Players 'close' to going on strikes - Rodri

[SilentWitness]

I think major component of the games adding up is also travel time. It's not like the games being added are local.

 

[Berbaclass]

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.

Don't think you can compare it to normal jobs.

I'd gladly work like that for 300k a week and I'm pretty sure the majority of other people would too.

 

[romufc]

They’re not comparing themselves to anyone. They’re not asking for sympathy.

Yes they are saying they will strike because of workload... they can easily decide football workload is not for them and retire. No one is forcing them to play.

 

[FootballHQ]

Don't think you can compare it to normal jobs.

I'd gladly work like that for 300k a week and I'm pretty sure the majority of other people would too.

Can't see Gen Z generation being happy at their insta weekends abroad being scrapped apart from the end of the year.

That's my point. Footballers get paid plenty but look at their schedule now. Rodri had what two weeks off at the end of July and then he was back at start of August for pre season.

If you're comparing to a "normal" job then basically two weeks in July is their break and that's pretty much it. No Easter Detox and also working through most of the summer.

Considering how bad the mental health crisis is developing in this country imagine applying that schedule to everyday life.

 

[UnrelatedPsuedo]

Yes they are saying they will strike because of workload... they can easily decide football workload is not for them and retire. No one is forcing them to play.

Or, they can publicly state that their working conditions are being impacted by external factors out of their control, and seek to change it.

It’s not like their job can be backfilled by other people. All of the shit footballers have already been selected out.

You’re getting your knickers in a twist because they get paid lots. Why? Rodri seems like a level headed chap. If playing time was reduced by 10% and his salary was too, he’d be happy.

He’s not fighting for less work for the same pay, which everyone seems to be suggesting. He’s saying ‘This job has too high a load and cannot be done to the best of my ability, under these new conditions’.

Remove the money, look at the problem.

Do you want your football teams best players to be available at their best level, for more of the time? If the answer is yes, you’re on his side. If it’s no, why?

 

[NotChatGPT]

Can't see Gen Z generation being happy at their insta weekends abroad being scrapped apart from the end of the year.

That's my point. Footballers get paid plenty but look at their schedule now. Rodri had what two weeks off at the end of July and then he was back at start of August for pre season.

If you're comparing to a "normal" job then basically two weeks in July is their break and that's pretty much it. No Easter Detox and also working through most of the summer.

Considering how bad the mental health crisis is developing in this country imagine applying that schedule to everyday life.

We're talking about people that can easily retire before 30 if they wanted. We can all agree that they have an insane workload, especially with UEFA and FIFA adding more and more fixtures to line their own pockets. If it's that fecking bad, just retire from the NT and focus on club football.

But still...A normal job in Norway and you'll have your 5 weeks of holiday and work until your early 70's. You'll get to retire with a small pension that will barely see you enjoy the rest of your miserable life, unless you've done well and saved up on a private pension as well. I can't imagine it's much better in countries that are generally worse off.

 

[kouroux]

. Why? Rodri seems like a level headed chap. If playing time was reduced by 10% and his salary was too, he’d be happy.

As long as the players complaining don't hint at their willingness to reduce their wages as a result of playing less, neither of us can be certain of that.

All I have ever heard is complaint without the will to sacrifice some of their earnings as a result

 

[kouroux]

He’s not fighting for less work for the same pay, which everyone seems to be suggesting. He’s saying ‘This job has too high a load and cannot be done to the best of my ability, under these new conditions’.

Remove the money, look at the problem.

He knows he'd killed from a PR POV if he were to say something like that. Money is the core of the issue. Clubs generate more money and the players gain from it.
I don't think this issue can be looked at without the money, it's impossible for me

 

[Mainoonited]

Just because the rest of us have it shit, doesn't mean we shouldn't support the multimillionaire footballers who dont want to play twice a week.

In principle we definitely should. Practically some excellent points have been raised around contracts and squad rotation.

 

[Smores]

Bizarre reactions to this, as if athletic load is the same as your 9-5. You can't make your body do something just because you're paid a lot of money.

The issue is no single competition is going to put in place rules that see their top players play less. Ideally players should have to have an enforced bye week twice a season so they can recover. There's no doubt quality of football is impacted by the constant workload.

 

[Someone]

It's a valid concern from Rodri. A lot of people here are making the assumption that players want to work less, which I believe isn't the case here.

Games these days are much more intense, and if players don't have a game midweek they'll still be training for the next game, it won't mean more time off or anything. The problem is that when you have two games at the top level week in week out for your club and country you're at more risk of injuries, and you don't perform at the same level. We see it all the time when teams don't have a midweek game they play better. What's the point of more football if the quality isn't there?

Granted clubs should rotate more, but the competitive nature of the top level makes it very difficult to do so.

 

[kouroux]

If clubs do make more rotations to better utilize their squads, won't there be players crying about lack of consistent game time ?

 

[NotChatGPT]

Bizarre reactions to this, as if athletic load is the same as your 9-5. You can't make your body do something just because you're paid a lot of money.

That's not the point, is it.

The point is that the short term struggle comes with an extreme benefit.

It's a bit like philippine crew members being onboard (especially) oil shuttle tankers, lng vessels, for 9 months at a time, small holiday and back again, because they earn a fortune and retire early back home.

 

[romufc]

Or, they can publicly state that their working conditions are being impacted by external factors out of their control, and seek to change it.

It’s not like their job can be backfilled by other people. All of the shit footballers have already been selected out.

You’re getting your knickers in a twist because they get paid lots. Why? Rodri seems like a level headed chap. If playing time was reduced by 10% and his salary was too, he’d be happy.

He’s not fighting for less work for the same pay, which everyone seems to be suggesting. He’s saying ‘This job has too high a load and cannot be done to the best of my ability, under these new conditions’.

Remove the money, look at the problem.

Do you want your football teams best players to be available at their best level, for more of the time? If the answer is yes, you’re on his side. If it’s no, why?

You can't take money out of it because they are being well compensated for the job they do?

Well, if Rodri wanted that, he can have a clause put in his contract that he only plays a set number of games each season.

There is no problem, they are playing what 4/5 games more than they did in the 90's over a season?

I dont see any Wolves player or Crystal Palace player moaning about this. Instead it is the opposite, they go against their club to go play CL football where they know there will be more games?

P.S I would be happy to see Mainoo rested for a game, any player for the matter of fact.

 

[Jericho]

Fine, reduce their games if they want. But proportionally reduce the cost to the fans for tv subscriptions. We're getting absolutely rinsed as it is.

 

[Changeisgood]

Top clubs should not be playing their best players in the league cup for e.g..internationals should be limited, especially after a major event. Why on earth we needed the recent international break is beyond me. There are things we can do. We could even put a game cap for players...no player will play more than xx club games,..xx internationals.

I know they make tons of money but if the requirement is simply too much on the body, that will not change no matter how much you pay them. Whatever I may think of their ridiculous salaries, this is a valid point to bring up. The product suffers on the pitch.

 

[FootballHQ]

One thing I actually think was clever by Chelsea recently was leaving Cole Palmer out of their Europa squad. They don't need him to get through against the quality of teams they're facing in next six months so keep him fresh playing once a week.

Same for Man. City. They'd still be qualifying comfortably from CL groups without Rodri so I do think that will be an option more clubs take in the coming years, resting players for first half of season and then registering them in the euro squads from Feb onwards.

That can shave off ten games from a player's season without impacting too much on a club's prospects.

 

[romufc]

One thing I actually think was clever by Chelsea recently was leaving Cole Palmer out of their Europa squad. They don't need him to get through against the quality of teams they're facing in next six months so keep him fresh playing once a week.

Same for Man. City. They'd still be qualifying comfortably from CL groups without Rodri so I do think that will be an option more clubs take in the coming years, resting players for first half of season and then registering them in the euro squads from Feb onwards.

That can shave off ten games from a player's season without impacting too much on a club's prospects.

Exactly.

Do you think any Villa player is crying its too many games? In fact I would argue the opposite, they will be chomping at the bit to play CL games in mid week and PL games on the weekend. Watkins for example will want to play both games, I would assume.

 

[UnrelatedPsuedo]

You can't take money out of it because they are being well compensated for the job they do?

Well, if Rodri wanted that, he can have a clause put in his contract that he only plays a set number of games each season.

There is no problem, they are playing what 4/5 games more than they did in the 90's over a season?

I dont see any Wolves player or Crystal Palace player moaning about this. Instead it is the opposite, they go against their club to go play CL football where they know there will be more games?

P.S I would be happy to see Mainoo rested for a game, any player for the matter of fact.

Money is an utter irrelevance here. Anyone using it as part of the argument is missing the point.

To the bold? No. It’s 10-15 matches more. So 20-25% extra. Plus longer matches. Plus shorter off seasons. Plus longer pre season tours. Plus larger distances covered (10-15%) at higher intensity. More travel. Less rest.

It’s all of the everything, and you could pay players £5m a week and still have the same problem.

You won’t see Wolves and Palace players complain as they still play less matches and are at the limit, rather than past it. Plus, they’re not as good. They don’t have the platform. People won’t listen.

 

[UnrelatedPsuedo]

It's a valid concern from Rodri. A lot of people here are making the assumption that players want to work less, which I believe isn't the case here.

Games these days are much more intense, and if players don't have a game midweek they'll still be training for the next game, it won't mean more time off or anything. The problem is that when you have two games at the top level week in week out for your club and country you're at more risk of injuries, and you don't perform at the same level. We see it all the time when teams don't have a midweek game they play better. What's the point of more football if the quality isn't there?

Granted clubs should rotate more, but the competitive nature of the top level makes it very difficult to do so.

In truth, there are a solid 10 games a season that we could bin. We won’t. Because money.

Expanded World Cup, Euros, Champions League, adding the extra European tournament, expanded Club World Cup. Nations League. No reason for it.

We all want as much football as possible, but losing 10% of matches and leaving the remaining 90% played at a higher level, with fitter squads and more players available, more often, is surely better.

 

[romufc]

Money is an utter irrelevance here. Anyone using it as part of the argument is missing the point.

To the bold? No. It’s 10-15 matches more. So 20-25% extra. Plus longer matches. Plus shorter off seasons. Plus longer pre season tours. Plus larger distances covered (10-15%) at higher intensity. More travel. Less rest.

It’s all of the everything, and you could pay players £5m a week and still have the same problem.

You won’t see Wolves and Palace players complain as they still play less matches and are at the limit, rather than past it. Plus, they’re not as good. They don’t have the platform. People won’t listen.

How can money have no relevance? The reason they have to have these pre seasons is because of money. How can you say £10m a year is irrelevant?

I mean you are wrong. In United treble season we played 63 games, in Citys treble they played 61 games across the season. Maybe City played behind closed doors 16 games that I dont know of, so I apologise.

 

[Changeisgood]

Money is an utter irrelevance here. Anyone using it as part of the argument is missing the point.

To the bold? No. It’s 10-15 matches more. So 20-25% extra. Plus longer matches. Plus shorter off seasons. Plus longer pre season tours. Plus larger distances covered (10-15%) at higher intensity. More travel. Less rest.

It’s all of the everything, and you could pay players £5m a week and still have the same problem.

You won’t see Wolves and Palace players complain as they still play less matches and are at the limit, rather than past it. Plus, they’re not as good. They don’t have the platform. People won’t listen.

Money is not completely irrelevant. The player salaries are somewhat, but even that... because the salaries are so high, the clubs will often pull every game from them they can, especially if there is a sight of a trophy at the end of it. Nations want the best results etc... For me there probably needs to be a hard cap on games played. That way you force nations and clubs to responsibly assess which games are most important to them and allocate player games. Actually, it also gives other peripheral players and youngsters a chance..

 

[UnrelatedPsuedo]

How can money have no relevance? The reason they have to have these pre seasons is because of money. How can you say £10m a year is irrelevant?

I mean you are wrong. In United treble season we played 63 games, in Citys treble they played 61 games across the season. Maybe City played behind closed doors 16 games that I dont know of, so I apologise.

Oh… your one of those ‘More money is making football better’ people? Go hard I guess. It’s mad though.

With regards to number of matches, look at annual games by player. It’s the totality of matches.

It’s come to a head as someone like Rodri played a full season with a World Cup in the middle, then a full season followed by a Euros with a club World Cup in there and loads of Internationals too.

Compare him with the highest games by one of the United treble winners to compare like with like.

It’s not just a single season. It’s the relentless increase year on year. They’re playing loads more matches. You cant possibly argue against that. It’s math.

 

[UnrelatedPsuedo]

Money is not completely irrelevant. The player salaries are somewhat, but even that... because the salaries are so high, the clubs will often pull every game from them they can, especially if there is a sight of a trophy at the end of it. Nations want the best results etc... For me there probably needs to be a hard cap on games played. That way you force nations and clubs to responsibly assess which games are most important to them and allocate player games. Actually, it also gives other peripheral players and youngsters a chance..

Money is an utter relevance to the strain on a player.

It’s the only thing to look at when you analyse the why with regards to number of matches.

The two points are divorced conversations. You can’t pay a player to be fit.

 

[romufc]

Oh… your one of those ‘More money is making football better’ people? Go hard I guess. It’s mad though.

With regards to number of matches, look at annual games by player. It’s the totality of matches.

It’s come to a head as someone like Rodri played a full season with a World Cup in the middle, then a full season followed by a Euros with a club World Cup in there and loads of Internationals too.

Compare him with the highest games by one of the United treble winners to compare like with like.

It’s not just a single season. It’s the relentless increase year on year. They’re playing loads more matches. You cant possibly argue against that. It’s math.

When have I said more money is making football better? unless you are making things up so you can say things like the above?

You do realise every action has a reaction? So if you cant take money out of it.

If you get a 60m sponsor as a club, those sponsors want pre season matches in their country, so the clubs oblige. That then means the club can afford to pay more wages to the player, compensating them for playing so many games.

Sign for Wolves and you wont have this problem.

Its funny people say too many games and name me the WC and Euros, then you ask a footballer what is your dream and they will say win the WC or Euros? Those players who do not want the extra games can retire from International football. Or have a clause saying they will only play x amount of games per season.

I agree friendlies, Nations league and the like are pointless. We have seen players who do not want to play pull out, look at this international break for England, Palmer, Foden and the like pulled out.

 

[UnrelatedPsuedo]

When have I said more money is making football better? unless you are making things up so you can say things like the above?

You do realise every action has a reaction? So if you cant take money out of it.

If you get a 60m sponsor as a club, those sponsors want pre season matches in their country, so the clubs oblige. That then means the club can afford to pay more wages to the player, compensating them for playing so many games.

Sign for Wolves and you wont have this problem.

Its funny people say too many games and name me the WC and Euros, then you ask a footballer what is your dream and they will say win the WC or Euros? Those players who do not want the extra games can retire from International football. Or have a clause saying they will only play x amount of games per season.

I agree friendlies, Nations league and the like are pointless. We have seen players who do not want to play pull out, look at this international break for England, Palmer, Foden and the like pulled out.

Mate, you’re talking about £10m and then saying the clubs have to play pre season matches because a sponsor demands it, and then the players get paid more…

They don’t have to take that money.

If the additional games are having a detrimental effect on player welfare and availability… it’s dumb money.

£10m is 40 weeks of £250,000 wages. Not playing additional matches in order to have 40 weeks of player availability is a no brainer.

I’ve long since thought that a return to more local pre seasons would improve performance/availability. I also think it’s daft to think United playing Arsenal in an NFL stadium ‘grows the brand’. Two sides playing out a drab 1-1 with a guaranteed penalty shoot out, dilutes the brand of anything. PL sides don’t play PL football on tour. They’re generally tepid shitefests.

Everyone is chasing revenue at the expense of player welfare. It makes no sense at all player level. It’s all just a money grab while delivering a shite product.

 

[romufc]

Mate, you’re talking about £10m and then saying the clubs have to play pre season matches because a sponsor demands it, and then the players get paid more…

They don’t have to take that money.

If the additional games are having a detrimental effect on player welfare and availability… it’s dumb money.

£10m is 40 weeks of £250,000 wages. Not playing additional matches in order to have 40 weeks of player availability is a no brainer.

I’ve long since thought that a return to more local pre seasons would improve performance/availability. I also think it’s daft to think United playing Arsenal in an NFL stadium ‘grows the brand’. Two sides playing out a drab 1-1 with a guaranteed penalty shoot out, dilutes the brand of anything. PL sides don’t play PL football on tour. They’re generally tepid shitefests.

Everyone is chasing revenue at the expense of player welfare. It makes no sense at all player level. It’s all just a money grab while delivering a shite product.

You're talking as if we should scrap pre season because it "add games", so then how do you expect players to get fit for the season? Magic wand?

I dont know if you know but every top player is looked after at the highest level, they are monitored in every game, but ofcourse the clubs dont care about their welfare? They hire them masseuses, chefs, private planes etc.. but yeah no one cares.

You do realise that the game at the NFL stadium is not about growing the game?

I take it you are a UK fan? the reason why clubs have such commercial revenues is because they reach a large fan audience, so the clubs give back by having pre season so local fans of those countries can watch their club play.

I mean they are pre season games, do you expect them to be full PL pace quality games?

The players are chasing money too, they could play for clubs that pay them less. For example, if all of United and City players coming through the area decided, we will play for Salford for £1k a week, they wont need to complain about too many games.

People dont understand that they are not forced, they decide to sign for a CL / European club that plays these games, alot of players leave clubs because the club doesn't play those competitions.

 

[Berbaclass]

Money is an utter relevance to the strain on a player.

It’s the only thing to look at when you analyse the why with regards to number of matches.

The two points are divorced conversations. You can’t pay a player to be fit.

It’s not irrelevant though, elite athletes get the most compensation for the level they perform at and the duration they do it.

 

[duffer]

Players careers last way longer than they used to 30 years ago and they play pretty much the same number of games at the highest level.

The advances in sports medicine seems to more than make up for covering more miles in a game (if that is true).

 

[Berbaclass]

Players careers last way longer than they used to 30 years ago and they play pretty much the same number of games at the highest level.

The advances in sports medicine seems to more than make up for covering more miles in a game (if that is true).

Let’s be honest, they are covering what 12/13k a game twice a week?

 

[B20]

I get sick to death if these things. They have squad of 25, the majority probably worth at least 40/50 mil. They're being paid an absolute fortune. It's the manager's decision whether to play them in every game or not. How about seeing it more as an opportunity to blood youth?

I don't like this new format because it's turning into a super league and fans are getting more detached from the game. But these players who are on 100s of thousands pound a week complaining about playing too much football grinds my gears. Tell your manager you don't want to play if you want.

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 ?

These players get paid ridiculous wages and there moaning about doing there job. A lot of normal jobs are a lot longer hours per week than what they do and get paid a lot less. How about they get a reduced calendar but reduced wages also. Let’s see how many of them vote for that one.

Maybe be more shite at football and you won't be playing so many games.

It's really only 5-6 seasons out of your entire life where this may become an issue as you peak in elite sports. Are you worried about long term health after you retire or is it something else?

Meanwhile nurses, firemen, doctors, teachers, and people critical to the overall infrastructure of their country put in 50-60 hours a week for a lifetime and get paid a lot less where companies try to suppress their wages.

Footballers can do one of this is an issue. Oh and don't piss and moan when you get substituted in the 60th minute because you're Manager is resting you.

Meanwhile every contract which they sign is much bigger than last one. Hm, why is that? I know.....because you play more games, you stupid, ignorant, spoiled feckers. It is the same case when women (in football, to be clear) are crying about equal wage while ignoring all the facts from where money comes in football.

There are 4 obvious solutions for this '"problem".
1. Go and play for middle or bottom table clubs. Then you will play one game per week. But you will be paid 3 or 4 times less. So, it is a big no, i guess?
2. Tell your fecking manager (who wanted to have 25 expensive players) to rotate more. Oh wait, then you will make a fuss in media why you didn't play, right?
3. Refuse bigger salary in next contract but demand that you will play only certain amount of games.
4. You don't need to play for NT and you will have break every month.

And people shit on me on this forum because i don't have sympathy for football players. Spoiled, stupid, ignorant and selfish prima donnas.

Like in every job, if you are good at it you can choose your path.
You can work for some small company, 8 hours per day for average money or you can go to work for big company 12 hours per day for big money.
Who is forcing Rodri or Kdb to play for City? Is that something which they MUST do? No. They can sign for Tenerife and enjoy in life.

Coverall. BINGO!

 

[iamdpef]

I've always found it weird how the football schedule has changed so much over the years. Seeing club football matches still being played at the beginning of June is strange to me. Obviously i'm aware of some countries starting their seasons at completely different times but there is no way the FA Cup final should be played in June. It used to be played in the middle of May.

I've always thought the league should be starting in the middle of August. The Community Shield a week before the league. 3rd round of the Carabao Cup around late October/early November. FA Cup at the start of the year. The final of the Champions League should always be played around 20-29th of May in my opinion. That's how it was in the early 2000's and late 90's. There was also a 4 season period where the CL had a second group stage before the knock out phase which meant more matches in a season.

Since the removal of the second group stage, we've had the 1-2 week winter break added and the 3rd round of the Carabao Cup moved to September to help spread out the season so there are more rests in between games. Champions League games aren't weekly like they used to be also. Despite all of this, it seems there are more games than ever and each season seems more and more gruelling to the players

 

[duffer]

Let’s be honest, they are covering what 12/13k a game twice a week?

That sounds about right. Lampard was going those kinda numbers for Chelsea 20 years ago and played until he was 38.

 

[Smores]

That's not the point, is it.

The point is that the short term struggle comes with an extreme benefit.

It's a bit like philippine crew members being onboard (especially) oil shuttle tankers, lng vessels, for 9 months at a time, small holiday and back again, because they earn a fortune and retire early back home.

It is the point he's making yes, you're seemingly arguing a different point which is whether they should just be grateful. There's no evidence to say they're not grateful or feel well compensated despite the pounding of keyboards in this thread.

If we want to see athletes perform at their peak they can't play this many game season after season. It's a simple statement that has nothing to do with compensation.

Bizarre that people can't consider the latter argument without being triggered into an emotional response.

 

[Berbaclass]

That sounds about right. Lampard was going those kinda numbers for Chelsea 20 years ago and played until he was 38.

Exactly. These guys are elite athletes. I don’t really think that’s too bad for them.

I personally think playing more games is a privilege. You earn the right to play them by being successful.

 

[diarm]

I think it's odd there hasn't been more movement towards players striking over this issue before now.

Martial has been at it for years tbf.

 

[Changeisgood]

Players could also request to play a maximum number of games as well if they are that concerned, especially in relation to pre season. It might lower their salary but all of this is because of greed at every level.

 

[UnrelatedPsuedo]

You're talking as if we should scrap pre season because it "add games", so then how do you expect players to get fit for the season? Magic wand?

I dont know if you know but every top player is looked after at the highest level, they are monitored in every game, but ofcourse the clubs dont care about their welfare? They hire them masseuses, chefs, private planes etc.. but yeah no one cares.

You do realise that the game at the NFL stadium is not about growing the game?

I take it you are a UK fan? the reason why clubs have such commercial revenues is because they reach a large fan audience, so the clubs give back by having pre season so local fans of those countries can watch their club play.

I mean they are pre season games, do you expect them to be full PL pace quality games?

The players are chasing money too, they could play for clubs that pay them less. For example, if all of United and City players coming through the area decided, we will play for Salford for £1k a week, they wont need to complain about too many games.

People dont understand that they are not forced, they decide to sign for a CL / European club that plays these games, alot of players leave clubs because the club doesn't play those competitions.

Tell that to the player that sat in a press conference and said ‘Players are at breaking point’.

Again, for the umpteenth time…

Would you rather;

- 50-60 games a year played by teams with fit squads.
-70-80 games a year played by teams missing players.

And yes, I’m a UK supporter and I don’t give a feck about my team playing friendlies overseas. I think it’s silly and I’d cancel them all because I don’t care about them at all.

By all means be happy that Governing bodies are adding games, and clubs are adding even more in pursuit of money… but it’s proper wrong end of the telescope stuff. What you’re saying is ‘I’m happy to pay more money, to see unfit players, play less well’. I’ll never understand that.

This ‘put up and shut up’ attitude from fans towards players is so self defeating. They are the ones you want to watch. Why on earth do you prize a balance sheet over players? I feel it’s the same group that forever complains about players being injured. Madness.

 

[Red in STL]

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 reply just shut up.

Your middle paragraph is the main issue, I've said this earlier in the thread, fans moan if player X or player Y doesn't play, as fans we can't have it both ways.

I also hate the comparison with yesteryear, the game is much more intense and physically demanding today, it just isn't possible to play 50+ games and maintain the level expected anymore

The moans about international and pre-season football are misleading, these games are not particularly intense or as physically demanding, the travel and jet lag is more of an issue but its not like they are flying on Spirit or Ryanair like most of us plebs

 

[golden_blunder]

Don't think you can compare it to normal jobs.

I'd gladly work like that for 300k a week and I'm pretty sure the majority of other people would too.

You would for a couple of years then you wouldn’t be able to sustain it