There are obviously too many games, as everyone seeks to get their piece of the pie. The only language that will be understood is an economic one. Any argument over the health of the players will fall on deaf ears. No one with any power cares. They just want to make more money.
The question is where would the cut come from? All these extra tournaments cropping up, like the expanded club World Cup, are obvious contenders but good luck getting FIFA to put welfare before income.
The issue is also more nuanced than just total amount of minutes played across the board, because what concerns me the most are the enormous amount of games played by players that are too young to handle it. Just look at Barca’s handling of Fati, Pedri, Gavi and now Lamal. They all played a dangerous amount of minutes, and they’ve all - barring Lamal - suffered debilitating injuries as a result. Lamal’s are probably coming. And in Fati’s case, his career has been destroyed.
No-one in power will listen, but there should be a cap on minutes played by players under 20. It doesn’t have to be restrictive, and we have to keep incentivising the promotion of youth, but I think the economic advantages of producing your own players or signing players when they are young are already enough to do that. What shouldn’t be allowed to happen is 16, 17, or 18 year olds playing 55-60 games a season in a men’s sport when their bodies are still developing. One of the greatest players of all time, Ronaldo Luis Nazario de Lima, had his career destroyed by injuries at the age of 23.
What isn’t talked about is that his knee injuries weren’t a surprise. Everyone remembers him at the age of 21 having a seizure hours before the World Cup final, and still being allowed (or made, depending on who you talk to) to play; but what isn’t talked about is that he was having knee issues as early as when he was 17 at PSV. At that time he was diagnosed with Osgood-Schlatter syndrome, primarily caused by over-powered quadriceps and is an overuse injury. Teenagers under going a growth spurt are the most typical sufferers of it. Despite that he continued to play a lot of games and had persistent knee problems through his final year at PSV, and pain throughout his entire stint at Barca - where he barely missed a game.
The determination to play these young players, who are superstars in the making, is understandable, but it’s also counter productive in the long term. Ferguson was a master at blooding youngsters steadily, no matter how good they were, but others have rarely been so conscientious. Probably because managers barely last more than 2-3 years a time, so why would they care of a player is going to experience issues 3-4 years down the line? They aren’t invested in the long term benefit of the club or player. Just immediate results. And of course, it’s not just about the amount of minutes, but also how we treat injuries. Fati’s nightmare isn’t just because he was playing every week, it’s because when he did get injured, the club put off surgery so he could play through it and help the team in the short term. The result has been catastrophic for Fati, who has had his knee destroyed.
Something needs to be done and it is u likely to come from UEFA or FIFA who are purely motivated by greed. The clubs themselves are obviously motivated by greed too, but at least a counter argument can be made to them that they need to protect the long term health of their most valuable assets. But unless all the clubs agree to controls, then individual clubs are less likely to act alone, because it may give them a small competitive disadvantage in the short term.
In England, the advent of an independent regulator that appears to be looking on the horizon for the the Premier League, would be the obvious mechanism by which to do it. An organisation that should be motivated by altruistic themes and not have any financial stake in success or failure. Just the welfare of the players and the fans, whilst ensuring a sustainable competitive environment for clubs. I would hope such a regulator would put safeguards on the minutes allowed by players from 16-19 as a sliding scale, with more allowed each season. I’m not talking anything too restrictive, but a healthy cap that increases each year and has at its heart the assumption that growing bodies cannot be subject to the same persistent punishment as a fully developed athlete in his early to mid twenties.
Something like:
2,000 minutes per season for 16 yr olds (22 games).
3,000 mins for 17 yr olds (33 games)
4,000 mins for 18 yr olds (44 games)
5,000 mins for 19 yr olds (55 games).
Clubs should get 90% of that allocation. With the remaining 10% set aside for International games. Clubs should also be able to refuse calls ups to senior national teams games for any player 18 or younger. There would be a lot of details to work out in terms of cut off dates etc. but all easily workable. At 20 (ish - depending on cut offs/categorisations etc) restrictions are lifted.
The amount of minutes allowed is more than enough to allow an 18 year old to be a major part of any squad. They could play every league game and a few cup games etc, but it stops the ridiculous situations where you have 16-18 year olds playing 55-60+ games a year of men’s football. Youth, u-21 football would be exempt from calculations.
There should be further restrictions too. Such as a player competing in the Euros or a World Cup, is barred from appearing in the Olympics in the same summer, and vice versa. A ridiculous situation that we saw Pedri doing a couple of summers ago.
