The recent legal complaint filed by the top European leagues and the players’ union Fifpro against FIFA has sparked significant debate about the governance of football and the welfare of players. This unprecedented action raises critical questions about the balance of power in international football and the implications for players and clubs alike.
How did we get to this?
The ongoing dispute regarding player workloads has culminated in this legal action, which highlights the increasing strain on athletes due to an overloaded fixture calendar. The Professional Footballers’ Association (PFA) previously joined a legal challenge against FIFA in June, citing the “overloaded and unworkable” football calendar as a major concern. The complaint specifically targets FIFA’s unilateral decisions regarding the international match calendar, particularly the scheduling of the expanded FIFA Club World Cup set for 2025.
The PFA argues that the creation of this tournament, which will feature 12 European clubs, poses a significant threat to players’ ability to secure adequate rest periods between seasons. They contend that FIFA’s decisions favor commercial interests over player welfare, which could ultimately harm the economic viability of national leagues.
What does the football calendar look like?
The current football calendar is set to intensify, with all three European club competitions—Champions League, Europa League, and Europa Conference League—expanding to 36 teams. This means more matches and an increased burden on players, who are already stretched thin. The Premier League season will conclude on May 25, followed by the Champions League final on May 31, and then a brief window for international fixtures before the Club World Cup begins.
For many players, the transition from one season to the next will be almost seamless, as they prepare for international matches and then immediately pivot to participating in the Club World Cup. This lack of downtime raises valid concerns about player fatigue and the potential for injuries, which could have long-term implications for their careers.
What do the players say?
The voices of players are crucial in this debate, and many are expressing their dissatisfaction with the increasing number of games. Rodri, a midfielder for Manchester City and the Spanish national team, recently indicated that players are nearing a tipping point, suggesting a potential strike due to the excessive match schedule.
Rodri’s experience last season is a case in point; he participated in 63 matches for both club and country, logging over 6,100 minutes on the pitch. His perspective is echoed by other players, including Liverpool’s Alisson, who lamented the lack of consultation regarding the football calendar. Alisson remarked that players are often excluded from discussions about the growing number of fixtures, leading to widespread fatigue among athletes.
What do FIFA and UEFA say?
In response to the legal complaint and concerns raised by players and unions, FIFA maintains that it has consulted stakeholders adequately regarding changes to the international match calendar. FIFA has asserted its right to establish competition parameters while claiming to act in the best interests of football globally.
FIFA’s criticisms extend to some leagues, accusing them of hypocrisy for prioritizing lucrative friendly matches and summer tours over player welfare. Meanwhile, UEFA President Aleksander Čeferin acknowledges the calendar’s strain, stating that while some clubs are indeed over-burdened, others have the capacity to accommodate more matches.
A recent report from the CIES Football Observatory further complicates the narrative. It indicates that while player complaints are valid, the average number of matches per club has remained stable over the past decade, with few clubs consistently exceeding 60 games per season.
This ongoing dispute between players, leagues, and governing bodies illustrates the complexities of modern football management. As the case unfolds, it will be essential to consider the perspectives of all stakeholders, particularly the players whose physical and mental health is at stake. The outcome could shape the future of football governance and the balance of power within the sport, as well as the long-term welfare of its most vital asset: the players.