Will we see a players' strike?

I never understand the League Cup, it's not needed any more. Replace it with a Home Nations Club Cup of the EFL (no prem) and Scottish league (Irish and Welsh too on qualifiers). Saves prem sides from over playing and gives us the likes of Motherwell vs Reading or Falkirk vs Hull which I think we can all get behind
For a start the police wouldn’t want the hassle of that and UEFA wouldnt ratify it either.
You say it saves PL teams from over playing. What you mean is saves the PL sides in European competitions from over playing.
Again the “lesser” PL sides being asked to pander to the needs of the greedy “bigger teams”.
Imagine the rags this season with only the FA Cup to play for!

What crowd do you think Reading v Motherwell or TNS v Montrose would pull? And how many away fans are travelling?
 
They can strike, but the clubs will just use it as a way to pay them less.

Players cannot have both. Owners of football clubs are just too capitalistic to think and work like that.
 
For a start the police wouldn’t want the hassle of that and UEFA wouldnt ratify it either.
You say it saves PL teams from over playing. What you mean is saves the PL sides in European competitions from over playing.
Again the “lesser” PL sides pandering to the needs of the greedy “bigger teams”.
Imagine the rags this season with only the FA Cup to play for!

What crowd do you think Reading v Motherwell or TNS v Montrose would pull? And how many away fans are travelling?
I hear TNS is quite beautiful at this time of year
 
Its all getting very political and FIFA excluding FIFPro and the PFA from talks about player welfare stinks imo.

I think we're heading for a strike and tbh I wish UEFA would take on FIFA, lesser of two evils as I see it.

Would you be generally supportive of playerers going on strike (Try not to use the lazy argument that they get paid enough so should be ok with being flogged to the point of not enjoying their job). And we all know the clubs shouldnt be doing pre seasons tours.

From my pov there's just too much football, its becoming diluted, as much as I hate the summer break it is needed for us to reset the passion. I almost just wasnt interested in watching City play a summer tournament.
Just out of curiosity - how much credence is there in the claim that playing football stars over and over due to a tight schedule leads to more injuries on the basis of injury to time played ratio?

In case this isn't clear - let's for example take 2 scenarios:

1) Footballers rarely play. Only in league games. Once per week. What is the injury rate in this circumstance? On the basis on injuries per hour played?

2) Footballers play frequently - as they do now. What is the injury rate in this circumstance - on the basis of injuries per hour played?

I honestly don't know how injury rates from #1 compare to injury rates from #2. And I know of no studies looking into this.
===
IMO there well could be a point where playing someone in world football too frequently leads to more injuries per hour played than playing him or her less frequently. But what is the point at which it's too dangerous to the player?
===
Until hard data on player injuries versus minutes played recently becomes available - I think that the pushback on minutes played is overblown.

On the other hand, let's say that playing someone at a rate of once per day leads to the same injury rate as playing that person once per week. In this situation - the question becomes - is it worthwhile to play in a substandard uninteresting tournament given the injury risk - albeit the same as playing in other tournaments - because the risk (injury) to reward (possibly winning the tournament) is too high?

IMO data is lacking to adequately address this question.
===
Into the mix - player injuries occur in training too. How much does intensive training contribute the injury rate, if at all? Might the training regime be adjusted when playing frequent matches to reduce risk to an acceptable level?

Again - not enough data, IMO, to judge.
 
Last edited:
Players want to play international games, it's going to be hard for them to argue that they are playing too many club games for a club that actually pay their wages.

I don't even know who is asking for them to play less games? OK a few mention it Rodri for an example but it isn't many.
Rodri got a lot of support other players agreed with him Ultimately its up to their unions to sort it out
 
Just out of curiosity - how much credence is there in the claim that playing football stars over and over due to a tight schedule leads to more injuries on the basis of injury to time played ratio?

In case this isn't clear - let's for example take 2 scenarios:

1) Footballers rarely play. Only in league games. Once per week. What is the injury rate in this circumstance? On the basis on injuries per hour played?

2) Footballers play frequently - as they do now. What is the injury rate in this circumstance - on the basis of injuries per hour played?

I honestly don't know how injury rates from #1 compare to injury rates from #2. And I know of no studies looking into this.
===
IMO there well could be a point where playing someone in world football too frequently leads to more injuries per hour played than playing him or her less frequently. But what is the point at which it's too dangerous to the player?
===
Until hard data on player injuries versus minutes played recently becomes available - I think that the pushback on minutes played is overblown.

On the other hand, let's say that playing someone at a rate of once per day leads to the same injury rate as playing that person once per week. In this situation - the question becomes - is it worthwhile to play in a substandard uninteresting tournament given the injury risk - albeit the same as playing in other tournaments - because the risk (injury) to reward (possibly winning the tournament) is too high?

IMO data is lacking to adequately address this question.
I don't know really. It makes sense that the body stays in better shape with constant games rather than stop start Added to that is that treatment and prevention measures are better and should allow players to stay fit. Maybe they can play more and more nowadays.

Anyway, seems they wouldn't have overwhelming fan support from the replies on here. I do think it's all coming to a head though.
 
It would be nice if occasionally it was our best 11 against their best 11
Injury, illness, the whim of a manager, suspensions due to too many yellows or a recent red and on an on...

Coupled with the subjective opinion of what constitutes the best side from your point of view versus the manager's...

You're rarely going to see the "best 11" from each side.
 
I think City would have preferred to make it to the quarter finals, but it is a ridiculous tournament without any really clear qualification rules, they seem to make it up as they go along. Say four different English teams win the next four Champions Leagues, and assuming Chelsea get a wildcard as current holders, no way will Fifa allow them all. It is just a sham, and if there is a players’ strike this is the tournament they should strike first.
 
True, too many games. as a neutral had zero interest in that fifa america tournament. no one i knew watched or cared about it.
At the start of the tournament I felt as you do.

But as the tournament progressed, and I watched the games, I grew to like the tournament more and more. I'm now a big fan of the CWC and look forward to watching it once more in 4 years time.
 
I think City would have preferred to make it to the quarter finals, but it is a ridiculous tournament without any really clear qualification rules, they seem to make it up as they go along. Say four different English teams win the next four Champions Leagues, and assuming Chelsea get a wildcard as current holders, no way will Fifa allow them all. It is just a sham, and if there is a players’ strike this is the tournament they should strike first.
It's a brand new tournament and the qualification rules do indeed seem a bit arbitrary. There is some logic in the rules - but it's tenuous.

At any rate, I loved the tournament - and I agree with you - that the qualification criteria probably needs improvement.
 
Probably should do because of the workload, but can guarantee they'll get no sympathy from those types that think you shouldn't complain if you're paid well
 
I think City would have preferred to make it to the quarter finals, but it is a ridiculous tournament without any really clear qualification rules, they seem to make it up as they go along. Say four different English teams win the next four Champions Leagues, and assuming Chelsea get a wildcard as current holders, no way will Fifa allow them all. It is just a sham, and if there is a players’ strike this is the tournament they should strike first.

There is talk of it being expanded next time around.

I think we will see the likes of England, Italy, Germany and Spain each having 4 teams involved with the 4 teams being bases around UEFA coefficient rankings over the 4 year period + CL winners.

UEFA will be all for it because it basically becomes the super league but as a summer tournament and stops further talk of there actually being a super league for the foreseeable.
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top