Premier League chief executive defends new £5.14bn dealDismisses criticism of how windfall will be distributedScudamore: ‘It is up to politicians to raise minimum wage’

Richard Scudamore has dismissed criticism of how the Premier League redistributes its income from broadcasters – insisting it is not clubs’ responsibility to pay stadium staff the living wage.

The Premier League’s chief executive, speaking after the announcement of a record £5.14bn windfall from BT and Sky, said clubs would make individual decisions on how to use the money, and he could make no guarantees over the scale of redistribution or on reducing ticket prices.

Asked on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme whether clubs should react to the 70% rise in income by increasing the wages of their lowest-paid employees – with Chelsea the only Premier League club to commit to paying the living wage – Scudamore said: “At the end of the day there’s a thing called the living wage but there’s also a minimum wage, and politicians do have the power to up that minimum wage. That’s entirely for the politicians to do, that’s not for us to do.”

Premier League TV rights grow to £5.1bn but case for redistribution strengthens | Owen Gibson Read more

Asked whether it made him uncomfortable to see clubs paying some players “half-a-million pounds a week” while other members of staff earned below the living wage, Scudamore said: “No, it doesn’t make me uncomfortable.

“The reality is, just like in the film industry, in the pop industry, the talent, the absolute talent, gets paid a disproportionately high amount. That is the reality in any talent industry … The stars that grace the field in the Premier League are world stars, it’s a world market. I don’t set the market rate, it’s set by the world market.”

The total raised from the deal once international rights are taken into account is likely to top £8.5bn over three years from 2016-17, meaning even the bottom club would receive around £99m, while the champions would get £156m.

However, Scudamore said he could not guarantee that the 70% rise in income would necessarily mean a 70% rise in redistribution.

“I’m not guaranteeing anything. I’m not in a position to guarantee – I work for 20 employers. We will sit down and look at what is the proportionate thing we should be doing, and I’m absolutely confident that the clubs will do the right and proportionate thing. But I’m not able to guarantee anything.”

Asked whether clubs should also use the new money to reduce ticket prices because of their status as “staggeringly wealthy” organisations, Scudamore answered: “Staggeringly wealthy in what sense? Not all of them make profits. Clearly, there are revenues but the clubs will have choices as to what they do with those revenues. Will they be investing in making sure grounds stay full? Yes they will. But I can’t guarantee what each individual club will be doing.”

Scudamore earlier said he remained confident that the Premier League “attracts a whole lot of positive feelings about the UK.

“If you go and do any international survey, things like the Premier League, the BBC, the Queen: they are things that people feel are good about the UK. Our own prime minister is quite happy to travel the world and talk about what a good thing the Premier League is. And we’re proud that our clubs and the league is looked at in that way.”

Reacting to Scudamore’s comments about wages, the business secretary Vince Cable told London’s Evening Standard: “There is a lot of money in the sport. You are getting extraordinarily well-paid players. The ordinary fans and ordinary workers around the ground should expect some of the money to come through to them. If companies can afford to pay the living wage, they should.”

Scudamore’s comments were described as “shameful” by Sophie Stephens of Citizens UK, an alliance of civil society organisations who campaign for the introduction of the living wage.

“It’s shameful that the organisation in charge of the UK’s most famous sporting league thinks that clinging to the minimum wage is acceptable,” she said.

“On a day when it was revealed that the Premier League is set to net £113,000 per minute in games from domestic television rights, we’ve called upon Richard Scudamore to show leadership and become a Living Wage employer, supporting their lowest paid members of staff out of in-work poverty. Echoing the words of Prime Minister, David Cameron, and Vince Cable, Business Secretary, ‘Those organisations that can, should pay the living wage’.

“Citizens UK members have been campaigning around the issue of poverty pay in the Premier League since 2011 and believe that many more clubs could follow the example of Chelsea FC, the first premier league club to accredit as a living wage employer. Regular protests, letter writing and even questions at AGMs have been ignored by Tottenham and Arsenal, whilst Manchester City has agreed to pay its directly employed staff the Living Wage, they are still not accredited, meaning the majority of low-paid staff like catering teams and cleaners, who work on contracts, aren’t seeing the benefits.

“Many football clubs do wonderful community work; but surely paying their own staff a wage that is enough to live on, not simply survive would be both an economical and ethical approach to improving the neighbourhoods they are an integral part of?”

Tottenham’s Labour MP David Lammy, who has campaigned for clubs to pay the living wage of £9.15 an hour in London and £7.85 outside, was also highly critical of the Premier League’s chief executive, saying: “He should not just feel uncomfortable, he should feel ashamed. This is conscious greed, plain and simple.”

David Lammy (@DavidLammy) Today Premier League clubs signed a new TV deal worth £5.1 billion. 19/20 of them still refuse to pay Living Wage. http://t.co/sz3f52b526

The shadow minister for London, Sadiq Khan, also said Scudamore’s remarks were “disgraceful” and that clubs should pay the living wage so their lowest-paid staff can “put food on the table and pay the rent”.

The former Tottenham chairman Lord Sugar was among those who felt the deal would largely benefit players and their agents, and also pointed towards the consequences for the England national team.

“It is an amazing amount of money,” he told the BBC. “In one way it is positive for the teams, but I think it is pretty negative for the future of international football for England.

“The more money that is given to the clubs, the more money is spent on players. Anyone who knows the effect of prune juice, it is pretty simple – it goes in one end and comes out the other, and that is exactly what is going to happen with this money.

“A deal is a deal. I suppose the Premier League hierarchy have done a good deal in squeezing the most amount of money out of broadcasters and someone has done a very, very good job so I suppose they are happy. Will they be happy in a year when all the money they have got they have given to players and players’ agents is another story.”