What would make football more ethical?

The latest issue of Ethical Consumer magazine has a good piece on Premiership football clubs. Sarah Irving's article acknowledges that supporting a club is hardly a matter of choice on the same level as, say, washing powder but she explores some thought-provoking points.

Ethical Consumer rates all the clubs by the corporate ethics of their owners, kit suppliers and shirt sponsors. Initially there aren't too many surprises: all the teams are broadly as bad or good as each other.

For the curious, Blackburn Rovers sit at the bottom of the main table thanks, in part, to the Walker Trust's reported involvement in animal testing. But most individuals or companies rich enough to invest in a Premiership club are likely to be involved in the types of large corporations (e.g: overseas clothing manufacture, oil, and banking). And it is these types of large corporations which tend to score badly with Ethical Consumer.

Perhaps if Thaksin Shinawatra, Thailand's controversial former prime minister, still owned Manchester City then the table would have looked a bit different. Another interesting ‘personality' owner is the man behind Fulham Football Club, Harrods impresario Mohamed Al Fayed, who routinely gets criticism for selling fur products.

Outside of the Premiership there are clubs such as Stockport, Notts County and, famously, AFC Wimbledon who are owned by Supporters Trusts. I wonder if this would ever work for a top-flight club these days. Such democratic structures may be unwieldy for a top-flight club, but it would certainly be interesting to see.

Many of the team kit manufacturers have black marks against them for international workers' rights. Once again we have to acknowledge that, for the committed supporter, choosing not to buy your team's shirt for ethical reasons is a step too far.

Likewise, fans can't do a lot about their team's shirt sponsor but there have been some interesting developments in that area. Following the example of Barcelona and their UNICEF sponsorship, Aston Villa score points with Ethical Consumer for advertising a charity, Acorn Children's Hospice, on their shirts.

The best score in the report, rather cheekily, goes to Newcastle United since: "Given Northern Rock's financial troubles in the past year, it's been suggested that its continued sponsorship makes Newcastle Britain's state-funded football team."

But the most interesting part of the article tackles that most controversial part of top-flight football, something that gets even non-football fans hot under the collar: Premiership wages. The average income of a Premiership footballer in the 2005-6 season was £676,000. That average may be skewed dramatically by the top earners on more than £80,000 a week but it's still staggering and it's a good bet that the average is even higher this season.

Conversely, a 2007 poll that found that the British public thought that the average salary of Premiership footballer should be around £62,000. So there is a huge discrepancy between what players are paid and their perceived worth by the population.

What makes these amounts seem even more outrageous is that many clubs are known to pay minimum wage to their cleaners and catering staff. A Deloitte Survey found players wages account for a whopping 60% of a top club's turnover. Will Hodson asks in the article whether we should not celebrate this as a victory for the workers. But if it is only the elite players that are doing well, I'm afraid I don't agree.

The wider model of how clubs are financed just seems wrong and I wonder how long it can continue. The clubs are in debt years or decades into the future, whilst trying to compete by getting the top players on the highest wages.

But what's the answer? I, for one, would support an annual salary cap for an individual player and even a whole team. The money saved could be used in any number of ways - what about cheaper tickets and a better wage for the entire club's staff. Or how about more support of the lower leagues or football in developing countries?

Some teams such as Manchester City, Arsenal, Middlesbrough and non-league Dartford have made investments in becoming greener by improving facilities, power supply and transport links. And more clubs could do the same. Or how about each club owning and broadcasting their own home games live online on a pay per view basis? That way, we wouldn't have to put up with the scheduling shenanigans of the major TV channels and the money would go to the clubs.

What would make football more ethical in your opinion?

Get more green and ethical living advice at bbcgreen.com.