Are players playing too much? According to their trade union FifPro, yes. However, there are many layers to this claim and a few points shall be highlighted here.
how much is too much?
There were some interesting headlines coming from football recently. Mostly, they were about the workload for players signed at top clubs. In the eyes of the players and their trade union, FifPro, the workload is too high. The hours, footballers spend training and playing pale when compared to other sports such as swimming or cycling where the athletes go through detailed training schedules planned over several years. We are talking 50+ hours per week of training, physio sessions not included. And many of these athletes are on less than 100000 salary per year. Professional footballers, meanwhile, may only train two or three hours per day, six days a week, yet are often travelling, which cannot be counted as recovery time. Top clubs have three games to play over an eight-day period, often including long hours of travelling, throughout the season. There is a valid point in the argument that players’ workload may have reached excessive levels. The best counterargument is, of course, the amount of money they earn. Yes, footballers of the professional caste need to make hay while the sun shines, i.e. earn money during a playing career of 15 years. The discrepancy between the salary of a football player and an elite swimmer for instance is nonetheless immense and needs addressing.
This is not the issue here. In fact, there are several issues to be looked at and taken into account.
workload
The argument that the workload is too high, is not 100% correct. Over the last few years, the formats of the European Cup competitions have not changed much. The group stages of the Champions and Europa League saw clubs playing six games before they got eliminated or progressed to the knock-out stages. These are still played out in the two-legged format. So far, so familiar. This has now increased to eight games before the knockout stages begin. The possibly biggest change over the last couple of decades was the speed of the play: football got faster: there is much less time on the ball for players per touch than let’s say during the 1990s. This means an increased mental pressure on players: receiving and passing the ball are now almost synonymous movements. Recovery from physical stress is generally quicker than from mental stress. And this, jointly with the long hours travelling, may be a valid point to stress.
So, why this outcry now? There is a new tournament on the horizon: the FIFA Club World Cup, which is being held from June to July 2025 in the United States. It replaces the ConFed Cup, which so far has always preceded the men’s FIFA World Cup by a year. This global competition is nothing new, therefore. Since the 1960s, the European champions and their South American counterparts have played out the Intercontinental Cup, which later mutated into a six- or seven-club tournament played out at the end of each calendar year. While this will be stopped, the Club World Cup adds another 63 matches to the calendar. The outcry comes now as there will be no break for players between the summer of 2024 and 2026, playing more than 100 games in two years.
the fisherman and his wife
In their quest to earn more money, the global governing bodies of soccer, most notably FIFA and UEFA resemble the greedy wife of the poor fisherman in Grimm’s tale “The Fisherman and his Wife”. In this tale, a fisherman one day catches a huge fish who claims to be able to grant wishes and begs to be set free again. The fisherman duly complies and lets the fish go free again.
Upon returning home he told his wife about this story who immediately demanded him to return to the shore and ask the flounder for a bigger house. This time the fish complies. Yet, the wife grows ever more greedy and sends her man back repeatedly, each time with bigger demands. The final wish is that the fisherman asks to be equal to god to which the fish replies “She’s sitting in her old hovel again”.
The parable is clear: the more FIFA and UEFA demand from players but also stakeholders, the higher their potential fall could be. Their greed seems to know no boundaries and for the time being these organisations can get their wishes fulfilled. Fears that the bubble may burst one time are nothing new; indeed there are hopes that this may happen rather sooner than later.
“since the 1990s we’re waiting for the bubble to burst”
It has not burst and indeed the load for top players at top clubs has not changed much over the last 20 years. The World Cup in 2026 will take place in the US, Canada and Mexico and there will be 48 teams participating.
A point that is also overlooked is that in 2025, at the same time as the Club World Cup will take place, the Women’s European Championship will be held in Switzerland. Since the men’s game still wields more power in attention-grabbing, it is clear that there will be one direct loser. Indirectly, it is UEFA of course.
The danger is a loss of attractiveness for the national leagues. These have experienced a flattening out of their curve: fewer people attend matches for various reasons. The French top division, Ligue 1, has already cut the number of teams from 20 to 18 and other leagues may follow this path. It may not stop there: the domestic cup competitions may be demoted to second rank. The English FA Cup for instance has no longer re-plays in case of a draw, which reduces the number of games. This is only the beginning and the development may accelerate over the next few years. The consequences are unknown but it may result in a decline in European footballing power on a global stage.
This is a point that is often overlooked: the complaint that there are too many games is specifically a European one. Africa and Asia seem to be happy to comply with FIFA. The rise of Saudi Arabia as a sporting superpower, as well as Qatar and Bahrain, has led to a significant shift in power – away from Europe. As such, football mirrors the political developments: Europe for all its tradition and clout in so many areas is being left behind by forces unbeknownst before.
everyone has a price
The cause for this increase in matches is money and loyalty. The clubs need more money in order to pay their top employees on and off the pitch. An increase in matches, up to four in the Champions League, means also an increase in squad size and, therefore, more salaries to pay. The other point is that of loyalty: readers may remember the attempt of a number of clubs, just a few years ago, to establish a Super League – a breakaway league outside UEFA. This may explain the increase in matches in the European Cup competitions as well as the introduction of the Club World Cup. The reason is simple: FIFA need to keep their house in order, i.e. clubs and national associations on board to avoid any attempt of a breakaway competition – be that a tournament or another cup competition played over the course of a season. Neither do UEFA fancy having to face a revolt as they did in 2021.
Therefore, throwing money at the clubs, ensures that they are happy and stay on board. FIFA once more have made it clear who is the boss in the kingdom of football: it’s not UEFA. This power game is being carried out on the backs of the players, and finally, these are the ones who keep this wheel running and who have done so for more than 120 years. Capitalism, in its current form, is not centred on the well-being of the people but focused solely on profits and margins. This is very much true for football as it is in so many other areas.
And while footballers are often compared to softies, rolling around the pitch after the slightest of touches, it is maybe time for them to stand up and be heard. They may be speaking for many other athletes – and by doing so, may show some rare solidarity with other top athletes.
image credit: via Wiki Commons, Alexander Zick – Märchen, Grot’scher Verlag, Berlin 1975, Public Domain.
Good writing does not come by chance, so consider a little tip: