Could players really strike despite football’s busy schedule?

Players’ frustration with playing too many games and not getting enough rest is growing in football, but how close is the sport to a players’ strike?

The issue of burnout has always been an important topic in football, but the expansion of UEFA’s club competitions and FIFA’s newest program Club World Cup put this issue at the top of the agenda.

In August, ESPN reported that this season will be the longest club campaign ever. as the Club World Cup is scheduled to take place over a four-week period in the United States in June and July. Leading actors had already spoken out, with Erling Haaland, Kylian Mbappé And Jude Bellingham raising concerns about football’s increasingly busy schedule.

This week, Manchester City midfielder Rodri became the first top player to warn that footballers are ready to strike. Real Madrid goalkeeper Thibaut Courtois joins Rodri in talk about the possibility of players taking unprecedented measures. Liverpool goalkeeper Alisson Beckerthat of Barcelona Jules Koundé and Aston Villa John McGinn soon followed.

Managers such as Pep Guardiola, Mikel Arteta and Jurgen Klopp have also sounded the alarm about burnout. And on Friday, Real Madrid coach Carlo Ancelotti said he believed the players would be willing to take a pay cut if it meant playing fewer games.

While strikes have impacted American sports over the years, with baseball, basketball and American football all experiencing strikes or lockouts, soccer has so far avoided such a drastic scenario.

Why are elite footballers now talking about strike action, and how likely is it to happen?

What is behind the strike threat?

Player workload has been a long-standing problem, with bigger clubs often competing until the final stages and then flying off on long-distance pre-season tours to the United States or Asia. These trips can last two or three weeks and include several matches.

Top players also have to take into account international matches and the travel that entails over the course of a season, as well as major tournaments every two years. It is very easy to play more than 60 matches.

Despite the growing tension, football barely managed to manage the situation. Players were able to benefit from at least the suggested level of rest – typically three to four weeks – between seasons, while every other year would have empty space on the international calendar for extended recovery.

But the Club World Cup, which pits a 32-team club competition for a month against one of those summers off, could prove to be the straw that breaks the camel’s back.

FIFA insists the Club World Cup is merely filling a slot in the calendar previously occupied by the Confederations Cup, a quadrennial international tournament hosted by the upcoming World Cup hosts as a test event. It is a misnomer because the Confederations Cup only involved eight nations, lasted two weeks and did not feature as many players who had participated in the grueling European club season.

The Club World Cup, on the other hand, is a 63-match competition and the opening match is scheduled for June 15, just 15 days after the 2025 match. Champions League final. Between the two, there are crucial points World Cup qualifying matches and finals of the UEFA Nations Leaguewhich will be performed worldwide from June 4 to 10.

This is in addition to two additional matches in the expanded league stage of the Champions League this season.

What steps are players’ unions taking?

FIRPRO, the global body representing more than 65,000 footballers worldwide, and the players’ unions of England, France and Italy, filed a complaint against FIFA in June. He sought to unilaterally challenge the legality of FIFA. establish the schedule of international matches and its decision to expand the Club World Cup.

FIFPRO said in its communication that “players and their unions have consistently highlighted the current football calendar as overloaded and unworkable”, adding that “the new FIFA Club World Cup is seen by players and unions as representing a turning point.”

Furthermore, FIFPRO stated that “the players’ unions believe that such decisions by FIFA violate the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (CFREU), without any serious justification. Ultimately, the players’ unions believe that the aim of this new competition is to increase the wealth and power of football’s global governing body, without considering the impact on the players involved or other stakeholders in professional football.”

The European Leagues, which represent 39 professional leagues in 33 countries across Europe, joined FIFPRO’s legal action in July, but FIFA responded with accusations of “hypocrisy”.

In a statement, FIFA said: “Some leagues in Europe – themselves organizers and regulators of competitions – act with personal commercial interests, hypocrisy and without consideration for the rest of the world. These leagues apparently prefer a calendar filled with friendlies and summer tours, often involving extensive travel around the world. In contrast, FIFA must protect the general interests of world football, including the protection of players, everywhere and at all levels of the game.”

What do players want?

Maheta Molango, CEO of the Professional Footballers’ Association of England (PFA), told ESPN in August that he could “absolutely not” dismiss industrial action by players if their concerns were not addressed. Molango reiterated to ESPN this week that FIFA needs to “sit up and take notice”.

Football would obviously stop without footballers, so players are in a strong position to drive change – if they have the courage to force it.

FIFPRO and players’ unions want limits to be placed on the number of matches players can play in a season. Molango suggested to ESPN a figure between 50 and 60, plus a restriction of up to six times when a player can play two matches in four days. The unions also want a summer break of three to four weeks to be mandatory rather than consultative.

“Players are talking about it everywhere: in press conferences before the Champions League, before the Nations League. It’s clear that something has changed,” said Alexander Bielefeld, FIFPRO’s director of global policy and strategic relations for men’s football, during a panel at the World Football Summit this week.

“Players’ unions have been working on this issue for over five years. We have raised and reported players’ concerns on this matter to FIFA. When unions from countries like England, France, Italy and other markets visit players every pre-season and discuss with national team players, the No. 1 concern is workload.

“Players need protected rest periods and a limitation on the number of matches to be able to perform at their best and protect their careers. It’s as simple as that.”

Club owners, who benefit from a financial boost from more matches in top tournaments, have so far remained silent in the face of players’ concerns.

Is the strike really feasible?

Here’s the reality: There are many hypotheses, but at this stage, a strike is not on the agenda and it would be difficult for the players to cross the finish line.

Sources have told ESPN that FIFPRO and the players’ unions are focused at this stage on legal action against FIFA and so their energies are directed towards that. If this action is successful – there is no firm deadline for a resolution – a players’ strike is unlikely, as FIFA would effectively be forced to suspend, modify or reschedule the Club World Cup.

Even if the PFA were to vote for its 5,000 members, selling a strike to players outside the big clubs and who are not directly affected would not be easy.

Players’ unions represent players at all levels of the game. So could they be sure of getting a majority in favor of this project? Convincing a critical mass to show solidarity with the highest-paid players would take time and a lot of persuasion, hence the priority given to the lawsuit against FIFA.

For example, would a player from EFL League Two team Accrington Stanley or Newport County earning around £500 a week with a mortgage to pay and a family to support be prepared to withdraw his services and lose his salary to support multi-millionaires at the top level in their battle against too many games?

How will this all play out?

That’s the big question, but a lot will depend on the lawsuit filed by FIFPRO against FIFA. This is the next important step.

Players and coaches will continue to raise their concerns, but unless their bosses – the club owners – accept their argument and join forces to tell FIFA that the game is overheating, nothing is likely to change any time soon.

A players’ strike is a distant prospect at the moment, but every additional snippet from major players will help keep the issue in the public domain. But the reality is that this will be decided behind closed doors. If the lawsuit turns in FIFA’s favor, a players’ strike could become a much greater possibility.