Players 'close' to going on strikes - Rodri
- Thread starter SilentWitness
- Start date
Yes, I'd start with that. The league cup was a reserves - youngsters event back in the Fergie/ Wenger days...and it still should be that. We got her because the unlimited cash clubs started bloating their squads out of control. Also, reduce pre-season games...and meaningless internationals.
Right, so lets not move with the times? United won leagues without any of modern day health, facilities, so should why are we crying about not having the best infrastructure.. we did it 20 years ago.. so we should be able to do it now?
Are you saying that when we didn't go abroad for pre season, those seasons we didnt get any injures or players were not tired?
Hmm interesting take. Are you able to show any evidence to any of those?
Players can decide.. they actually have a choice whether to sign for a club or not. If they dont like that a club is big and it plays 60 games a season when successful, join a lower league club. I have never seen 1 player from lower leagues come out and say there is too many games, unless you can prove me otherwise.
I’m curious because you’re saying we have to go abroad if we want global pull. That’s clearly not true.
So tell me why do they need to go to the States every year?
What about the modern day slaves in Abu Dhabi that indirectly fund your salary at your blood money pumped football club, Rodri? Don't they get tired? Can they "sustain the physical levels"?
I find it quite hard to stomach listening to players moaning about the amount of games they play, especially given the vast amounts they earn. Most people would love to be in their position.
Instead, most people work their socks off for a yearly salary that's a quarter of these players weekly salary. A friend of mine is a surgeon, he earns very good money compared to most people, something like £180k a year, but boy does he earn it, with anything like 60-90hr working weeks, but he's still only earning what some Pros earn in a week.
On top of that, most working people have to fit in exercise to keep them fit. I know of several people who train 5-6 days a week, on top of a daily job, just to keep healthy, paying huge fees a month to a local gym.
And these footballers are moaning their legs ache a bit, because of a couple of games and a few hours training a week, with the best physios and sports nutrionists behind them?
They need a reality check.
Instead, most people work their socks off for a yearly salary that's a quarter of these players weekly salary. A friend of mine is a surgeon, he earns very good money compared to most people, something like £180k a year, but boy does he earn it, with anything like 60-90hr working weeks, but he's still only earning what some Pros earn in a week.
On top of that, most working people have to fit in exercise to keep them fit. I know of several people who train 5-6 days a week, on top of a daily job, just to keep healthy, paying huge fees a month to a local gym.
And these footballers are moaning their legs ache a bit, because of a couple of games and a few hours training a week, with the best physios and sports nutrionists behind them?
They need a reality check.
Fans are disconnected because of shit like this. Players who earn 200k per week (yes, wage is important for context) are crying how they must play couple of games more than they played previous years.
Fans are disconnected when they see PR BS how "xy player is training hard" (in other words doing his job).
Fans are disconnected when their club pay crazy amount of money for a player who doesn't care for being fit and available.
Fans are disconnected when they pay big money to see their team and then read how some of those players are unhappy because they needed to play that day.
Why some players (Bruno, Modric, Cristiano, Salah...) are never injured? Because they live like a pros and care for sport which made them rich and famous.
I noticed that you have big sympathy for players and that is nice and in some situations you are right (abuse that some get) but in this case they (these who cry about games) don't deserve any sympathy.
Sorry don’t agree. I understand why you might think like that but something has to happen for the clubs, organisations and the corporates to stop adding more and more dross to the calendar just for more money
While he’s not wrong, the issue will always be that the players benefit financially from the extended games. They’d have more sympathy if they reduced their wages and the savings were passed on to the fans. Which of course it wouldn’t be.
A squad of 25.... then you got under 21s that don't need to be registered in the league. What are they complaining about? It's up to the manager to mange the game time.
If you think you’re playing too many games, go complain to your manager. For City players to cry about this of all people, who are sat comfortably in the most stacked squad in the world getting paid more than everyone else, they can just feck off. Rotation used to be a thing in football, it’s not the FA/UEFA/FIFAs fault that many managers don’t do it.
Issue is this; if you look club's financial reports, clubs don't have bigger and bigger profit every year. Because most of that increased income goes on wages. Those who cry the most right now are the ones who get the most of it. Every new contract is bigger and bigger.
They are one of reasons why clubs chase more money. And none of them said so far; "i will take wage reduction for less games".
Mbappe is the one who is unhappy with number of games. Guy who just got 100 mil signing bonus from Real. I mean....wtf?
Just heard that Haaland will have a 354 day season if City go to the Club World Cup Final. It runs FOR A MONTH.
Anyone saying that’s sustainable is an idiot.
Anyone saying ‘it’s just the Club World Cup’ has forgot that there’s an expanded 48 team World Cup in 2026.
A summer break in 2027, then a Euros summer, Club World Cup summer, then a World Cup summer.
It’s a piss take. Money grabbing cnuts. The players are the product. Protect them. Keep them on the pitch for long careers.
Final point that dickheads are forgetting… players receive appearance fees, win bonuses, goal bonuses, clean sheet bonuses. It is BAKED IN that they will earn less if there are fewer games. So up yer bollox with that line.
Its a dumb and incredibly spoilt argument and its one of the things that really grinds me about modern football.
I wouldn't pretend playing 50+ games a season as an elite level athlete and being expected to not let your performance level drop is easy or reasonable, as I wouldn't know, but here's the thing:
a) The reason teams have a manager and a squad is precisely to manage this. If someone is tired you can rest them.
b) It is elite/top level sport. It isn't supposed to be f*cking easy or pander to anyone. You're meant to be the best in the world at it for a reason.
c) Not overworking employees is the responsibility of the employer and every single top level football club has both enough playing personnel to not overwork anyone and enough resources to get more personnel if they don't.
d) If resting players means a team might be less likely to win then good. The function of a sport isn't to make it as easy as possible for the best to have an advantage over everyone else.
e) If you are tired the correct thing to do is ask your employer/team for a rest, not threaten to go on strike against football. This would be like the police striking because criminals are committing too much crime. It makes absolutely no sense.
So in summary, feck off.
I wouldn't pretend playing 50+ games a season as an elite level athlete and being expected to not let your performance level drop is easy or reasonable, as I wouldn't know, but here's the thing:
a) The reason teams have a manager and a squad is precisely to manage this. If someone is tired you can rest them.
b) It is elite/top level sport. It isn't supposed to be f*cking easy or pander to anyone. You're meant to be the best in the world at it for a reason.
c) Not overworking employees is the responsibility of the employer and every single top level football club has both enough playing personnel to not overwork anyone and enough resources to get more personnel if they don't.
d) If resting players means a team might be less likely to win then good. The function of a sport isn't to make it as easy as possible for the best to have an advantage over everyone else.
e) If you are tired the correct thing to do is ask your employer/team for a rest, not threaten to go on strike against football. This would be like the police striking because criminals are committing too much crime. It makes absolutely no sense.
So in summary, feck off.
Last edited:
The notion of a strike is ridiculous on its face. If you're Rodri you call the shots on when you play. If you're a middling player making $50,000 week -- which sounds pretty good to me -- you'll do everything you can to earn the next contract which at that point will set you up for life. And of course you'll bite your hand off to play for the national team.
Well think of it this way, it will stop going up once clubs stop taking in as much money from tours etcIssue is this; if you look club's financial reports, clubs don't have bigger and bigger profit every year. Because most of that increased income goes on wages. Those who cry the most right now are the ones who get the most of it. Every new contract is bigger and bigger.
They are one of reasons why clubs chase more money. And none of them said so far; "i will take wage reduction for less games".
Mbappe is the one who is unhappy with number of games. Guy who just got 100 mil signing bonus from Real. I mean....wtf?
Well this thread is just about as stupid as I'd expect it to be.
Now add 20-30 matches to that number and see how much your argument changes.
Do remember that’s an additional 38%. It’s also a calendar that sees you with ten days off in a year that are all your own, to plan holidays, go to see family etc. with none of it at Christmas.
We are not talking about 50ish matches a year. That’s what they all seem to agree the sweet spot is.
Off course employers are going to play their best player as often as possible. That is after all how they make their money, being successful. You don’t win playing your 2nd best players all the time. I mean there’s a huge difference in the payouts for league positions for a start, bigger payouts depending on how far you go in cups etc
And your sponsors want to see the best players on the pitch. Money rules.
Strikes are the best way to start change
And your sponsors want to see the best players on the pitch. Money rules.
Strikes are the best way to start change
Football is a job. And it has same rules as other jobs. I have a friend in IT sector. He worked for big IT company where wage was absolutely huge and benefits were fantastic BUT he worked like a horse eight to eight every day, lots of travel and shit.
One day he decided it is enough and went to work for a state. He is now on average wage but he has easy and casual job with lots of free time. He made his choice.
I don't know why some of you pretend like playing for top clubs is something which is written in Human rights act. It is a choice and privilege which you can accept or not.
One day he decided it is enough and went to work for a state. He is now on average wage but he has easy and casual job with lots of free time. He made his choice.
I don't know why some of you pretend like playing for top clubs is something which is written in Human rights act. It is a choice and privilege which you can accept or not.
If it was just 50 matches it wouldn't be an issue.
But its far more.
Potentially...
38 in the PL
6 in the FA Cup (excluding replays)
6 in the League Cup (thats 50 thus far)
8 in the CL groups
Potentially 2 in the CL playoffs (60)
7 in the CL Knockouts.
7 in the club world cup (74)
12 International matches (England play 17 in 2024)
So potentially 86 without replays factored in and any extra international shenanigans. So are we saying top players should only play 50% of matches if their team does well?.
Edit: Forgot the charity shield if you're a league of FA Cup winner. 87 and the 2 legged European Super Cup. 89.
Besides the issues concerns a select few players in the worldwide and a lot of them are famous and rich, if they really wanted to truly strike , they should do it.
Actions speak louder than talk.
And this is what Rodri is on about, it isn't about the current number of games, it's about the increased number of games and the fact that no one consulted the players
You cannot compare. Clubs will have sponsors putting pressure on, huge expectations from fans too. It’s not the same thing. It’s a bit naive to say oh just go talk to HR.
The players are asking the powers that be to stop adding more and more games. It cannot be sustained
Lots of people getting their pants pulled down here. They’ll double down and shout “bUt tHE mOnEY!” Instead of reassess.
Elite footballers at the best clubs (probably less than 100-150 players) cannot sustain an elite output for 70+ matches. 70 as a one off year is wearable. But we were previously at 50ish. Now, for 3 years out of four, it’s 60-80. 240-320 games used to take a player at least 6 seasons.
Arguing against math is either stupid, or naive.
To be fair, at twenty something I may have argued they should shut up and take the money. But I appreciate that younger me was a dickhead.
Fun part is that moaners represent less than 1% of footballers.
In 2016 FIFA made a huge research about wages in football.
45% were earning bellow 1k per month
74% were earning less than 4k per month.
Only 2% were earning above 750k per month.
So if moaners call for strike i guess that 99% of players will say; "feck off"
Yeah, it will never happen.
Carlo raises an eyebrow
Also, tell your mate to stop working like a horse. No need to travel far and shit all the time. Work like a human.
Taking abu dhabi blood money makes him disgusting. It doesn't make him wrong on this issue though
Sure thing. But if the 2% went on strike, people would care. If the rest did, not much would happen.
That’s. The. Point.
Correct.
When I was 20 something our manager was Dave Sexton, I never want to see that level of football again!
So it's all for nothing ? Maybe Rodri is indeed creating diversion for his club
My type of no nonsense
As I understand the issue, Rodri is concerned about the number of matches that players like himself are playing in a calendar year.
I assume that this issue of too many matches applies solely, or almost solely, to the highest level footballers. I don't believe League One footballers are being subjected to the same schedule. This is an assumption on my part as I don't have any info one way or the other.
So, it's the players who are regulars for their national teams, those playing in numerous competitions throughout the year, those on clubs that do extensive pre-season tours, etc.
Those are also the players who've seen astronomical increases in their wages over the last 25 years. Those wage increases have largely come about because of football globalization and the numerous economic opportunities arising that clubs have taken advantage of.
It seems that playing 60+ times a year may be a pre-requisite for footballers earning 200/300/400k and more per week.
I assume that this issue of too many matches applies solely, or almost solely, to the highest level footballers. I don't believe League One footballers are being subjected to the same schedule. This is an assumption on my part as I don't have any info one way or the other.
So, it's the players who are regulars for their national teams, those playing in numerous competitions throughout the year, those on clubs that do extensive pre-season tours, etc.
Those are also the players who've seen astronomical increases in their wages over the last 25 years. Those wage increases have largely come about because of football globalization and the numerous economic opportunities arising that clubs have taken advantage of.
It seems that playing 60+ times a year may be a pre-requisite for footballers earning 200/300/400k and more per week.
Right, but this doesn't change the fact that outside of international games it is up to clubs and players how often they play, and even with internationals players aren't picked if they're tired or carrying knocks outside of major tournament finals. Who's playing 70 games a year? and even if they are, who is forcing them to other than their club/employer?
Who is stopping multi billion pound football club Man City from resting multi millionaire footballers when they need a rest? The "but winning is important" argument makes no sense. Keeping your players fit and at their best is part of increasing your chances of winning, and sometimes you have to manage when they play to do that. This isn't anything new. Its why Toby Collyer was a left back last night. Its why Danny Welbeck played in the 2009 league cup final.
This is just the top level players and clubs wanting to both have their cake and eat it.
If you are one of the best players in the world you are in a position to dictate to your club if you need a rest or to play less. If you are not one of the best players in the world you aren't going to be playing 70 games a year anyway and would probably jump at the chance to play for your country or have more chances to prove yourself at a top club.
If you're one of the best clubs in the world and competing in the Champions League or World Club Cup, you can afford to take a risk resting Rodri for an FA cup game against Preston North End. If you are not one of the best clubs in the world you aren't going to have 70 fixtures a year and Rodri isn't going to be playing for you anyway, and even if he was you could still rest him.
See above.
Also adding in a game that literally has the word charity in it and which Rodri, Mr Strike himself, was quite literally given time off to not play in, seems a bit of a dishonest argument.
These arguments are also completely self defeating when clubs fly their first team squad off on exhausting multi game tours on the other side of the planet for no other reason than to make more money. If there are too many games, maybe just, you know, don't do that.
Again I'm not opposed to the idea that players might get asked to play too many games in a season when you factor in the pressures at the top level, because how would I know either way? But where this falls down is that if this is an issue, the correct thing for them to do is take it up with their club/employer who can simply pick them to play less and in ALL cases, easily has the ability to do so.
Last edited:
Why do you avoid obvious fact? Elite footballers play in elite clubs with elite teammates. All those clubs have 2 or even 3 players for each position. Their roster is built exactly for that schedule. Same why mid-table and low-table clubs (which play around 40 games per season) have smaller roster.
So, if players think that they can't play 60 games, they should first have a chat with their manager. And then not make a fuss when manager starts rotating.
This is obviously about the players at the very top tier of football who play for both club and country, the strike is hardly dependent on Joe&Schmoe in the Dutch 3rd division who play 18 games a season.
Exactly this.
And from a club point of view, it makes even less sense.
"We don't want to play in this competition because its too many games so we'll have to rest players or they will be tired and then it wont be easy enough for us to win it against the other teams" - What kind of a batshit argument is this? What other spin can you even put on it?
He should just ask his gaffer to sort him out with some nandrolone. That'll sort him out.