Here's an article in CNN/SI about FIFA talking and getting ready to talk about (uh-huh) having some sort of limits to the number of matches a player can play in a given year: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/soccer/news/2002/09/22/fifa_rdp/ No I can see this discussion going a couple of ways, both here at BS and in world soccer circles in general: 1) It could focus on the FIFA/UEFA rivalry. Unfortunately this may quickly devolve into, "We need fewer club games!", vs "Who cares about the stupid FIFA tournaments, European football is perfect the way it is!" 2) It could focus on in-game changes. The danger here is that we can devolve into, "The game is perfect the way it is!, vs "Changes are a must for the game to survive!" The thing is both the number of games that are played and the way the game is played must be looked at and all sides, for the good of the game, must give a little. In fact differing sides (the UEFA/FIFA split, or at least the part of FIFA that's the CAF) have already started to budge: -the Champions league will have fewer matches next year. -in Africa the WC qualifiers and ANC qualifiers and final will be combined into one tournament. Both of these moves have their strident detractors. Both moves make the most sense when you look at world football in it's entirety and don't make sense if you just look at the individual tournaments both from a competition sense and a monetary sense. More changes are needed I think. We here have already talked about some changes. Pedro Pinto, in his 9/7 column talked about changes that would affect this discussion too. I'm sure that more changes will happen even if the grand poo-bahs of the game mess up this process since the loads on the players are just too much. So what are possible places of discussion?
This is really a "quantity" v "quality" argument. Leaving to one side how this mess came about, the top clubs now need "quantity" in order to bankroll themselves. However, top players need rest as they are being asked to play consistently at a high level, with little downtime. If top players are tired, than "quality" suffers. Now, this might lead to the argument that to satisfy both sides, more ways to rest players should be introduced, while keeping the number of games at a level acceptable to the clubs. However, this bothers me a lot. After all, this is something that really only affects the top clubs and top players. They have all gorged on the financial rewards of the past decade and now, rather than going on a necessary diet, they are looking for some "miracle pill" to allow themselves to keep on feeding from the trough*. But the game is bigger than that. For example, were Korea, USA, and Turkey complaining in the WC that their players were fresher and more determined than those of France, Italy and Argentina? Outside of Europe's top 4-5 divisions, how many leagues actually need the introduction of more subs to keep players fresh? How fair is it to impose a "player-appearance" cap on a lower-division team who goes on a good cup run or who has international players from smaller nations in its squad? They will not have the resources to replace such players with those of similar quality, while the players are forced to "rest" for a few games. In other words, how fair is it that blanket changes get made that only seem good for keeping the top clubs at the top and which only inconvenience or even ruin the game at lower levels - levels which have not benefited from the cash bonanza of the past decade? P.S. I'll not go into it now, but no matter what changes DO get made, the clubs will still push them to the limit or circumvent them somehow. * In fairness, UEFA have proactively reduced the no. of CL games to be played. However, the big clubs were furious with this decision and remember that the genesis of the CL was to stop a breakaway by the top clubs to form a seperate pan-European league. This one will run some way yet...
There being payed £60,000 a week to play 90 minutes of football and train a few hours every day. Then you have some 5 year old kid that works 16 hour a day 7 days a week, making these players football boots and shirts and earning if there lucky £7 a week. Which one has the right to complain? you decide.
Tangential logic at it's best there. The players are not complaining. The whiny national team fans and it's administrators are. The kid making the boots is irrelevant to this argument. Getting tired is getting tired, whether you earn £60,000 a week or not. Your wallet has no impact on your physical condition. The crux of the argument is whether or not the demands of the club game should have the pre-eminence they currently do. In other words, should international football have the right to moan more actively about clubs withdrawing players from international commitments or players being injured when the occasional actually worthwhile international tournament comes around. I would answer no to that question.