Is professional football about to go on strike?

In this week’s Member Insights piece, David Alexander, the founder and MD of Calacus PR spotlights the rising number of protests in football by players due to non-stop match schedules.

The comments by Spain and Manchester City midfielder Rodri this week laid bare the very real threat the game faces of its players protesting at the number of games they are being asked to play.

Rodri has been eased back into City’s squad following victory with his national team at EURO 2024, but his comments about the increasing player schedule underline the players’ concerns at the top level.

Rodri said he “needed a rest” during last season’s run-in and said: “I think we are close to that. It’s easy to understand something general, you ask any player, he will say the same. If it keeps this way, it will be a moment that we have no other option, but let’s see.”

The fact that Rodri suffered a serious knee injury in the title clash against Arsenal may well have been coincidental, but it certainly gave further credence to his concerns.

The Club World Cup to be held next summer has been expanded to 32 teams while the Champions League has also added two extra games at the group stage and the FIFA World Cup is set to have 48 nations from 2026. The Nations League has also incorporated an extra quarter-final stage in its finals phase next summer.

From a governance perspective, it’s easy to understand why more games are being arranged.

The appetite for football has become insatiable, and more games mean more gate receipts, more broadcast revenue, more sponsors and more entertainment.

But the flip side is that more game time puts increasing pressure on football’s golden geese – the players.

Manchester City played 120 times across all competitions over the past two seasons, for instance and late last year, their coach Pep Guardiola, warned of what might happen.

He said: “There is only one solution to change something. Maybe if all the players decide for themselves to say ‘stop’, then you have to change something. And then FIFA, UEFA will maybe react a little bit.”

The relentless schedule is becoming exhausting, with fewer rest periods increasing fatigue, which has an effect on mental and physical wellness and could see the stars of the game facing extended periods off the pitch.

Professional Footballers’ Association (PFA) CEO, Maheta Molango, last year underlined the power that players have to shape the game.

“There’s an increasing awareness that if those responsible for the game fail to take necessary action, it will eventually fall upon the players to say ‘enough is enough’,” he said.

“When tournament competitions are expanding without player consultation or even prior notification, it should be clear that players now need to have a central role in shaping the big decisions about the game’s future, meaning a constitutionally recognised ‘seat at the table’.

“Reducing the overall number of games is one part of the solution. Ringfenced in-season and between-season breaks are also vital to give players a chance to maintain physical fitness over a sustained period of time.

“Fixture scheduling should never compromise players’ fitness and well-being. For those at the top of the game, it should set alarm bells ringing when leading players are making the decision to independently manage their workload. It’s time for football to prioritise its most valuable asset: the players.

“Legal action is the unfortunate but inevitable consequence of major stakeholders within the game – the leagues and the players – being ignored. As always, it’s the players who are expected to bend. As we have seen, eventually they will break. It has to stop.”

A PFA statement this week warned that Rodri’s comments should be a “serious wake up call” to football’s governing bodies. “Players and their unions have asked to be listened to and to be a central part of these processes. When they are ignored then the natural consequence is that players will begin to consider all options available to them.”

A 2023 report published by the international players’ union, FIFPRO, found that due to an expanding calendar, the workload and pressure for players had significantly increased, resulting in less time for rest and recovery, and sleep deprivation due to constant traveling.

Supported by top European leagues, including the Premier League, representing 39 leagues and 1,130 clubs in 33 countries, FIFPRO filed a complaint against FIFA over its “abuse of dominance” in football to the European Commission’s antitrust arm.

A statement published in July read: “The international match calendar is now beyond saturation and has become unsustainable for national leagues and a risk for the health of players. FIFA’s decisions over the last years have repeatedly favoured its own competitions and commercial interests, neglected its responsibilities as a governing body, and harmed the economic interests of national leagues and the welfare of players.

“National leagues and player unions, which represent the interests of all clubs and all players at the national level, and regulate labour relations through collectively agreed solutions, cannot accept that global regulations are decided unilaterally.

“Legal action is now the only responsible step for European leagues and player unions to protect football, its ecosystem and its workforce from FIFA’s unilateral decisions.”

FIFPRO’s Europe president David Terrier warned players were burnt out, physically and mentally, with a survey showing that over 50% of respondents said they had been played while carrying an injury.

“There is an emergency – we are in danger,” said Terrier. “Players have gone beyond the limit and the international timetable is full to the brim.”

FIFA has responded, accusing leagues of “acting with commercial self-interest” and “hypocrisy” by sending their players on “extensive” global pre-season tours.

A spokesman said: “The current calendar was unanimously approved by the FIFA Council, which is composed of representatives from all continents, including Europe, following a comprehensive and inclusive consultation, which included FIFPRO and league bodies.

“FIFA’s calendar is the only instrument ensuring that international football can continue to survive, co-exist, and prosper alongside domestic and continental club football.”

In March, FIFA also announced a taskforce to look into player welfare principles such as mandatory rest periods to balance the demands top players face in Europe to demands for more matches in less developed regions.

Some argue that Rodri’s concerns may actually only affect players at the very top level, such as La Liga president Javier Tebas.

“We always think of 150 or 200 players who play all the games. But in Europe, there are more than 50,000 players who don’t play all those games and don’t have the problem of the match load.

“Football cannot be governed by what happens to 250 players, but by the rest because, in addition, all these new tournaments would economically empty the national leagues and impact the salaries of other players with fewer club revenues.”

The comments by Tebas are backed up by a recent study by the CIES Football Observatory – a research group at the International Centre for Sports Studies, external – on schedules and player workload suggested that most clubs are not playing more matches per season.

Its report found that between 2012 and 2024, the average number of fixtures per club and season sat at just over 40, with about 5% of clubs playing 60 or more games per season.

That said, Tebas did later say that a players’ strike would be welcome if it resulted in the Club World Cup ending, especially now it has expanded so considerably.

“If this strike serves to solve the issue of the calendars, but not to remove clubs from the national leagues but so that the Club World Cup does not exist, so that the dates are better restructured, then it is welcome because something has to happen.

“We will take the appropriate legal action, but if the players’ union decides to go on strike for this reason, which we have already discussed with them, it is not just a problem of over-saturation of matches with 70, 80, 100 players, it is a much bigger problem, it is affecting the entire industry.”

FIFA President Gianni Infantino rejects the assertion that the world governing body is to blame.

“FIFA is organising around 1% of the games of the top clubs in the world. 98-99% of the matches are organised by the different leagues, associations, confederations,” he said.

“FIFA is financing football all over the world. The revenues that we generate are not just going to a few clubs in one country, the revenues that we generate are going to 211 countries all over the world.

“Our mission is to organise events and competitions, and to develop football around the world because 70% of the Member Associations of FIFA would have no football without the resources coming directly from FIFA.”

There have been some critics who argue that players are on big money, that it’s up to their clubs to manage elite player workload rather than blame the governance.

Clearly the game has changed from the days when Arsenal, for instance, played 70 games in the 1979/80 season.

The pace, the intensity and the travel for matches is unprecedented and something needs to be done before the top players suffer consistent, serious injuries that deny the spectacle that captures the imagination of billions of fans.

The spat is another reminder of the disconnect between players, clubs, governing bodies and broadcasters, who play out their differences in public rather than addressing problems collaboratively.

Clearly something needs to change to balance the appetite of fans and broadcasters with the demands placed on players and club resources.

Liverpool and Brazil goalkeeper Alisson Becker summed up what needs to happen when he commented: “For the supporters, it is amazing. More games, more bigger games, big teams against each other. For us players as well, it is good that you are going to play against the best in Europe.

“Sometimes nobody asks the players what they think about adding more games so maybe our opinion does not matter. But everybody knows what we think about having more games. Everybody is tired of that.

“Whether the number is 30 or 40. It is a matter to sit down all together and listen to all the parts because we understand we have the media and TV, the side of UEFA and FIFA, Premier League, domestic competitions.

“We are not stupid, we understand that people want more games, but the reasonable thing would be for all the people I mentioned – those who make the calendar – to sit together and listen to all the parts inclusive of the players.

“We just need to be listened to. That’s what we would like to do, to sit together and understand what is the thinking of the direction that football wants to go – not only adding games, adding competitions, adding this and that.

“What we want is to give our best for the football, if you are tired you cannot compete at a high level. I want to give my best in all the games I play but we need a solution. It does not look like we are close to a good solution for football sake and players’ sake.”

Click here to know more about Calacus Sports PR.