On Tuesday, 17 September, Manchester City midfielder Rodri said in his press conference before City’s game against Inter Milan that players are “close” to a strike, adding that “if it keeps this way, it will be a moment that we have no other option.”
A day earlier, Liverpool Goalkeeper Alisson Becker demanded that players needed to be “listened to” because “nobody asks the players” when it comes to expanding the annual football schedule.
A month before Rodri’s comments, Real Madrid manager Carlo Ancelotti said the club was considering giving players personalised holidays throughout the season to avoid them breaking down mid-season.
Talk of a footballer’s strike has reached a high point in recent weeks, but is this the answer to football’s expanding schedule?
James Reinhardt and Sara Casson debate the issue.
Rodri’s season-ending injury shows a strike is needed to protect football
By James Reinhardt
It should come as no surprise that Rodri’s potentially season-ending ACL injury (suffered a mere 5 days after his press conference) is a product of the fact that the volume of football elite players have to bear when Rodri himself had just completed a 63-game season.
More generally, it shows that football is progressing to a point where the sport’s credibility is on the line. We are now at a point where players feel the need to protect themselves by going on strike.
This is something that has been brewing for a while.
Like Rodri, Virgil Van Dijk’s own ACL injury (which ruled him out of the entire 2020/21 season and 2020 Euros) was a product of being overworked: Van Dijk himself had played 74 consecutive Premier League matches without being substituted.
Of course, ACL injuries are a natural part of football, but it is becoming increasingly the case that season-ending injuries are caused by muscle fatigue (which makes players more susceptible to injuries).
Fast forward three years and the number of games for players borders on the absurd.
It is now hypothetically possible for a Manchester City player to play a total of 85 games this season with the expansion of FIFA’s Club World Cup, which would shatter Rodri’s total from last season.
Not only is this bad because of increased injury risk, but more football is likely to result in more fans becoming disillusioned with the amount of football on offer – if so-called “big” matches are more common, they feel less valuable (a common critique of the new champions league format).
So why is a strike the best course of action? Because the only way change is possible is by disrupting the current balance of power in football politics.
FIFA on its website says that it is “of primary importance” that player health is protected, yet by expanding its own Club World Cup to a 32-team competition FIFA has put money ahead of player welfare.
Likewise, Newcastle and Spurs playing a post-season friendly series in Australia shows clubs are again putting their own PSR concerns in front of their players.
Undoubtedly a players’ strike would have questions over its feasibility (there would undoubtedly be a barrage of legal challenges to it), and even an attempt to launch one would disrupt the idea that only money can talk when it comes to the football calendar – FIFA would lose a significant amount of public legitimacy (if it even has any left) were it not to cooperate with player unions.
If not, we must get used to a sport where Rodri’s situation becomes commonplace.
Football is unquestionably worse without its best players.
Demands for a strike do not represent the wider footballing community – it has elitist motives.
By Sara Casson
Undoubtedly, the physical health of players should remain at the heart of this debate, particularly in the wake of Rodri’s season-ending ACL injury, but is strike action the answer?
Whilst the volume of games has increased marginally for some top-flight teams, such growth only accounts for a small pool of players. A recent report found that the average footballer’s capacity for matches was between 50-60 games per season.
This came alongside a study by the CIES Football Observatory in July showing that only 0.31% of professional players were featured in over 61 games per season, whilst just 6.8% featured in 41-50. They found no significant change in the number of official matches played by clubs in the 40 they analysed between 2012 and 2024.
Therefore, the apparent industrial action that Rodri alludes to would place most players in an incredibly difficult position.
Surely such footballers dream of playing in tournaments like the Champions League and the proposed Super League. When it is these tournaments that provide them the commercial revenue to live the lifestyles that they do, is the threat of industrial action the correct means to deal with such an issue?
Aside from the elite few, most players even in the premier league likely won’t appear in upwards of 40 games per season. If you’re not playing, you’re not progressing. Why should the voice of the few wanting less override the masses needing more?
Even in instances where players are appearing in more games than seen fit, squad investment is at an all-time high. Chelsea made an astounding 12 signings in the most recent summer transfer window. Most top-flight teams now have an average squad of 25-30 players, allowing for more tactical rotation of squad players.
Such investment would allow individual clubs to alleviate issues of fatigue in their players, without warranting strike actions.
Aside from the legalities, which would undoubtedly come with a bombardment of questions, the issues raised by these elite players could easily be mitigated without disturbance to the game as we know it.
Pay cuts for less game time alongside personally negotiated rest time in individual clubs, would allow them more power to play no more than their capacity as seen fit.
As former England and Manchester City Goalkeeper Joe Hart recently said: “There’s no secret about it. It’s hard work.” Well, Joe, I’m sure if I had Rodri’s bank balance, I think I’d work pretty hard too.
“Carlo Ancelotti 2016 (cropped)” by Светлана Бекетова is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.