Football news - Tottenham u-turn demonstrates the impact of fan power

The club had planned to reduce wages of some staff by 20%, and place other staff on a furlough scheme which would see the state cover 80% of their salary. The decision was met by press and supporter opprobrium, and now Spurs employees will be kept on at full pay for April and the following month.

From one point of view, this is an overwhelmingly positive change made by the club. For one, they are one of the richest sides in the world, courtesy of Daniel Levy’s financial stewardship and the collective management of the Premier League that has made it a starkly profitable content production system. As a result of these riches, they can well afford to spend a couple of months paying their staff. They will not go bust as a result of these costs.

By keeping staff on the payroll they will keep their community afloat at a time when others are struggling with unemployment and deprivation. This was a simple way for clubs to demonstrate that they understood this - Manchester United managed it at the first pass, while both Spurs and Liverpool have failed to do so until they realised they couldn't get away with it.

Furloughing is such an extraordinary scheme to introduce that it would only ever happen in Britain if something enormous demanded it. The coronavirus pandemic is such a thing, and putting the economy in a deep freeze is perhaps the best and only way to ride out an enforced and extensive lockdown. Lives in many ways have been paused through no fault of any individual, so companies and people should not be forced to bear the brunt.

Under those circumstances, there is a logic to clubs taking the money that is offered to them. Neither Spurs or Liverpool are at fault for the virus, so taking state money if it is there is a no-brainer. It is in the context of any other company, after all. It is this thinking which illustrates how clubs often regard themselves.

This is the problem with turning football into a business and yet expecting it to behave with morals. Companies are not set up to make grand benevolent gestures, they are set up to enrich owners, and legislation is in place to make sure they do that.

With the transformation of clubs into financial assets to be passed around and with football’s usefulness to broadcasters and sponsors, the onus is on serving various owners to maximise profit. Nowhere is there a serious legal obligation to benefit the world. If the government - keen to bully footballers into donations, but not clubs - want companies or clubs to behave differently, it is in their gift to ensure that there are enforceable and consistent methods to make it happen. If fans want clubs to be bound to act with community spirit, they should be careful over which governments they elect. The Premier League can't celebrate its financial domination and then expect John McDonnell to take over as chairman at Liverpool, for example.

To some extent, the fans who demand huge transfer outlays can't really be disgusted when clubs decide to make use of government schemes to ease their financial burden (of course, there are plenty of fans who are opposed to one and not the other). What the coronavirus has done is shone light on the antagonism between business as usual - and business as it should be done.

Spurs’ decision is to be welcomed as an example of fan power, of job safety at a time of crisis, and as a chance to mitigate an inevitable and severe recession, but when normality returns there is little chance long-term improvements will ever be implemented to establish a real social safety net - unless companies and the state pass the laws to make it happen.