- Manchester City offer the other 19 clubs just two ways out of the current mess
- Why is it that so many newspaper stories about Arsenal turn out to be untrue
According to the NY Times website Maheta Molango, chief executive of the PFA union suggests that there is now a strong feeling among players that international football is in dire need of reform. If that is the case then for once the players and the club management committees are at last united in the issue.
Their point is very simple. The clubs pay the players’ wages, and yet the number of injuries and cases of burnout are occurring because of the growth of international matches.
And although there can be some compensation paid to clubs by international federations not all countries do it, and even when they do, it doesn’t in any way compensate for the loss of a key player (as international players invariably are).
There is also a feeling that in the past the clubs have felt weak in relation to Fifa and Uefa. But the inexorable growth of competitions as the two bodies rival each other with more and more outrageous and prolonged tournaments means now is the time for action from the players and the clubs.
Added to this there is a growing awareness of the unease or even anger among a large proportion of fans who pay to go and watch the clubs that provide the players that get themselves crocked in internationals are against internationals. It is the armchair supporters who don’t go to games who tend to support the international game – and they don’t contribute financially to the clubs at all.
There are now five periods in each season when players are withdrawn from their clubs so that they have the opportunity to get injured playing for their country. And the club managements have reached the point where they are now calling international football exploitative.
At the same time, there is a growing perception that countries can’t organise games properly, and that fans who attend the games are increasingly angered by poor facilities, appalling transport, inordinate queues, and oppressive security.
Now of course one thing is certain. Fifa and Uefa will not under any circumstance listen to the concern of fans or clubs. After all they have never done this in the past so why should they do this now? They only listen to the big corporations that sponsor them and advertise within them, and as yet they have not been hindered by any association with internationals.
But the issue that is finally bringing this whole international concept to the fore is its inexorable growth with fixtures that often are the opposite of the old adage of “getting the pulses racing”.
We have also known for years that games played in countries known for their repression, in stadia where it is felt workers have died or suffered life-long injuries, and where human rights are simply not even on the agenda, does affect some people’s view of internationals – and this feeling seems to be growing.
But of course Fifa and Uefa never listen, although each weekend with no league games does affect some fans. “Enough is enough” no longer expresses how many fans who pay to watch their teams, now feel. There is a growing anger as the number of competitions grows.
So the question remains, who can stop this insanity? In fact two groups can. Fans can by not going to games, and not watching on TV. And players can through their union, which is growing stronger by the month. The phrase being used by FIFPro, is “abuse of dominance” and they are taking action in Europe. According to the Athletic there is also an Anglo-French case running in the Brussels Court of Commerce.
Fifa’s one and only answer is that they consulted with the players’ union. Fifro in reply are suggesting their members could refuse to play unless matters change.
Of course, Fifa will fight the movement of players away from playing for their country and of course, associations like the FA will kowtow to Fifa, for no matter how much organisational disasters at matches damage their reputations irretrievably, internationals give them money.
And so the international organisations, rather than listen, just go on expanding, now bringing in the Club World Cup with 32 entrants in 2025. Their feeling is, if there is a weekend without football, then it has to be filled with football. Competitions finding themselves squeezed (like The Africa Cup of Nations) don’t back down – they just change their dates a bit and think about expanding.
But inevitably, the greedy always go too far and get too fat, believing they cannot be challenged because of their dominance. Players want a maximum of 55 games a season. Uefa and Fifa are now demanding 70 for the top players – and it is with the top players that the power now stands, at least until the clubs unite against Fifa and the like.
Thus as with so much these days, the situation gets worse until someone takes a stand. I hoped it might happen with a united front against Fifa over the exploitation of workers for the last world cup. That didn’t happen, but the problem remains, and will continue until Uefa and Fifa are brought back to earth (and ideally buried under it).
