Anne Wong
Player frustration over playing too many games and not getting enough rest is building across football. But just how close is the sport to a player strike?
The issue of burnout has always been a significant topic in the game, but the expansion of UEFA’s club competitions and FIFA’s brand-new Club World Cup has put it at the top of the agenda.
Player Workload: An Ongoing Issue
Player workload has been a long-standing issue, with the biggest clubs often in competitions until the final stages, then jetting off for long-distance preseason tours in the United States or Asia. These trips can last for two or three weeks and involve several matches.
The top players also have to factor in international games, and the travel that entails during a season, plus major tournaments every two years. It’s very easy to play upward of 60 matches.
Despite the growing tension, football has just about been able to manage the situation. Players have been able to get at least the suggested level of rest — usually three to four weeks — in between seasons, while every second year would have a blank space on the international calendar for extended recuperation.
The New Club World Cup: A Game-Changer?
But the Club World Cup, which puts a monthlong, 32-team club competition into one of those summers of rest, could prove to be the final straw.
FIFA insists that the Club World Cup is only taking a slot in the calendar previously occupied by the Confederations Cup — a quadrennial international tournament staged by the upcoming World Cup hosts as a test event. However, the Confederations Cup involved only eight nations, lasted two weeks and did not feature nearly as many players who had been involved in the grueling European club season.
FIFPRO Speaks Out
FIRPRO, the global body which represents over 65,000 footballers worldwide, and the players’ unions in England, France and Italy, submitted a legal claim against FIFA in June. It sought to challenge the legality of FIFA unilaterally setting the international match calendar and its decision to expand the Club World Cup.
FIFPRO said within its submission that “players and their unions have consistently highlighted the current football calendar as overloaded and unworkable,” adding that, “the new FIFA Club World Cup is seen by players and unions as representing a tipping point.”
In addition, FIFPRO said that “Player unions believe such decisions by FIFA are in breach of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (CFREU), without any serious justification. Ultimately, player unions believe the aim of this new competition is to increase the wealth and power of football’s global governing body, with no proper regard for the impact on the players involved or on other stakeholders within professional football.”
Players’ Voices Amplify
This week, Manchester City midfielder Rodri became the first high-profile player to warn that footballers are ready to go on strike. Real Madrid goalkeeper Thibaut Courtois joined Rodri in talking about the possibility of players taking unprecedented action. Liverpool goalkeeper Alisson Becker, Barcelona’s Jules Koundé and Aston Villa’s John McGinn soon followed.
Managers such as Pep Guardiola, Mikel Arteta and Jurgen Klopp have also sounded alarm bells over exhaustion. And on Friday, Real Madrid coach Carlo Ancelotti said he believes players would be willing to take a pay cut if it meant playing fewer games.
Legal Action: The Next Step?
Sources have told ESPN that the focus of FIFPRO and the players’ unions at this stage remains the legal action against FIFA, so their energies are being directed towards that. If that action succeeds — there is no firm timescale for a resolution — a player strike is unlikely as FIFA would effectively be forced to shelve, amend or reschedule the Club World Cup.
Even if the PFA were to ballot its 5,000 members, selling a strike to those players outside of the top clubs who are not directly affected would not be straightforward. Player unions represent players at all levels of the game, so could they be certain of commanding a majority in favor?
The Bigger Picture
Club owners, who benefit from the increased financial uplift of more games in high-profile tournaments, have so far remained silent on the concerns of players.
Maheta Molango, the CEO of England’s Professional Footballers’ Association (PFA), told ESPN in August that he could “absolutely not” discount industrial action by players if their concerns were not addressed. He reiterated to ESPN this week that FIFA must “sit up and take notice.” Football would, obviously, grind to a halt without footballers, so the players are in a powerful position to drive change — if they have the stomach to force it through.
Alexander Bielefeld, FIFPRO’s director of global policy and strategic relations for men’s football, told a panel at the World Football Summit this week, “When unions in countries like England, France, Italy and other markets visit the players every preseason and talk to the national team players, the No. 1 concern is workload.”
Is a Strike Inevitable?
Here is the reality check: There are lots of hypotheticals, but at this stage, a strike is not on the agenda and would be difficult for the players to get over the line.
A players’ strike is a distant prospect right now, but every additional soundbite from leading players will serve to keep the issue in the public domain. The reality, however, is that it will be decided behind closed doors.
If the legal case goes in FIFA’s favor, a players’ strike could become a much greater possibility.
A players’ strike over football’s packed schedule is not imminent, but the tension is palpable. With ongoing legal battles and increasing player unrest, the pressure on football’s governing bodies is mounting.
Whether or not a strike happens, the call for change in football’s overloaded calendar is growing louder, signaling that players’ concerns can no longer be ignored.
