Talks between the Premier League and the players' union broke down last night, and PFA boss Gordon Taylor announced that the action will start on the weekend of December 1st.

We had anticipated that this coming Sunday's Arsenal vs Man Utd clash at Highbury might be the first live Sky game hit, but it has escaped. We'll have to see if the strike (if it happens) lasts long enough to affect the visit of Aston Villa on December 9th.

Of course, the action could hit all games. It would depend on what the TV companies decide to do. Because "striking" players are not refusing to play per se, but rather refusing to play in front of TV cameras, it is quite possible that all the football can carry on through the action. In this case, there just wouldn't be any TV pictures of the games. But if the TV companies refuse to withdraw, the players would presumably be forced to refuse to play.

So when is a strike not a strike? When the striker does not withdraw their services from their employer. This looks more like a "work to rule" to me. This could impact upon the Premier League's threat of legal action against striking players. Their psoition appears to be that they will take strikers to court if they withdraw their services, saying that the action would be illegal because the dispute is not directly between the players and their employers. That doesn't appear to be a straightforward claim, since the Premier League do represent the clubs. But in any case, the players would not be refusing to work outright, only under certain circumstances.

Whatever one thinks about the rights and wrongs, it would at least be refreshing to see our rich footballers going to such lengths to support those less fortunate. Make no mistake about this, the percentage of TV money going to the PFA makes no difference to the likes of Beckham, Bergkamp, Vieira, et al.

Whether they are within their rights or not, the big name players' stance is an altruistic one and for that I applaud them.