On Monday, the Denise Coates Foundation made a donation to the charity that supports University Hospitals of North Midlands.
And Denise Coates is paid an awful lot of money. Every year, her reward for being the brains behind a game-changing online betting company — and she did revolutionise an entire industry, with all of her rivals copying her model — provokes a debate on executive salaries.
Still, as Gordon Taylor would no doubt point out, she does pay an extraordinary amount of tax. And it could be argued this, alone, is enough. The Coates family plainly did not think so. The donation was £10million.
And that's how straightforward it is. If you have a spare million or two, it really does not require the Professional Footballers' Association to mediate across two weeks and counting, or Jordan Henderson to go out and set up a charity from scratch.
Anyway, footballers are not being asked to fund the National Health Service, despite the decency of Henderson's intentions. Right now, we have the Government and many existing charities to do that.
The request to footballers is from their clubs and, if anything, it is more readily resolved than any charitable donation.
'The first thing to say is that if Derby County needed me to take a pay cut to save the club I would understand and look to support them in whatever way I could,' wrote Wayne Rooney at the weekend.
There is a lot of this emotion about.
'You cannot prescribe a blanket approach,' Ryan Bertrand, of Southampton, told The Guardian. 'You might need a 19 per cent cut at one of the smaller clubs and 36 per cent at the larger Champions League ones. I'm sure if you did 40 per cent here, 20 per cent there and 16 per cent there, you'd get to the overall 30 per cent.'
He called it 'maths for dummies', which is appropriate as that model works out at 25.3 per cent, not 30.
You will notice, however, that while these are noble sentiments, and not without logic, neither actually amounts to a penny, for clubs, or even our dearly beloved NHS just yet.
Simon Jordan, the former chairman of Crystal Palace is seen by many as a controversialist, but he had a point when he conjured the image of players being dragged kicking and screaming towards deferments. 'They haven't done it, because they don't want to do it and they are going to have to be made to do it,' he said.
'What can you do in three weeks? I don't know, maybe you can build a 4,000-bed hospital in London. But we can't get players in the Premier League to take a cut that is clearly needed to salvage their football clubs.'
The launch of Henderson's charity does not change that. It is a noble gesture, but fails to address the problem within the game. By all accounts, footballers remain resistant to cuts that rescue club finances.
And footballers are easy targets, we know. Everyone trots out that line now. Ole Gunnar Solskjaer, manager of Manchester United, reiterated it this week.
'It's unfair to call on any individual or footballers as a group,' he said. Well, yes and no. Nobody is calling out his player, Marcus Rashford, for instance. He is not an easy target.
Several weeks ago, Rashford started working with the charity FareShare providing healthy dinners for schoolchildren who may have gone without during lockdown. He won assistance from food providers totalling £20m.
So, no, Rashford is most certainly not an easy target. Henderson, too, has won universal praise for his charitable initiative.
The players at Leeds United, who agreed a package of wage cuts and deferrals that allowed the club to trim one third off its budget, are rightly lauded.
It was revealed this week that they have also been gratefully gifted a two per cent pay bonus when football resumes and, despite the club reporting an annual pre-tax loss of £21.4m on Wednesday, there appears no resentment on either side. Nor should there be.
Players receive the going rate for performers at the peak of the entertainment industry. The game generates fortunes and, in the good times, these salaries can be justified: private companies pay private individuals what they are worth in the current market.
'If the Government approached me to help support nurses financially or buy ventilators I'd be proud to do so — as long as I knew where the money was going,' Rooney added. And no doubt he would. I've seen his charity work, first-hand. It's exceptional.
Yet why the element of implied mistrust about the use of his funds?
That was strikingly absent from the Denise Coates Foundation donation. Peter Coates did not place any caveats on the £10m. It was just given.
What has grounded football in the mire is the constant qualifications, seemingly driven by PFA chief Taylor, the endless ifs and buts.
Footballers will help, but first this, first that, if this is proven, if that comes to pass, with this guarantee, with that proviso.
One of the complications around Henderson's charity was that players at various clubs wanted their local unit to benefit, or the health service in their native country.
As for club finances, a general agreement in principle could have been reached by now, with individual fine tuning for the economic circumstance of each. It wasn't as complex as Bertrand made it sound.
Rooney talked about a youngster in the Derby team, who still lives on a council estate with his mum and probably pays the bills for his whole family. No doubt every club has one, and no doubt those individuals can be made exempt.
Yet to advance the outliers as the reason a deal with clubs cannot be struck? There were quite probably many reasons the Nightingale hospital couldn't be built in two weeks, too. Turns out things can get done quite quickly in exceptional times, if you want.