Several Premier League players have been warned they need to also consider their financial futures as they weigh up whether to back Project Restart.
Sportsmail understands a number of top-flight stars are having the potential long-term implications of football not returning soon, for them and their lifestyles, spelt out amid their huge doubts about returning.
A whole host of players have voiced their understandable fears about coming back too early following the coronavirus outbreak publicly including Sergio Aguero, Antonio Rudiger, Manuel Lanzini and, most recently, Raheem Sterling and Danny Rose.
SHARE THIS ARTICLE
Players with young children and those who live with vulnerable relatives are also reluctant to resume playing football.
One of the Premier League's top six sides are among the clubs concerned their squad will be weakened should football resume with at least two of their players having told team-mates they do not want to play.
However, Sportsmail understands some players are also being urged to take into account that it might be some time before the current uncertain situation across the globe ends and the longer football remains in limbo the greater financial strain there will be on clubs which could then have a knock-on effect for them.
Clubs discussing the matter with their stars this week hope the lengths they are going to to create sterile environments at their training grounds will help reassure them just how safe it is to return, a point that is also being reinforced privately to players by those in their respective camps.
Danny Rose is unimpressed by the Premier League's Project Restart plan
One source described the situation as a 'health v wealth' dilemma for players, with the latter a factor a number are being told should not be totally dismissed in the decision-making process.
A further concern expressed to players is that refusing to play could leave them legally in breach of the terms of their contracts and potentially vulnerable later down the line.
Leading sports lawyer Liz Ellen, founder of Livida Sport, said: 'It's the responsibility of clubs, as employers, to provide a safe environment within which their players and staff will work.
'If they do so, based on compliance with Government advice and appropriate risk assessments, then players should fulfil their own contractual obligations and 'go to work' as normal.
'If players refuse to do so then they may well be considered to be in breach of their playing contracts.'
Clubs are expected to respect the wishes of anyone who prefers not to play, mindful that applying any pressure on them will reflect badly and send out the wrong message.
Manuel Lanzini also admitted he had concerns over returning before a vaccine is found
'Given the sensitivity of the issue at present, I would not expect clubs to take a strict line with players who have good reason to be particularly cautious,' Ellen added.
'This is a time for players and clubs to show understanding and keep an open dialogue to try resolve any disputes.'
Chelsea did similar in 2001 when they allowed six senior players to miss their trip to Hapoel Tel Aviv due to security fears about travelling to Israel.
Newcastle let Papiss Cisse sit out their pre-season training camp in 2013 when he refused to wear a Wonga-sponsored shirt due to his religious beliefs before the two parties eventually reached an agreement.
Though players have also been warned to be wary about how long clubs will be able to take such an understanding stance.
No comments:
Post a Comment