A PLAYERS' strike leaves Britain facing a day without football. At a time when the armchair fan is rarely more than a commercial break away from the next live game, this is an astonishing prospect.

Football is all about winning, but a strike would only create losers: the biggest being the game itself.

Professional footballers are entertainers. Fans pay to escape from the stresses of ordinary life by immersing themselves in their team's performance. If players deny them that opportunity, a lot of people will feel very let down.

There is also a danger that a strike could damage the game long-term, as happened to US baseball when players walked out. Going to watch your team is a habit. Once broken, fans can and do find other things to do with their time.

Players are aware of all these risks. Yet they still voted by an incredible 99 per cent margin for strike action. That shows the level of anger prompted by the Premier League's stance.

The league earns hundreds of millions of pounds selling TV rights. Yet it is looking to cut back the share it gives to the Professional Footballers' Association, which spends it on players' education and welfare.

A football career is short. Players at lower division clubs like York City do not earn excessive amounts and their livelihood could be ended overnight by injury. They need a safety net, and it is right that some of the money sloshing around at the top end of the game is earmarked for that purpose.

The league chairmen have a point when they say that the flat £75 subscription rate paid by all footballers to the PFA should be changed so the millionaire footballers make more of a contribution. But that does not absolve them of their responsibilities to lower league players.

One thing is certain. A strike will help no one.

There is still an opportunity to negotiate a compromise.

For the sake of football, both sides should take it.

Updated: 10:56 Wednesday, November 21, 2001