Football has become moneyball, though not in the way the phrase was originally intended. The global game has become a financial superpower. The Premier League, as the richest division, has become indelibly associated with pounds and dollars, euros and yen.

Project Restart, its proposed resumption next month, is being portrayed in some quarters as being about greed. But the numbers are colossal. The Premier League spends about £3 billion (S$5.19 billion) annually in wages; to put it another way, in the three months without games from March to June, it will have forked out around £750 million. Compared to those outgoings, the incomings are minimal.

It illustrates why, when clubs vote today, they have an imperative to choose to play. And it is why, when players, either individually or collectively, decide, they have a fiscal decision to make. Many have made charitable donations. Some have taken pay cuts or deferrals to protect the jobs of lower-earning staff at clubs but, percentage-wise, those are still small reductions.

Without football, clubs have no revenue and the majority of their revenue is spent on salaries. Football needs to return.

No player should be forced to play and it is thought most want to. But, unless they have underlying medical issues, players should not expect to get paid if they make themselves unavailable.

West Ham's Manuel Lanzini said it would be "crazy" to play until there is a vaccine. He is entitled to that view, but he cannot assume he will get a sizeable salary while, in effect, he has retired.

Raheem Sterling, Troy Deeney, Danny Rose and Glenn Murray are among those who have cast doubt on their participation. If they want to opt out, they should be able to. But businesses already haemorrhaging money by playing behind closed doors cannot subsidise their inactivity.

There are exceptions. Dean Smith has said that one of his Aston Villa charges has asthma; that unnamed footballer should not be punished for his condition. It is also right that players, either through the Professional Footballers' Association or their clubs, examine newly-established protocol and raise concerns.

Given the ethnic make-up of the Premier League, it is especially worrying that Black, Asian and minority ethnic people in the UK seem far more susceptible to Covid-19 than their white counterparts.

But several other elements need considering. Players are right to think of relatives who fall into vulnerable categories, but are blessed with the money to ensure they need not live together. It is worth noting that just 1 per cent of those who have died from coronavirus in the UK are under 45; those under 35, like virtually all footballers, are even less at risk.

The La Liga president, Javier Tebas, cited a study that showed footballers are only within an infectious distance of each other for an average of 88 seconds per match.

The Premier League is spending £4 million on tests to try and keep its players safe and quickly identify those who have contracted anything. They will be tested twice a week.

All of which brings a contrast with the rest of society. In part, that reflects the British government's woeful failure on testing, but millions of people, many older, are working with no such security and with far more contact with untested members of the public. The reality now is that, barring a vaccine, many of us will have to adjust to a world where there is some risk, but which we try and minimise.

Footballers occupy a privileged position and, unlike many, can afford to say no, but they have a duty to the thousands employed in and around the game to help them earn a living. And they can't have it both ways: with pay but no play.