As footballers vote today on whether to strike for a greater share of television money, the BEN's Neil Bonnar explains why such action will not be about greed, but concern for their less fortunate colleagues

ENGLAND'S professional footballers are today deciding whether to take strike action.

According to all reports, the outcome will be a massive "yes" vote which will result in players refusing to play in any televised match from November 19.

It is hard to imagine, but the prospect of TV being completely free of "live" football and highlights action is creeping ever closer.

So what can the Premiership superstars happen to think is so important that they are prepared to strike for it?

Forget the notion that this is all about soccer's millionaire players. It is about all players on wages ranging from £100,000 to £100 a week sticking together to ensure those in need of help will be looked after in the future.

These players form the Professional Footballers Association and they are annoyed that the the Premier League and Football League have offered them a massively scaled down percentage of the money received from television companies for the rights to screen live matches and highlights.

For as long as anyone can remember the leagues have given the PFA five per cent of the television money, but this year they have offered the players' union just one per cent.

Because of the massively increased amount that TV has paid for football -- £1.85 billion over the next three years -- that one per cent actually adds up to around the same amount the PFA has received in the past.

The PFA is standing up for its five per cent share this year and in subsequent years. If the association gets its way, it will result in a windfall income of at least £25 million a year and the signs are that the players are determined to get their way even if it means withdrawing their labour.How the TV cash is spent THE Premier League and Football League want to keep 99 per cent of the £1.85 billion television money and give the PFA the remaining one per cent.

The PFA is insistent that it gets at least the five per cent it is accustomed to, which would give them a massive £25 million a year -- around four times more than it has had in the past.

So where does the money go? The answer, in a nutshell, is the players.

The PFA uses all of its income to benefit players who are in trouble, while most of the money which goes to the leagues is eventually filtered down into the pockets of the highly paid Premiership players.

Out of the £1.85 billion television money, £1.5 billion is shared out between the 20 Premiership clubs, with the remaining £350 million split between the 72 Football League clubs.

Those clubs then spend on average 70 per cent of that money and the rest of their income on players' wages.

The difference is that the PFA money goes to players who need help, while the leagues' share benefits the super rich stars.

It could be argued that it is actually in the top players' interests to support the leagues and not the PFA in this fight. The reason is that they are so rich they are unlikely to ever need the union, whereas there would be more money available to pay them bigger wages if the leagues kept a bigger share of the TV money. Charity begins with union THE PFA spends its money on members -- players and former players -- who are in need of financial help.

Its income is paid out in three charitable funds.

The Accident Fund looks after the needs of players whose careers have been ended by injury, such as Coventry City's David Busst who finished playing after suffering a horrific broken leg against Manchester United a few years ago.

The Benevolent Fund helps former players who have hit on hard times. Players such as ex-Liverpool stars Tommy Smith and Ray Kennedy, who have suffered greatly from hip and illness problems down the years, have had much of their hospital and doctors' bills paid for by the union.

The Education Fund is a vital lifeline for young players who have given up their teenage years trying to make it in the game but ultimately failed to make the grade.

They have often been YTS or academy players but, at 17 to 21 years of age, have been shown the door by their clubs and are not trained to do anything else.

The Education Fund pays for them to train for another career. 'We want the money while it's there' PFA chairman Gordon Taylor knows the union does not need such a huge amount of income at the moment, but he says they are determined to get the money while the television cash is there.

He fears there will come a time when television will not be prepared to pay today's massive amounts, so he wants the union to stock up in order that they have sufficient resources well into the future.

The argument from the union is that they are entitled to five per cent because of a long standing agreement and that the leagues are being greedy.

Premier League chief executive Richard Scudamore is the man conducting negotiations on behalf of the leagues, but he has so far refused to speak publicly about the issue.

League spokesmen have claimed they are not being greedy, arguing they are offering the PFA more money than ever before.

The leagues also deny they have refused to give the union the five per cent it wants, saying that before they pay it they want to know exactly how the PFA intends to spend the increased income.

Club chairmen face a dilemma because they employ the players and they want to receive as much money as possible via the leagues.

One Football League chairman says they cannot look at the issue from the standpoint of whether they sympathise with the players or not.

They look at it from the point of view that the clubs and players have entered a contract between them which binds the clubs to pay the player for a set period of time and, in return, binds the player to play during that period.

They say that if a player refuses to play -- as the union action threatens -- that player will be in breach of contract. All the noises coming from the players point to a huge support for the union.

Bolton Wanderers striker Dean Holdsworth believes the players will be solidly behind any action if the two parties cannot come to an agreement. He says: "Not everyone's rich and not everyone's in the position of being able to pack up and go and sit on a yacht for the rest of their lives.

"We're not talking about the rich footballers here. It's about the majority of players who have to carry on after football, those who have to retire through injury and so many other ex-players who need the union's support".