FOOTBALLERS IN LAW

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22296, 23 June 1934, Page 19

FOOTBALLERS IN LAW

“ NOT MANUAL WORKERS,” , QUESTION OF INSURANCE JUDGE’S HUMOROUS REMARKS. Are professional footballers manual labourers? A “ friendly ” test court case before Mr Justice Roche raised 1 this qvies; tion on a reference'by the Ministry ot Health, and cited Len Graham the Millwall “ Soccer ” half-back (says • the New Zealand Herald’s London correspondent. The , court • was :> asked- to decide whether, although a- player might be paid; more than £250 a year, he and his employers were still liable to make health and unemployment insurance contributions.;; • Mr Harold Murphy, who appeared for the Ministry, said the short point was whether professional players of Association football were employed by way of manual labour. . . . , . ~ Mr Justice Roche -(leaning back in, his chair and. laughing heartily); It is all the more funny as it is Association, football. Mr Murphy: It had occurred to me that some highly technical differences might distinguish between Rugby and Association football, .... Mr Justice Roche:. X have played both, so I can be quite impartial. " “To style cricket manual labour—professional cricket is in exactly the same relation in that position as professional football —would really seem to be almost absurd,” the judge remarked Mr Murphy: "Perhaps the game of golf is a step further. The judge; It is; almost. . ' Mr Murphy: Of course, golf has a.great deal more analogy. It is manual labour. If a person gets into a really deep bunker Laughter interrupted this sentence. Mr Murphy: My learned friend,. Mr Hawke, probably expends more vigour and lung-power addressing a jury at the Old Bailey than he does in a whole round of golf. ARGUMENT BY COUNSEL, . Counsel said that, since a decision in the case of Walker v. Crystal Palace Football Club, the Minister., of Health had felt compelled to regard professional players of football as insurable. He referred to the case of M'Manus, which concerned a ; half-acrobat, half-clown, on the 'stage. ■ . ■ . Mr Anthony Hawke,.who appeared for Len ‘ Graham and- the Football League, said the league had no wish to. escape its responsibilities and .obligations toward players . who did it such admirable service. But if players receiving more than £250 a year were hot, insurable persons the league did not want tb continue Making payments, which involved S-.great deal of expense to league clubs and the players themselves. Arguing that a footballer was not a manual labourer, counsel said playing football required great, skill and dexterity. \ . The judge: And very ..hard work, So does cricket. Charles Fry told me that, although he made several centuries m university matches, he did not know really how to play cricket until he_ ■Worked at it under the tuition of Eanjitsinhji, at lie then whs. ' . “STILL PLAYING A GAME.” The: judge, in giving his decision; said if professional footballers, were Manual labourers, they bad :-to _p»y unemployment insurance .contributions, 1 - and: were entitled to. unemployment insurance benefits whatever, their salaries might be. If they -were hot manual labourers they were not. bound to pay their contributions or entitled to receive benefits if their salary was over £250 a; year; : - ’ •A; Len Graham and most professional footballers, the judge gathered, enjoyed salaries of more than £250 a.year. . Their salaries varied according .to, the. tune Pf the year, and there was, provision, for bonuses on wins or draws. The salary might he - taken to be round about. £350 a.year., • ' : ifU ■■ . “Play and work are two different things,” the judge continued. “ Professional footballers are engaged not in work but in play. They are playing for reward of payment —arid so are professional cricketers-Jjut they are still-.playing a game. It may be said they were working at their play, and so they; are, but .what they are doing is—they are. not working at. manual work. ’ . V ’ ■ • " Footballers and professipnaT cricketers are engaged to amuse and entertain other people at playing a game. -For. these reasons I hold that this man is employed, not by way of manual labour, and is not insurable.”