Gut reaction? To call the greedy bastards all the names under the sun. But FFS decided to put it's best Union hat and see their side of the story...up the workers, comrades.

It's not as simple as all that. It isn't about giving more dosh directly to top players. It'a about the PFA getting funds to support players before, during and after careers.

Chelsea chairman Ken Bates has hit out at the PFA though. And seeing as we don't always agree with him, maybe the PFA have a point afterall. Lets see what they want...

From Ananova: The Professional Footballers Association are to send out ballot papers asking members to decide whether to take strike action in the row over the distribution of TV money.

The PFA's decision arises from their refusal to accept their share in a new £1.65billion television deal. Last season the PFA's share from the previous deal came to £8.8million - five per cent - but under the existing deal their cut would amount to under one per cent.

PFA chairman Barry Horne said:

"The ideal situation would see a return to the proportional arrangement that existed in the last TV agreement between the PFA and the authorities.

"In 1955 when football was first televised it was 10 per cent. Last time it was five per cent - this time it is less than one per cent."

Several PFA club representatives were joined for the second half of the meeting by Manchester United defender Gary Neville, a firm supporter of the Association's position.

Any industrial action taken by the players would involve a TV blackout.

PFA chief executive Gordon Taylor told Sky Sports News:

"There's a lot of misinformation coming out, but the blunt facts are that the authorities are receiving £1.65billion in TV money and we are receiving £5.2million. You don't have to be Einstein to work out the figures.

"They are trying to go back on agreements we've had in place for the last 46 years (over players' image rights) and deny they have ever existed.

"This is about the 50,000 former members and the hundreds of youngsters who are told they have no future in football who we have to retrain on university or college courses. What other union would pay for that?

"Players have an average eight-year career so we then have to train managers of the future and we have a coaching department.

"We are in the business of paying over a £1million for the former players, the Peter Osgoods and Tommy Smiths who need new hips and new knees.

"Last year our expenditure was over £12m and what the Premier League are offering is less than one per cent. They almost don't want us to have that money.

"We feel this is no sabre-rattling. We don't want this to happen but we may be left with no alternative.

"We have been told by the Premier League it was their final offer and we've been put in a corner and left with no alternative to consult our members and achieve solidarity."

Taylor also insisted the PFA would take the battle with the Premier League as far as it needed to go. He said:

"It's highly likely that we'll be taking them on in court. We're fighting for our lives here."

Taylor added in the Mail on Sunday today that

"If it is a fight they want it is a fight they are going to get.

"This is nothing to do with stars wanting more money for themselves. It is about players and ex-players who have to rely on the PFA for their welfare."

Taylor claimed the response from players has so far been very positive. Apparently David Beckham supports the PFA stance.

"The response from members so far has been excellent. We also hope to keep the managers informed."

Bates hit out at the PFA saying:

"The game has moved on since the PFA rightly had to fight for their members when they were earning £15 or £20 a week.

"Today, when players have accountants, lawyers and agents to protect their interests, and earn upwards of £1m per annum in wages.

"They also earn something as much in commercial deals - you have to ask what is the PFA's further role?

"If they can afford to buy a £2m Lowry painting and invest in Bobby Charlton's soccer schools, why do they need any more money - if indeed anything at all?"

Bates added that the Premier League funds the Football League youth development scheme and the Football Foundation, which helps grass-roots soccer.

The Blues chief also said that a 5% levy on all transfers is paid into players' central pension funds, and that the FA have offered to fund part of players' medical and benefit schemes.

Finally, Bates added:

"The Football in the Community Scheme, which is administered by the PFA, is in fact funded by the Premier League, because they pay the money in the first place."

So, what will we do if our Leicester lads vote to go on strike? Say we support our comrades all the way, or scream blue murder that they are taking the piss?

Is this more about having an infrastructure there to help kids that don't make it and the lower league players who get injured than putting more benefits into the hands of the multi-millionaires? Is Bates forgetting as usual that there's more to footy than the Premiership?

Or is it the PFA desperately trying to fool us into thinking they do a worthwhile job when actually many of the things they talk of is being funded from elsewhere?

Tell us what you think about this in the Fans Forum.