I don't think you can ever eliminate the natural advantage the bigger countries/clubs have over the smaller ones. In the end with football, generally speaking, those that have more resources will do better. The problem of overplaying is widespread though, I think a new rule would probably do more good than harm.
Players 'close' to going on strikes - Rodri
- Thread starter SilentWitness
- Start date
Either teams need to use their squad depths or eliminate international friendlies and "friendly tournaments".
If players can't cope and are too tired then don't pick them - I'm sure they aren't being FORCED to play.
If players can't cope and are too tired then don't pick them - I'm sure they aren't being FORCED to play.
For me the incentives and disincentives involved in the game mean the system manages itself. If fans believe the quality of matches is deteriorating then they will pay less pounds per additional match to watch the spectacle and there will be diminishing returns on each additional fixture (someone may pay £50 to watch a cup final on TV, but they wouldn't pay £2500 to watch 50 games in a season, however they may pay £500. If there were 150 games to watch they probably wouldn't pay either £7500 or £1500, but may pay £750).
On the players side there is already the simple choice to earn less and play less. In the here and now I am unaware of any player reducing their salary to reduce the amount of games they play, which suggests there isn't a problem at the current fixture level.
Like with the diminishing returns on pounds per additional match, the same would be true with players. My guess is if Rodri were offered a 10% salary increase to play twice as many games, he'd decline. He might however accept twice the salary for twice the fixtures, however, there isn't the demand to pay him for that.
On the players side there is already the simple choice to earn less and play less. In the here and now I am unaware of any player reducing their salary to reduce the amount of games they play, which suggests there isn't a problem at the current fixture level.
Like with the diminishing returns on pounds per additional match, the same would be true with players. My guess is if Rodri were offered a 10% salary increase to play twice as many games, he'd decline. He might however accept twice the salary for twice the fixtures, however, there isn't the demand to pay him for that.
To be fair, the workload has increased for players but they are getting compensated way more than footballers of years gone by, so I find myself a little bit apathetic to the whole discussion, but do understand it.
There's nothing stopping a player moving to a league, or a team, where you play less games. Trade off being that you're not going to play for a top club. If a player wants to play a max of 40 games a season, they can go and play for a mid table club and do that, and still earn a bucket load of money, right?
There are things that can be done, like removing stupid international friendlies and not flying players all around the globe for pre-season.
The player welfare side of things, I'm not informed enough, but sport science is more advanced than ever in terms of load management for players etc.. there are more injuries, but maybe that could be because there's more protection, as in 10/15 years ago that 2 week niggle might just have been a bit of strapping and out you go son.
There's nothing stopping a player moving to a league, or a team, where you play less games. Trade off being that you're not going to play for a top club. If a player wants to play a max of 40 games a season, they can go and play for a mid table club and do that, and still earn a bucket load of money, right?
There are things that can be done, like removing stupid international friendlies and not flying players all around the globe for pre-season.
The player welfare side of things, I'm not informed enough, but sport science is more advanced than ever in terms of load management for players etc.. there are more injuries, but maybe that could be because there's more protection, as in 10/15 years ago that 2 week niggle might just have been a bit of strapping and out you go son.
No he is not
Okay then.
He can declare himself unfit to play but as you are suggesting the club doesn't have to agree and he can be sanctioned if he doesn't report for work. That's why I always blame managers for these things, they are the only ones with the power to protect players but they often chose to protect themselves.
Football in general has pushed everything around it to silly/unsustainable levels.
Wages, games played, transfer fees, ticket prices, subscription costs , agent fees…the list goes on and on.
The thing is, if all that was halved and the was a bit more balance then I think it would benefit the sport..but (obviously) nobody is going to want to take less money. If anything, it’s the fans that should strike.
Wages, games played, transfer fees, ticket prices, subscription costs , agent fees…the list goes on and on.
The thing is, if all that was halved and the was a bit more balance then I think it would benefit the sport..but (obviously) nobody is going to want to take less money. If anything, it’s the fans that should strike.
@Berbaclass common sense
Agree, greed is the problem. Same as a lot of things now.
The game as entertainment was much better 5 or even 15+ years ago as well.
Not surprising. Footballers (and other athletes in general) are basically overpaid slaves. Do think sooner or later they'll have to reduce number of games as players won't take it anymore at some point.
I'm not suggesting he goes on strike
I'm saying if he's exhausted or not right to play he can say so.
And if the club don’t agree he can’tI'm not suggesting he goes on strike
I'm saying if he's exhausted or not right to play he can say so.
Sure
Fair enough to strike, but only to force their bosses to manage the workload better among the whole squad.
Nothing to do with the number of games. Players don't have to play every single game. That's why clubs can have an up to 25 players squad.
Nothing to do with the number of games. Players don't have to play every single game. That's why clubs can have an up to 25 players squad.
Last edited:
The players generally all say they want to play every game though. They don't want to be rested. They want to play every game that they possibly can because they have FOMO and don't like to share, so instead they want for there to be less games. And managers often don't want to rest them either as they want the best players on the pitch. So nobody really wants more squad rotation. Just less games.
That said I wouldn't be against scrapping the League Cup which has always felt a bit pointless to me. It's just a worse FA Cup?
He wouldn't be playing as many games if he wasn't playing for a club that cheated their way to success in both the league and multiple cup competitions.
Also bigger squads and more substitutions and loads more money into their pockets.
That's the unfortunate trade-off. Otherwise they could always negotiate a pay by play contract
Strike or play. It's that simple.
If players did strike they'd probably deserve more respect for putting a halt to the monetary greed from themselves / match organizers and forcing a revision.
If players did strike they'd probably deserve more respect for putting a halt to the monetary greed from themselves / match organizers and forcing a revision.
Yeah maybe the answer is to cap the number of appearances each player can make a season, this would force the manager to rest them and give the full squad more minuets.
I agree that the clubs are also abusing the playing time with certain players. However since this is the players complaining, I found it hypocritical to say the least
I don't think they ever would. A lot of them are happy to sit on their butts for years, collecting paycheck after paycheck
You could also argue they're being asked to play more without being paid any extra
Hope they do strike, this new fifa world club tournament next year was the last straw. These players have an event ever summer now, and the euros proved these player are worn out.
Well, all the additional football seems to primarily serve to tap more possible sources of income. More revenue in the sport means more money that clubs can pay players, meaning that someone will just to get that one top player - and that's how continuously payment levels increase.
As everyone keeps saying, players could just be rotated more, but people want to see the best teams field their bestnplayers to play their best football. Constant rotation doesn't contribute to that. Wouldn't it be more entertaining if teams actually had fewer games and smaller squads, and if the talent was therefore divided more broadly across clubs? It would mean a lot more quality matches.
Anyway, this can go all kinds of ways. But Rodri never said 'I want to play less for the same salary', so people inferring that opinion should just shut up.
Last edited:
The international friendlies are absolutely pointless. Do away with that and it solves some of the issues players are having.
I think it’s fair to say we wont see the next Lionel Messi or Ronaldo peaking in the important competitions if they have to play every summer and constantly too. Unless they get special treatment to take a rest here and there from their clubs and country.
Platini was absolutely right when he said something along the lines of “if we change a small thing here (VAR), it will be the opening of many smaller things changing of the game”.
Eventually we got a new game, and a shittier more sterile and generic product.
Please strike.
Platini was absolutely right when he said something along the lines of “if we change a small thing here (VAR), it will be the opening of many smaller things changing of the game”.
Eventually we got a new game, and a shittier more sterile and generic product.
Please strike.
You’re looking at number of games. You need to look at the number of days that players have at home, full days off.
Focusing on games tells the wrong story. The difference between 50 games and 60 is huge. Between 60 and 70 games is gigantic.
Considering the fact that no domestic games are being added; For every game you add, 50% of the time you add two days of travel. More flights, hotels, coaches, training sessions, and the matches themselves. Consequently, less days off, less time with family, just sat on the couch with their kids.
Regardless of how much these guys are paid, there’s a limit to what load a human body can take. Theres also the valid point that as much as they love playing, dragging themselves around hotel rooms and across countries and time zones… isn’t fun. Especially if it comes at the expense of their long term health.
Players are currently having physio treatments on flights (icing, etc) and coaches (massage) as means to being ready.
Why? It’s silly. Fans pay a shit load of money, ever increasing, they give up their time to support their team. Yet the governing bodies keep pressing the ‘More money’ button and as the players burn out, the fans get a worse product.
The sport could make some huge, sweeping changes. Especially when we consider how unfair the system is anyway. The biggest and best teams have advantages. You’re probably better off giving them more, for the benefit of the global game and player health.
Just shit out some better mad ideas. Spain are the best team on the planet. They will qualify for the next World Cup and Euros. Why not remove qualifying for them, and an additional few teams? Not every tournament, but every second tournament. With other teams getting the second turn. Perhaps as a quid pro quo you can seed them in Pot 2 instead of Pot 1. Of course they may not want to. They may value an international calendar to build a functional team. But we could table some bigger ideas that strip out 10 games a year in a pinch.
Or for the best 8 teams In Europe, give them all a free qualifying route, but make them all play each other once, in two geographical groups of 4 to establish tournament seedings. Play them in two game tranches at a neutral ground across the qualifying period, with a focus on locality. No genuine home or away, 50/50 fan splits at sensible prices.
Somethings gotta give. Expecting the respective bodies to concede a little, while knowing the other bodies will just take those days, just ain’t gonna work.
About 200,000 reasons a week I suspect.
Jokes aside, do you think they would accept the pay cut that comes with the reduced working hours?…
Footballer earning 300k plus bonuses a week threatens a strike unless he is allowed to work less than the 180 minutes a week he currently 'endures'.
In the meanwhile, his employers refuse to recognise unionisation and bludgeon basic human rights. This includes the right to imprison without trial (i.e. internment).
The truly enraging aspect of this cheek is many UK residents will be more receptive to this strike, more empathetic, than strikes for public sector workers.
In the meanwhile, his employers refuse to recognise unionisation and bludgeon basic human rights. This includes the right to imprison without trial (i.e. internment).
The truly enraging aspect of this cheek is many UK residents will be more receptive to this strike, more empathetic, than strikes for public sector workers.
Last edited:
Literally what he’s doing mate.
Try working 80 hour weeks for just over minimum wage, having to travel 3 hours every day just to get to work, then after all that you still can't pay all the bills you owe. On top of having to work for 50 years.
He really should be ashamed of his comments tbh, these footballers don't live in reality of the real world. You get paid tens of millions a year to perform and play football games/train. You only have to do it for the max of 20 years at the level where there are too many games, then you can retire in your mid 30's and never have to work a day in your life again.
I don't have an ounce of sympathy. If you don't like the game you knew you were getting into, while being heavily compensated and set up for life, then quit the game.
He really should be ashamed of his comments tbh, these footballers don't live in reality of the real world. You get paid tens of millions a year to perform and play football games/train. You only have to do it for the max of 20 years at the level where there are too many games, then you can retire in your mid 30's and never have to work a day in your life again.
I don't have an ounce of sympathy. If you don't like the game you knew you were getting into, while being heavily compensated and set up for life, then quit the game.
No he’s moaning about it.
I think he, and footballers in general, are overpaid fannies who don't live in the real world, and they should all shut the feck up and stop being mardarse.
Use the full squad then instead of the same 14-15 players
Incorrect. Its quite disingenuous to use the word slave. Slave meaning is totally different to footballers.
No footballer is forced to play football, they all have a choice to not play football and do something else with their career.
Players can moan all they like, the best way of action is to do something about it. If Rodri really meant what he said, he could take the lead and quit football because its too demanding. Will he do that?
Exactly, how can anyone have sympathy with footballers? Most working people have to work 40/50 hours a week, spending their hard earned money on health, diet, travel etc... whilst footballers who have 180 minutes a week, get meals planned for them, the best facilities for free.
I mean they go to training at 10 am and home by 3pm... yeah hard life.
They’re not comparing themselves to anyone. They’re not asking for sympathy.
The big problem is the lack of a summer break.
Players like Rodri are looking at the calendar and going WTF. Think this season the prem season finishes around May 25th (?) then you have the cup final the next weekend, then CL the week after (all games Man. City could be involved in) then internationals early weeks of June...and then a club World cup that will probably last a month for Man. City.
Rodri and others are probably looking at that competition and thinking "hang on didn't we used to just play that over a week in December?" Also let's not forget in summer 2026 the World cup will be extended to five weeks due to 48 teams.
This is like working all year and just getting two weeks off at Xmas/New Year to refresh and then go again for the next 12 months.
Personally I'd alter the calendar to make sure there's no serious football played in non tournament years from June 1st. Then pre seasons can start properly on July 1st and seasons can begin in early August. Not ideal either due to the heat in many countries but at least they'd be time to refresh over the summer.
Players like Rodri are looking at the calendar and going WTF. Think this season the prem season finishes around May 25th (?) then you have the cup final the next weekend, then CL the week after (all games Man. City could be involved in) then internationals early weeks of June...and then a club World cup that will probably last a month for Man. City.
Rodri and others are probably looking at that competition and thinking "hang on didn't we used to just play that over a week in December?" Also let's not forget in summer 2026 the World cup will be extended to five weeks due to 48 teams.
This is like working all year and just getting two weeks off at Xmas/New Year to refresh and then go again for the next 12 months.
Personally I'd alter the calendar to make sure there's no serious football played in non tournament years from June 1st. Then pre seasons can start properly on July 1st and seasons can begin in early August. Not ideal either due to the heat in many countries but at least they'd be time to refresh over the summer.