The Impact of the Pandemic on the Player's Salary.

Undoubtedly, the coronavirus epidemic caught everyone by surprise. The progressing uncertainty led sports clubs, not knowing whether the season could be completed, when or if they would return to normal operations, to take actions aimed at reducing costs. It's not surprising that these reductions also affected the contracted salaries of players. Now, after the season has ended, we can attempt to assess whether these actions were justified.

When the competitions were suspended, no one could predict when the league would resume, or if the ongoing season could be finished. Faced with uncertainty about generating income, whether from match days or television rights, clubs began to seek solutions to reduce operating costs. As we know, one of the significant costs is the salaries of players and coaching staff. The majority of contracts did not foresee the possibility of a pandemic halting competitions, so actions were taken to find amicable solutions to the situation. However, it was worse when the pandemic was used as a pretext to terminate contracts with unwanted players or to disproportionately reduce the salary of an unwanted player. In other words, there were situations where the suspension of competitions was treated as an opportunity to achieve goals that would not have been possible based solely on the content of the contract and relevant regulations.

Unilateral Reduction of Salary

It is rather undisputed that the pandemic and the resulting lockdown constituted a so-called "force majeure", which the parties could not foresee or counteract. Based on the circumstance that the contract could not be partially fulfilled (suspension of competitions), some clubs informed players about an arbitrary reduction in salary. The legal basis for such action was referred to in Article 495 § 2 of the Civil Code, which states:

if the performance by one of the parties has become possible only partially, that party loses the right to the corresponding part of the reciprocal performance. However, the other party may withdraw from the contract if partial performance would not be significant for it due to the nature of the obligation or the intended purpose of the contract, made known to the party whose performance has become partially impossible.

Indeed, during the suspension of competitions, players could not partially fulfill their obligations, namely, participating in football matches. However, in most cases, they were still required to maintain their physical condition by following dedicated training plans. It should be noted, though, that football competitions at the highest levels were completed, and the matches scheduled for March, April, and May were played in June and July. Therefore, obligations that were temporarily impossible to fulfill were later completed.

FIFA Criteria

When assessing the justification for a salary reduction, FIFA recommendations should be taken into account. According to the guidelines presented, in cases where the parties did not reach an agreement regarding the execution of the contract during the pandemic, and the contract and national regulations do not contain relevant provisions, the following aspects are important when assessing the justification for a unilateral salary reduction:

Did the club and the player attempt to reach an agreement? It is obvious that clubs which did not attempt to renegotiate contracts will be in a procedurally worse position,
The club's economic situation. Here, in my opinion, two aspects will be important: firstly, how the pandemic affected the club's finances, and secondly, whether the club fulfilled its financial obligations towards players before the suspension of competitions. Of course, the situation of individual clubs, even within the Ekstraklasa itself, may differ, but it should be remembered that the season was completed, the TV contract was fulfilled, and eventually fans were also allowed to attend matches. Clubs that did not fulfill their obligations even before the declaration of the epidemic will be in a procedurally worse position.

Was the salary reduction proportionate? This aspect is, of course, related to the points discussed above. In my opinion, a salary reduction by an Ekstraklasa club of, let's say, 90% should be considered unjustified.
The amount of salary after the change. Here, it is important whether the salary of a professional player after the reduction allows them to sustain themselves and meet basic needs. Even if the percentage reduction does not raise doubts, in the case of low contracts, for example, for youth players entering the first team, the amount paid to the player should allow for sustenance.
How were the other players on the team treated? It is obvious that if the club cites the same circumstances related to the epidemic, then differential percentages in the paid salary, with minor exceptions, are unjustified.

Further Consequences

The consequences of unilateral contract reductions may not end only in a financial dispute. We can imagine situations where a player wishing to leave the club could cite delays in salary payment and unilaterally terminate the contract. Only then will there be a verification of whether the reduction was justified. It is in the interest of both clubs and players to sanction the reductions made, either by including addendums to the contract or by taking legal action.

Photo by Foter.com