Players 'close' to going on strikes - Rodri

Understand player concerns but some of the anger should also be directed at the clubs.

There are many matches, particularly with City where players should be rested / subs could be used and aren’t.

None of the European clubs should be putting a strong team out in the league cup until the last few rounds.
 
sullydnl said:
The argument isn't that overplaying players makes Man City worse. It's that it impacts the general standard of top level football games relative to how it would look if the best players weren't run into the ground.

The part I've highlighted in bold tells you absolutely nothing about the general quality of the football served up in those games. Or, more to the point, the quality of football served up by those players across all the club and international games fans are expected to pay premium prices to go see.

You as a consumer are effectively arguing to be sold a worse product. Whether it's through the best players playing worse, or the best players playing less.
Click to expand...


So when people make the claim that general quality of football served is poor, how do you judge that? There is no metric to prove that has / will happen.

Players have been playing this sort of number of games for 20/30 years or more.. all I see if fans saying, "If it continues.. players will break".

Why cant players take the initiative? Put it in their contracts that they have a maximum of x amount of games they will play? Maybe because it will impact their bank balance?

Players in the past played more games, in worse conditions, nowhere near the healthcare and diet they get now.

I remember Ronaldo at the age of 36 at United crying and throwing his toys out the pram because he was dropped for a game against Everton 3 years ago?

Say players are capped in their contracts, for example Rodri at 50 games which is what he wants and City get to a CL final and the manager goes ohhh no, you have gone past your allowance, they will sit there happily?
 
The season where City won the treble they played 61 games. In contrast United played 59 in the treble winning season. Rodri played 56 games while Keane played 54 (and would have played 55 if not for the ban in the final). So the big teams seem to have almost the same load as they did back then for the most part and so do the top players. It clearly doesn't help Rodri that he also plays for Spain who go deep into almost every international competition.

Internationals might have increased a bit, England for instance are on 17 this year but played 12 in the year 2000 but a huge part of that is down to them getting out of the group this year and crashing out in 2000.

There might be slightly more load today but it really hasn't changed that much for the big clubs. Sure the game is faster but the general fitness level and coaching is also miles better today than it was 25 years ago. Lesser teams have more load due to Europe having more competitions where they make more money which allows them to pay better and get better players.

I'm not saying load isn't a problem but clubs should be able to handle it better. Look what Chelsea did with Palmer in Europe. And it's clear from the start of the PL campaign this season that a player like Rodri can be rested from time to time.

Load is a problem in every professional sport - it won't change. The money involved is crazy and it's up to the teams to find the right balance.

We've also entered a time where the concept of workload between generations has changed greatly and is a key variable that will continue to impact this discussion going forward.
 
sullydnl said:
The point Rodri is making is clearly correct. If players are overplayed, the quality of the football they produce is reduced. Which is bad for fans.

And if your solution is for the best players to be rotated more, that's hardly ideal for fans either. Because typically we want to see the best players playing the best possible level of football, especially if we're paying increasingly high ticket prices to go see those games.

And yet the immediate knee-jerk response of so many people is to criticise the players and make braindead comparisons to nurses, teachers, etc. In effect siding with the football bodies who are looking to extract as much money as possible from fans through a diluted product with higher prices, rather than the actual talent we pay to watch.
Click to expand...
Not once did he mention, "it's for the fans." I've heard the usual "burnt out" argument but, he's not exactly sticking his neck out to say the entertainment value will be better for the fans.
 
baskinginthesun said:
Not once did he mention, "it's for the fans." I've heard the usual "burnt out" argument but, he's not exactly sticking his neck out to say the entertainment value will be better for the fans.
Click to expand...

From Rodri's quote in the OP:

"If people want to see better football then we need to rest."

People in this context are football fans.
 
Need to cut international matches/breaks down enormously. Nations league does not need to exist. Halve the number of qualifying matches for Euros/WC. Repurpose the LC as a youth cup where top division teams have to play a certain number of players (5?) under 21, with these restrictions easing as you go down the divisions, to incentivise rotation and to give hope to the lower league clubs.
 
Go. On. Strike

Until players do FIFA/etc and the clubs will have no real incentive to listen

Fewer games does mean less money though, most likely
 
sullydnl said:
From Rodri's quote in the OP:

"If people want to see better football then we need to rest."

People in this context are football fans.
Click to expand...
Apologies. I read the BBC article and they didn't use that quote as far as I can tell.
 
The players' opinions are based on being able to produce consistent performances and play the sport they love for as long as possible, I don't get why people jump on them like they're saying they aren't paid enough to play this much.
 
sullydnl said:
The point Rodri is making is clearly correct. If players are overplayed, the quality of the football they produce is reduced. Which is bad for fans.

And if your solution is for the best players to be rotated more, that's hardly ideal for fans either. Because typically we want to see the best players playing the best possible level of football, especially if we're paying increasingly high ticket prices to go see those games.

And yet the immediate knee-jerk response of so many people is to criticise the players and make braindead comparisons to nurses, teachers, etc. In effect siding with the football bodies who are looking to extract as much money as possible from fans through a diluted product with higher prices, rather than the actual talent we pay to watch.
Click to expand...
Aye, 2002 World Cup was a good case in point. Double group stages in the Champions League. The final taking place only 2 weeks ahead of the start of the tournament. Most of the major nations bomb with their top players all jaded. Only Brazil hit their top level and a lot of that is a result of their two best players having injury-interrupted seasons enabling them to go in with less miles on the clock and hit the tournament fresh.
 
Vidyoyo said:
It seems obvious the best people to listen to are the ones feeling the physical effect of playing the games. Everything else is noise.
Click to expand...

In your mind is it only the players playing for the best teams we need to listen to as well? Because I dont recall a championship player coming out saying its too many games? Or mid table team players?

Also, you are forgetting no one is forcing them to play these many games, they can sign for a club playing 1 game a week, it was their choice to sign for top clubs. Its not like when you sign for the club, you have no idea how many games it could involve.
 
Less of the dreadful international breaks would go some way to helping.
 
They should just introduce a law/rule that no player can play more than 40-50 games or the equivalent in minutes. Then it's up to the clubs to manage it. Done. Sorted.
 
Fully agree. Scrap the Nations League and reduce the number of international windows during the season to 1 in March. Club football is where the money is made and is the main reason people watch. I would also eliminate the Carling Cup and all second domestic cup competitions around Europe. One is enough.
 
fewer games in the johnstone’s paint trophy, you cheating cnut.
 
UpWithRivers said:
They should just introduce a law/rule that no player can play more than 40-50 games or the equivalent in minutes. Then it's up to the clubs to manage it. Done. Sorted.
Click to expand...

Considering the most important games are at the very end of the season, that would be an absolute disaster I think.
 
UpWithRivers said:
They should just introduce a law/rule that no player can play more than 40-50 games or the equivalent in minutes. Then it's up to the clubs to manage it. Done. Sorted.
Click to expand...
Ooh. I like this idea. Would introduce a new wrinkle to coaching and would force coaches to make full use of the squads they spend so much money building.
 
Gio said:
Aye, 2002 World Cup was a good case in point. Double group stages in the Champions League. The final taking place only 2 weeks ahead of the start of the tournament. Most of the major nations bomb with their top players all jaded. Only Brazil hit their top level and a lot of that is a result of their two best players having injury-interrupted seasons enabling them to go in with less miles on the clock and hit the tournament fresh.
Click to expand...
So is the problem international football or club football?

Most of us have more of an emotional attachment to our club than we do our country. I think most of us will watch The Euros and World Cup but miss the qualifiers.

I also feel a lot of us piss and moan about the international breaks.

I don't believe club football is the problem, I feel the international calander is where players are being pushed further especially with the extra travel.
 
I agree but only because both players and I think fans don't want more football.

It's only the money folk who want more and we should never let those guys have 100% control.
 
Gio said:
Aye, 2002 World Cup was a good case in point. Double group stages in the Champions League. The final taking place only 2 weeks ahead of the start of the tournament. Most of the major nations bomb with their top players all jaded. Only Brazil hit their top level and a lot of that is a result of their two best players having injury-interrupted seasons enabling them to go in with less miles on the clock and hit the tournament fresh.
Click to expand...

The result was the best final ever.

Knackered players make for better games.
 
Surely this only impacts a fraction of players? Those at top teams in every competition and in their international teams?

I am sure you aren't going to get someone in League 2 saying the same thing

It should also be on the clubs/nations to manage the squad as well. Not saying there aren't too many games for some but it's not like it's a blanket thing across everybody in football
 
Presumably, he'd be happy to earn less money for playing fewer games then. Doubt it somehow...
 
The players should go on strike. Only way to get UEFA and FIFA to listen. All they are doing with an increasing amount of games is diluting quality of the product.

NFL is a great idea example, richest sports league in the world by revenue and they only play 17 games a season (if you reach the Superbowl that is).

I don't blame the domestic leagues, it's the European and international competitions where the greed of UEFA and FIFA is causing the most issues.

If the number of games doesn't come down then maybe bigger squads would be an answer. Or some sort of medical rule that means a player cant play another game until 72 hours (3 days have lapsed).
 
100 said:
Understand player concerns but some of the anger should also be directed at the clubs.

There are many matches, particularly with City where players should be rested / subs could be used and aren’t.

None of the European clubs should be putting a strong team out in the league cup until the last few rounds.
Click to expand...
It’s a good point. It would be good for football if players were given a quota of minutes per season for both club and international tournaments.

It would make an additional dynamic for managers to deal with.
 
Jippy said:
That sounds fair, though shame it'll never happen.

There is a wider point about saturation levels of football and expanding tournaments making them a more boring viewing experience, with more dead rubber and one-sided games.

Even if you don't care about player welfare, low energy matches were players are clearly knackered and teams struggling with injuries also make dull viewing.
Click to expand...

That's true but as others have mentioned this only applies to maybe two handful of clubs and it's a direct cause of FFP and the concentration of talent among the same teams who end up finalists of every tournaments on the planet. If talents were spread out teams would be more likely to play 50-55 games most seasons. But today two handful of top CL and EL teams are almost guaranteed to go far in all competitions every seasons.
 
Last edited:
Marwood said:
I agree but only because both players and I think fans don't want more football.

It's only the money folk who want more and we should never let those guys have 100% control.
Click to expand...
Why fans wouldn't want less games? Every fan wants to watch his team as much as it can. You will skip today's game? Or EL games?
Also....only best players from biggest clubs have issues about amount of games. It is maybe max 1% of players total.
Ask players from Cardiff, Leicester, Cadiz, Bremen, Celtic etc....do they want more or less games. I bet that all other players would change places with these spoiled prima donnas this second.
 
Andycoleno9 said:
Why fans wouldn't want less games? Every fan wants to watch his team as much as it can. You will skip today's game? Or EL games?
Also....only best players from biggest clubs have issues about amount of games. It is maybe max 1% of players total.
Ask players from Cardiff, Leicester, Cadiz, Bremen, Celtic etc....do they want more or less games. I bet that all other players would change places with these spoiled prima donnas this second.
Click to expand...

I didn't say fans want less games. I said I don't think they necessarily want more. You can get too much of something as a spectator. Especially when there's cost involved.
 
I’m on the players side on this. More and more pointless games being added to the calendar and teams doing breaks and preseason in far flung places. Something has to give.
 
Last edited:
Can't ever see a solution. There is too much individual power and not enough collective organisation in the game. It requires the clubs, the nations, confederations, FIFA, and the players all to accept fewer games and less income.

The game continues to eat itself.
 
Pexbo said:
It’s a good point. It would be good for football if players were given a quota of minutes per season for both club and international tournaments.

It would make an additional dynamic for managers to deal with.
Click to expand...
Quansah's cameo vs Ipswich aside, Slot started all 4 games with same 11. His gk is one who is calling for strike. Players really should start talking with their managers first instead crying about it.
 
Gio said:
Can't ever see a solution. There is too much individual power and not enough collective organisation in the game. It requires the clubs, the nations, confederations, FIFA, and the players all to accept fewer games and less income.

The game continues to eat itself.
Click to expand...

The PFA exists in England (presumably they also exist in the top 5 leagues). If they go on a coordinated strike, they can achieve it. If they can't manage collective action, then why not? Why is it hard for them to build consensus amongst players for this issue?

One solution is bigger squad sizes. I'm not a fan of regulation in general so I don't think the FA or the PL should cap players' minutes (or internationals for that matter). The existing incentives are good enough for managers to not overplay their star players. Slot is already subbing out fullbacks early to manage their workload.
 
golden_blunder said:
I’m on the players side on this. More and more pointless faves being added to the calendar and teams doing breaks and preseason in far flung places. Something has to give.
Click to expand...

Ban preseason tours would be a nice start. Quit fannying about in California and do your pre season against local teams. The tours are for the sponsors and making money for the clubs and produce diabolically bad football.
 
kouroux said:
If the players are hit in their pockets, there won't be any strike. These players sign these luxurious contracts and don't expect to pay with more efforts ?
Click to expand...
Yes they should run their bodies into the ground and suffer long term issues, well, because they get paid
 
Gandalf said:
Ban preseason tours would be a nice start. Quit fannying about in California and do your pre season against local teams. The tours are for the sponsors and making money for the clubs and produce diabolically bad football.
Click to expand...
And players get their salaries from where?
 
mustaine said:
The season where City won the treble they played 61 games. In contrast United played 59 in the treble winning season. Rodri played 56 games while Keane played 54 (and would have played 55 if not for the ban in the final). So the big teams seem to have almost the same load as they did back then for the most part and so do the top players. It clearly doesn't help Rodri that he also plays for Spain who go deep into almost every international competition.

Internationals might have increased a bit, England for instance are on 17 this year but played 12 in the year 2000 but a huge part of that is down to them getting out of the group this year and crashing out in 2000.

There might be slightly more load today but it really hasn't changed that much for the big clubs. Sure the game is faster but the general fitness level and coaching is also miles better today than it was 25 years ago. Lesser teams have more load due to Europe having more competitions where they make more money which allows them to pay better and get better players.

I'm not saying load isn't a problem but clubs should be able to handle it better. Look what Chelsea did with Palmer in Europe. And it's clear from the start of the PL campaign this season that a player like Rodri can be rested from time to time.

Load is a problem in every professional sport - it won't change. The money involved is crazy and it's up to the teams to find the right balance.

We've also entered a time where the concept of workload between generations has changed greatly and is a key variable that will continue to impact this discussion going forward.
Click to expand...
The new champions league format and other coming changes is the issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.