when it allowed six older players to miss their trip to Hapoel Tel Aviv due to security fears of traveling to Israel.
Newcastle let Papiss Cisse sit at his preseason training camp in 2013 when he refused to wear a Wonga-sponsored shirt due to his religious beliefs before the two sides finally reached an agreement.
Although players were also warned to be cautious about how long clubs will be able to adopt such a comprehensive stance.
Source: m.allfootballapp.com
[ad_2]
