Players Going on Strike

[And Its Smith]

Rodri’s words of players being close to strike action due to the number of games is getting a lot of coverage in the media.  Am I looking at this wrongly?  The managers don’t HAVE to pick players for every game and can manage the minutes with their big squads.  If it was compulsory to pick your best team every game I could understand but it isn’t.  

I am sure Man City will play someone like Ipswich or Southampton at home sooner or late in the middle of a load of other games and Rodri, Haaland, Foden etc will all be playing the whole game.  

And we have seen Pep use very few subs in the last couple of seasons even when a game is won. Maybe Rodri’s beef should be with Pep and not football

[ExiledAjax]

2 minutes ago, And Its Smith said:

The managers don’t HAVE to pick players for every game and can manage the minutes with their big squads.  If it was compulsory to pick your best team every game I could understand but it isn’t.

There are though.

The FA Cup has a rule that says the "A club competing in a Competition Match must field a full strength team". That's rule 113 of the current rules.

Rule L.21 of the PL's rules says "In every League Match each participating club shall field a full strength team."

EFL Rule 25 says "Each Club shall play it's full strength in all Matches...unless some satisfactory reason is given."

UEFA Rule 6.01a says that each club agrees "...to field their strongest team throughout the competition."

[BCFCGav]

The expansion of so many competitions purely for FIFA's financial gain is stupid, but I do find it hard to feel sorry for the players. They make the same amount in a week as I do in 10 years, train at state of the art facilities, travel in luxury, see the world and can comfortably retire at 30. Not a terrible life is it!

[The Coach]

It’s not just about starting a game. It’s all about all the pre work, travelling, media duty and whatever minutes you get on the pitch.

Totally agree with Rodri. 

[And Its Smith]

3 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

There are though.

The FA Cup has a rule that says the "A club competing in a Competition Match must field a full strength team". That's rule 113 of the current rules.

Rule L.21 of the PL's rules says "In every League Match each participating club shall field a full strength team."

EFL Rule 25 says "Each Club shall play it's full strength in all Matches...unless some satisfactory reason is given."

UEFA Rule 6.01a says that each club agrees "...to field their strongest team throughout the competition."

I think we all know those rules are in place to stop there being 10-11 changes.  Players can be rested whenever the manager wants. 

[Jose]

2 minutes ago, The Coach said:

It’s not just about starting a game. It’s all about all the pre work, travelling, media duty and whatever minutes you get on the pitch.

Totally agree with Rodri. 

Ok. So let’s cut their duties down and offer them less to do so. You think they’d accept that? 
 

Anyone feeling any sympathy for these overpaid jokers need their heads looking at. 
 

Try the real ******* world. 

Edited Wednesday at 08:05 by Jose

[And Its Smith]

1 minute ago, The Coach said:

It’s not just about starting a game. It’s all about all the pre work, travelling, media duty and whatever minutes you get on the pitch.

Totally agree with Rodri. 

The clubs decide to fly around the world pre season.  If they didn’t do that it would help the players.   The clubs have a lot of control over players exhaustion levels. 

[The Coach]

Just now, And Its Smith said:

The clubs decide to fly around the world pre season.  If they didn’t do that it would help the players.   The clubs have a lot of control over players exhaustion levels. 

There is that element as well that I agree with you. Clubs have a duty of care. Evidently they won’t as the markets in Asia and US are too big. 

[Jose]

Just now, And Its Smith said:

The clubs decide to fly around the world pre season.  If they didn’t do that it would help the players.   The clubs have a lot of control over players exhaustion levels. 

Tottenham and Newcastle went to Australia literally straight from the last game of the season last year. You couldn’t make it up.

[AppyDAZE]

14 minutes ago, The Coach said:

It’s not just about starting a game. It’s all about all the pre work, travelling, media duty and whatever minutes you get on the pitch.

Totally agree with Rodri. 

Oh shit, where is my violin.

Edited Wednesday at 08:16 by AppyDAZE

[ExiledAjax]

17 minutes ago, And Its Smith said:

I think we all know those rules are in place to stop there being 10-11 changes.  Players can be rested whenever the manager wants. 

But there are still rules that require clubs to play strong teams. It's not possible for them to just arbitrarily rest players.

18 minutes ago, The Coach said:

It’s not just about starting a game. It’s all about all the pre work, travelling, media duty and whatever minutes you get on the pitch.

Totally agree with Rodri. 

Absolutely. I have complete sympathy for the players. It's the competition organisers and governing bodies that need to consider how much football is really needed.

The guys at the top clubs who play for their countries are now getting one summer off in every four. It's unsustainable.

Edited Wednesday at 08:21 by ExiledAjax

[And Its Smith]

4 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

But there are still rules that require clubs to play strong teams. It's not possible for them to just arbitrarily rest players.

Absolutely. I have complete sympathy for the players. It's the competition organisers and governing bodies that need to consider how much football is really needed.

The guys at the top clubs who play for their countries are now getting one summer off in every four. It's unsustainable.

It’s clearly possible for them to rest players and it does happen.  They just can’t rest 6/7/8 at the same time. But they don’t need to either.  

[Red Billy]

Pull out of all the preseason tournaments that clubs fly around the world for. Decline entry into the champions league and reduce the number of games you play. In addition all these players would need to take a salary reduction in line with the drop of revenue.  Find it very difficult to have sympathy for multi millionaires about a tough work schedule when millions work harder for minimum wage. 

[2015]

I can see both points of view really.

I don't like how the foreign managers/players have come into England and had a go at our FA for the FA Cup fixture lists and EFL Cup fixture lists. Kind of think when you agree to play in a certain league you have to take the fixture lists into consideration. If you don't like it, play in Germany, or Spain.

This is where I agree with the players though - the Champions League extension, World Cup extension in 2026, UEFA Nations League etc is a hell of a lot strain on any player and a lot of it is for UEFA and FIFA's greed. We're not seeing the best of the best players because they are playing way too many matches. Didn't feel like much of a summer break for majority of them this year.

[Steve Watts]

I'm sorry, but I just can't see what his problem is.  Players are in much better condition nowadays with a much better lifestyle than 35+years ago.

Yes, there are more Champions League matches than a team would expect to play in other older format UEFA competitions, but there were more league games on far worse pitches back then.  Nowadays the players can afford to get precision custom made boots to wear etc.

Everything nowadays points to players being able to cope with far more of the rigours of todays game than in the past.  If he cannot reconcile his 6 figure weekly salary with the demands of the game then I suggest the issue is with him not the sport.

[Markthehorn]

Do we need a world club championship and extra European games ?

Or even long distanced Pre/Post season tours ..

Not really but money talks most unfortunately for these players .

But they don’t mind winning competitions and leagues at the end of all these games both domestically and Internationally.

 

Edited Wednesday at 08:41 by Markthehorn

[And Its Smith]

Maybe he means go on strike against Man City as they are the ones picking him for all these games!  Man City gave their players 4 weeks off after the euros which is their decision 

[ExiledAjax]

15 minutes ago, And Its Smith said:

It’s clearly possible for them to rest players and it does happen.  They just can’t rest 6/7/8 at the same time. But they don’t need to either.  

Fine, but the rules are there so it's misleading to say that they aren't.

Regardless, would you not rather there were fewer matches, which might mean that the need to rest/rotate the best players was reduced? 

That's the point. No one asks the players if they want to **** off to Dubai (or wherever it's being held) for a meaningless club world cup. No one asks them if they want to play two extra group games in the champions league.

Instead the organisers tell the clubs what to do, and they tell their employees. 

[And Its Smith]

3 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Fine, but the rules are there so it's misleading to say that they aren't.

Regardless, would you not rather there were fewer matches, which might mean that the need to rest/rotate the best players was reduced? 

That's the point. No one asks the players if they want to **** off to Dubai (or wherever it's being held) for a meaningless club world cup. No one asks them if they want to play two extra group games in the champions league.

Instead the organisers tell the clubs what to do, and they tell their employees. 

I would love nothing more than there to be fewer matches.  Champions league should be knock out immediately for example.  I also want to be a millionaire though and I think this wish is more likely!  In the short term teams like Man City can decide how many of the 65 games their players play in and I think they should stop pretending they don’t 

[Markthehorn]

10 minutes ago, And Its Smith said:

Maybe he means go on strike against Man City as they are the ones picking him for all these games!  Man City gave their players 4 weeks off after the euros which is their decision 

He would get more rest if his manager thought Kalvin Phillips was any good !

It’s a bit like Haaland will probably play each game now as City sold their back up striker .

 

[Numero Uno]

54 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

There are though.

The FA Cup has a rule that says the "A club competing in a Competition Match must field a full strength team". That's rule 113 of the current rules.

Rule L.21 of the PL's rules says "In every League Match each participating club shall field a full strength team."

EFL Rule 25 says "Each Club shall play it's full strength in all Matches...unless some satisfactory reason is given."

UEFA Rule 6.01a says that each club agrees "...to field their strongest team throughout the competition."

Which is entirely subjective. The rules don’t say you can’t rest a player who has been carrying a heavy workload. They are designed to stop clubs putting in eight Academy lads and losing 8-0 which may affect league positions.

There isn’t a panel somewhere telling Liam that because he dropped Sinclair last week or didn’t include Yu and were toothless up front for 45 minutes we are getting a 3 point deduction.

[Street red]

1 hour ago, The Coach said:

It’s not just about starting a game. It’s all about all the pre work, travelling, media duty and whatever minutes you get on the pitch.

Totally agree with Rodri. 

Also International call ups adds to that I can see where the players are coming from,Players can only be pushed so far they are human like the rest of us even though they do earn massive salaries.

[Numero Uno]

35 minutes ago, Red Billy said:

Pull out of all the preseason tournaments that clubs fly around the world for. Decline entry into the champions league and reduce the number of games you play. In addition all these players would need to take a salary reduction in line with the drop of revenue.  Find it very difficult to have sympathy for multi millionaires about a tough work schedule when millions work harder for minimum wage. 

Yes and no on that. People work far LONGER hours for much less money. However your average bloke or woman in the street could not cope with the demands of one game of professional football physically or mentally let alone 50-70 in 9 months plus the training they do…….including the Twitter idiots who think three games of five a side every week makes them the equivalent.

Its on the clubs to prioritise and balance workload at the very top level with their huge squads, simple as that. Players striking would be a very daft and counter productive thing to do.

[frenchred]

I think a few of our players may have pre empted the official start date of the strike!

[David Brent]

39 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

There are though.

The FA Cup has a rule that says the "A club competing in a Competition Match must field a full strength team". That's rule 113 of the current rules.

Rule L.21 of the PL's rules says "In every League Match each participating club shall field a full strength team."

EFL Rule 25 says "Each Club shall play it's full strength in all Matches...unless some satisfactory reason is given."

UEFA Rule 6.01a says that each club agrees "...to field their strongest team throughout the competition."

Which is nonsense because it’s the manager who decides what is his strongest team. 

Fans of every club will disagree on what their strongest team is.

I appreciate that’s a bit extreme but what’s the point of having a squad if you’re not allowed to use it. 

[The Coach]

We can say a Manager could rotate more. Rules would challenge that.

However, a manager is under so much pressure that a couple of losses back to back and he’s getting in the neck. So a manager will always want his top players to start unless injury or physical fitness says otherwise.

[Numero Uno]

1 minute ago, The Coach said:

We can say a Manager could rotate more. Rules would challenge that.

However, a manager is under so much pressure that a couple of losses back to back and he’s getting in the neck. So a manager will always want his top players to start unless injury or physical fitness says otherwise.

Except if you overplay someone their performance levels will drop anyway. If an athlete (any, not just a footballer) is leggy but technically “fit” or 1% off required concentration levels then only rest deals with that.

[Monkeh]

1 hour ago, And Its Smith said:

Rodri’s words of players being close to strike action due to the number of games is getting a lot of coverage in the media.  Am I looking at this wrongly?  The managers don’t HAVE to pick players for every game and can manage the minutes with their big squads.  If it was compulsory to pick your best team every game I could understand but it isn’t.  

I am sure Man City will play someone like Ipswich or Southampton at home sooner or late in the middle of a load of other games and Rodri, Haaland, Foden etc will all be playing the whole game.  

And we have seen Pep use very few subs in the last couple of seasons even when a game is won. Maybe Rodri’s beef should be with Pep and not football

I agree with the players this time, fifa, uefa, and local fa's are asking elite players to play 70+ games a season now, to milk every penny out of the fans,

Something has to give

[And Its Smith]

6 minutes ago, Monkeh said:

I agree with the players this time, fifa, uefa, and local fa's are asking elite players to play 70+ games a season now, to milk every penny out of the fans,

Something has to give

They are asking clubs to play. They aren’t telling them who to pick.  More rotation will mean fewer injuries and less fatigue 

[redkev]

1 hour ago, The Coach said:

It’s not just about starting a game. It’s all about all the pre work, travelling, media duty and whatever minutes you get on the pitch.

Totally agree with Rodri. 

Really , well I never , the money they earn is scandalous, if they didn’t earn the amount of money they do the tv companies who basically pay for the game wouldn’t have such a big say in the game , they pay so much towards football that they can dictate how when / where what football does hence the scandalous wages to the players 

[Welcome To The Jungle]

I'm with the players on this one. It doesn't matter how much you get paid, you have the right to withdraw your labour if your working conditions are getting worse.

If you talk to any professional footballer, they'll tell you how most if them play through an injury every week. Tapped up, drugged up and hyped up to get through the game. 

This is being made far worse by the greed of FIFA and Uefa for expanding their competitions. The Champions league and Euros were far better with 16 excellent teams, where every match was important. The WC was good with 32 teams, and no one needs the club world cup.

Clubs also dragging their players on ever earlier foreign tours of Asia and the Americas are equally to blame.

As fans we've watched the spectacle get worse over the last 20 years. Players are forced to be better athletes and less technical to deal with the increased workload. 

Players taking a stand for less, but higher quality, football is a good thing for the same. Over saturation is killing the game.

[southside]

The players are not paid enough to go through this hell

[Markthehorn]

I think this all shows who really run the show now .

Did none of these players pipe up when the plans for extra long internationals tournaments and increased European games were mooted ?

Seems a case of talking after the horse has bolted.

[The Bard]

It will change when players , clubs, FA'S, confederations and FIFA agree a maximum number of games per season.  In other words, it won't happen.

 

They supposedly have a limit in rugby union but that was ignored by England for Maro Itoje in New Zealand. 

 

In contrast, most of the wealth in football sits with the clubs.  Unless the elite players begin to negotiate a limit on club appearances personally then this will continue to be a problem. 

Going on strike? **** off you're multi millionaires. Sort it out yourselves 

[And Its Smith]

5 minutes ago, Welcome To The Jungle said:

I'm with the players on this one. It doesn't matter how much you get paid, you have the right to withdraw your labour if your working conditions are getting worse.

If you talk to any professional footballer, they'll tell you how most if them play through an injury every week. Tapped up, drugged up and hyped up to get through the game. 

This is being made far worse by the greed of FIFA and Uefa for expanding their competitions. The Champions league and Euros were far better with 16 excellent teams, where every match was important. The WC was good with 32 teams, and no one needs the club world cup.

Clubs also dragging their players on ever earlier foreign tours of Asia and the Americas are equally to blame.

As fans we've watched the spectacle get worse over the last 20 years. Players are forced to be better athletes and less technical to deal with the increased workload. 

Players taking a stand for less, but higher quality, football is a good thing for the same. Over saturation is killing the game.

I’m not against the players but the players should be annoyed with their clubs as much as football governing bodies. 

[redkev]

1 hour ago, ExiledAjax said:

But there are still rules that require clubs to play strong teams. It's not possible for them to just arbitrarily rest players.

Absolutely. I have complete sympathy for the players. It's the competition organisers and governing bodies that need to consider how much football is really needed.

The guys at the top clubs who play for their countries are now getting one summer off in every four. It's unsustainable.

But if they wish could retire after 1 season of playing top flight football and have every summer off 

been working since the age of 12 paper round / fishmonger / deli counter before I left school 

now 60 never been out of work and will probably ( hopefully not ) still have to work up to pension age ( not a moan just how it is - they don’t know there born some of these players 

[TonyTonyTony]

Surely this is why the are paid the big bucks? 300 grand a week = 15.5 Million quid a year before tax. On a 3 year contract that's nearly 50 Million quid in wages or 200 odd grand a game, based on 70 games a season. Yes they work their arses off, but they have the best of everything and have a 15 year career and retire.

I have about 0.5% sympathy.

Edited Wednesday at 09:53 by TonyTonyTony

[ExiledAjax]

4 minutes ago, And Its Smith said:

I’m not against the players but the players should be annoyed with their clubs as much as football governing bodies. 

Yes they should be, and the clubs should push back against the organisers. I don't think Rodri said anything against that. His main complaint seemed to be that no one, not clubs or organisers ever actually ask the players if they would like to play another competition.

Yes the clubs are at fault and do need to be accountable, but they are also caught in the middle. Ultimately if the organisers stopped trying to compete for eyeballs and advertising revenue through trying to fill the calendar, the clubs wouldn't need to act.

5 minutes ago, redkev said:

But if they wish could retire after 1 season of playing top flight football and have every summer off 

been working since the age of 12 paper round / fishmonger / deli counter before I left school 

now 60 never been out of work and will probably ( hopefully not ) still have to work up to pension age ( not a moan just how it is - they don’t know there born some of these players 

Good for you but honestly I think what they earn, or what any of us earn in our lives, or the difference between those sums is irrelevant.

I'd not dismiss another person's concerns about their life just because I'd not experienced them myself.

Plenty of other industries where people are very well paid have tackled working hours/conditions. Money does not make up for shit working conditions.

[Negan]

Yeah genuinly no sympathy for them whatsoever. They earn a ridiculous amount. Just shut up and go play a game of football ffs, got the easiest life going, soft *****. 

[redkev]

5 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Yes they should be, and the clubs should push back against the organisers. I don't think Rodri said anything against that. His main complaint seemed to be that no one, not clubs or organisers ever actually ask the players if they would like to play another competition.

Yes the clubs are at fault and do need to be accountable, but they are also caught in the middle. Ultimately if the organisers stopped trying to compete for eyeballs and advertising revenue through trying to fill the calendar, the clubs wouldn't need to act.

Good for you but honestly I think what they earn, or what any of us earn in our lives, or the difference between those sums is irrelevant.

I'd not dismiss another person's concerns about their life just because I'd not experienced them myself.

Plenty of other industries where people are very well paid have tackled working hours/conditions. Money does not make up for shit working conditions.

If money doesn’t make up for the shite working conditions ( which they don’t have by the way ) cut there wages to £40,000 grand a year like a lot of people , they would cry like a baby 

11 minutes ago, TonyTonyTony said:

Surely this is why the are paid the big bucks? 300 grand a week = 15.5 Million quid a year before tax. On a 3 year contract that's nearly 50 Million quid in wages or 200 odd grand a game, based on 70 games a season. Yes they work their arses off, but they have the best of everything and have a 15 year career and retire.

I have about 0.5% sympathy.

That much 

[2015]

It's not about the money though.

We're seeing extended competitions every year from Fifa and Uefa. 

The intensity of football matches have never been higher in terms of fitness. The recent Euros was as bad a tournament i've ever seen since 2010. No coincedence for me - players are absolutely knackered, and probably fed up.

I want to see less matches being played across the board but a higher quality content being played. I would like to see the Euros go back to a 16 team tournament, and a World Cup of 32 teams.

It isn't the greed of the players killing the game, it's the greed of the owners of clubs, presidents of confederations and FIFA!

[Welcome To The Jungle]

29 minutes ago, redkev said:

Really , well I never , the money they earn is scandalous, if they didn’t earn the amount of money they do the tv companies who basically pay for the game wouldn’t have such a big say in the game , they pay so much towards football that they can dictate how when / where what football does hence the scandalous wages to the players 

 

25 minutes ago, southside said:

The players are not paid enough to go through this hell

 

21 minutes ago, redkev said:

But if they wish could retire after 1 season of playing top flight football and have every summer off 

been working since the age of 12 paper round / fishmonger / deli counter before I left school 

now 60 never been out of work and will probably ( hopefully not ) still have to work up to pension age ( not a moan just how it is - they don’t know there born some of these players 

 

17 minutes ago, TonyTonyTony said:

Surely this is why the are paid the big bucks? 300 grand a week = 15.5 Million quid a year before tax. On a 3 year contract that's nearly 50 Million quid in wages or 200 odd grand a game, based on 70 games a season. Yes they work their arses off, but they have the best of everything and have a 15 year career and retire.

I have about 0.5% sympathy.

 

11 minutes ago, Negan said:

Yeah genuinly no sympathy for them whatsoever. They earn a ridiculous amount. Just shut up and go play a game of football ffs, got the easiest life going, soft *****. 

 

5 minutes ago, redkev said:

If money doesn’t make up for the shite working conditions ( which they don’t have by the way ) cut there wages to £40,000 grand a year like a lot of people , they would cry like a baby 

That much 

I agree that players are payed too much. However if you objectively look at it, Rodri is suggesting less games. Less game would lead to

1) Less injuries

2) Less reliance on athleticism and higher technical ability

3) Teams more energised to press more, rather than passing round the back to save energy for a bit.

4) Top clubs not hoarding all the best players to cope with their extra games.

5) Teams will be more willing to play their best players in the FA cup and League Cup.

Do you disagree? 

I agree with you all that players are paid too much, but that is a separate issue. The stand they are proposing will lead to the game improving. 

[ExiledAjax]

2 minutes ago, redkev said:

If money doesn’t make up for the shite working conditions ( which they don’t have by the way ) cut there wages to £40,000 grand a year like a lot of people , they would cry like a baby 

The answer to bad working conditions is to fix the conditions not drop the wages earned by the person performing the work.

[RoystonFoote'snephew]

I'm sorry but I can't have sympathy with today's pampered players in the PL. Rodri may think there are too many games but most players would be banging on the managers door if they were left out of the Matchday srarting X1 let alone the squad. Yes they have commitments such as press calls and interviews beyond actually playing but again the overwhelming majority relish and positively seek such engagements. There are plenty of players who pop up on tv in an advert to endorse some product or other. At least in England they can be relatively left alone and generally live a pretty normal life. They want to try Italy where their life is most certainly not their own and a below par  performance could see their car torched. 

[BigTone]

2 hours ago, Jose said:

Ok. So let’s cut their duties down and offer them less to do so. You think they’d accept that? 
 

Anyone feeling any sympathy for these overpaid jokers need their heads looking at. 
 

Try the real ******* world. 

Maybe all contracts should be made "pay as you play"

[Cowshed]

1 hour ago, Welcome To The Jungle said:

I'm with the players on this one. It doesn't matter how much you get paid, you have the right to withdraw your labour if your working conditions are getting worse.

 

A player does not have a right to withdraw their labour for being asked to play football.

The players salary takes into consideration how much a player plays and at what level. The Man City players salaries will reflect their ability, the levels they play at  and their playing time. 

[The Bard]

When my 3rd child was born, I went part time because it worked out cheaper due to the cost of child care. It was very tough financially. 

Absolutely sick of hearing them whingeing. 

If you care that much, stick a clause in your contract limiting appearances and accept being paid less.  The solution is in your hands. Striking would be an absolute disgrace.  It's not like your pay has gone down over a long period in real terms has it. 

[The Batman]

3 hours ago, ExiledAjax said:

There are though.

The FA Cup has a rule that says the "A club competing in a Competition Match must field a full strength team". That's rule 113 of the current rules.

Rule L.21 of the PL's rules says "In every League Match each participating club shall field a full strength team."

EFL Rule 25 says "Each Club shall play it's full strength in all Matches...unless some satisfactory reason is given."

UEFA Rule 6.01a says that each club agrees "...to field their strongest team throughout the competition."

I've always despised this "full strength team" term. 

Who the hell are the authorities to say who is better than others? I'd love some pen pusher in the Premier league Office to go up to a player and say "you ain't as good as him, you cant play today". What's the point of having squads. 

How about tactics for the opponent? They may require a different style of striker for example up against their defence for that particular match.

Such a bad awful rule. Should be left to the manager and the manager alone. 

[AppyDAZE]

I would LOVE to see them go on strike.

Get the army in.

[Lew-T]

Firstly, I do understand both sides to this. Football business is like no other, and players these days especially the top level ones are playing a helluva lot of games. 

But having said that, isn’t that what squad rotation is for? The squads are much bigger these days to handle the fixture congestion. Also it’s a very short career. It’s 15 years of hard work, dieting, pre seasons, conditioning etc. But during that time you’re living in luxury, seeing the world, being apart of a group of blokes from all over the world and building relationships in the changing room. What can be better?

By the time Rodri is 35, he would have won it all in football in terms of trophies, played at the highest level and earned an unbelievable amount of money along the way. The next 35 years of his life couldn’t be any easier.

[TonyTonyTony]

2 minutes ago, AppyDAZE said:

I would LOVE to see them go on strike.

I think our lot are on strike at the moment. Or may as well be

[Welcome To The Jungle]

23 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

A player does not have a right to withdraw their labour for being asked to play football.

The players salary takes into consideration how much a player plays and at what level. The Man City players salaries will reflect their ability, the levels they play at  and their playing time. 

Every employee has the right to withdraw their labour (police and military excluded). If my boss told me and my colleagues we were doing more work for the same money next year, I'm sure industrial action would be threatened and probably actioned if they went through with it. So yes they do have the right.

But answer me this. Do you believe that football has got better or worse in the last 20 years as the number of games has increased? 

[ExiledAjax]

8 minutes ago, The Batman said:

I've always despised this "full strength team" term. 

Who the hell are the authorities to say who is better than others? I'd love some pen pusher in the Premier league Office to go up to a player and say "you ain't as good as him, you cant play today". What's the point of having squads. 

How about tactics for the opponent? They may require a different style of striker for example up against their defence for that particular match.

Such a bad awful rule. Should be left to the manager and the manager alone. 

I offered no opinion on the rules, but simply posted them in response to @And Its Smith saying:

 

3 hours ago, And Its Smith said:

If it was compulsory to pick your best team every game I could understand but it isn’t.

Because, technically, it is compulsory.

That it's not strictly enforced is widely accepted, but that doesn't mean that these rules should not exist.

They are there to be used if, in extremis, a competition organiser thinks they need to enforce them for any reason, and they use a deliberately vague and subjective terms to maximise the flexibility of that enforcement and minimise the opportunity for loopholes to be found. It's the same as some of the terms and conditions of the tickets our club sells, they're not enforced, but they can be if someone is a *****.

[IAmNick]

People and their labour can be exploited whether you're on minimum wage or earning £100k a week. They're only human, yes they are compensated incredibly well but they don't deserve to have their lives, bodies AND minds ruined in the process.

The problem is the competitions/clubs - or the companies who own the clubs and all the supporting crap (TVs, betting companies, whatever) and are just obsessed with making as much money as possible no matter what the human impact is, not the blokes kicking the ball.

Also - It'd be interesting to see the cross section between "men's mental health" advocates and those saying "**** them, they're rich what are they complaining about! Man up!" Something to think about.

[Cowshed]

24 minutes ago, Welcome To The Jungle said:

Every employee has the right to withdraw their labour (police and military excluded). If my boss told me and my colleagues we were doing more work for the same money next year, I'm sure industrial action would be threatened and probably actioned if they went through with it. So yes they do have the right.

But answer me this. Do you believe that football has got better or worse in the last 20 years as the number of games has increased? 

A professional footballer does not have the right to withdraw their labour from the game they have been employed to play without just cause. Players contracts and the salaries that they receive reflect playing time. Individuals striking because they feel they play too much when their contracts stipulate expectation, playing time etc is not a just cause.

Your question should be have footballers in the last twenty years been paid more as the number of games increased? The answer is yes, the increase is massive, and this is renumeration for the players playing more. The rewards at the top level are lavish, and this reflects the expectation and demands. If players don't want the rewards they can negotiate contracts with clubs that are linked to how much they are willing to play.

Edited Wednesday at 12:01 by Cowshed

[Numero Uno]

55 minutes ago, BigTone said:

Maybe all contracts should be made "pay as you play"

So a sub-keeper trains and earns just a basic salary even though the current first team keeper needs other keepers to do a decent training session?

I would imagine agents will be all over this and contracts will have appearance limits. That’s probably what Rodri is after tbh.

[Welcome To The Jungle]

12 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

A professional footballer does not have the right to withdraw their labour from the game they have been employed to play without just cause. Players contracts and the salaries that they receive reflect playing time. Individuals striking because they feel they play too much when their contracts stipulate expectation, playing time etc is not a just cause.

Your question should be have footballers in the last twenty years been paid more as the number of games increased? The answer is yes, the increase is massive, and this is renumeration for the players playing more. The rewards at the top level are lavish, and this reflects the expectation and demands. If players don't want the rewards they can negotiate contracts with clubs that are linked to how much they are willing to play.

They're not asking for more money though. Stop making that your argument.  I think you do believe that football has got worse in the last 20 years. I think you do understand that less football would greatly improve the quality of matches. However you're like a broken record shouting about their wages which are irrelevant to the whole situation. If the players are able to force less football through industrial action of some kind, it makes the game better. That's good for all of us.

We can then have a separate argument about players wages, where I agree they are paid too much.

 

Edit. Extra work mid contract is ample justification to withdraw labour fwiw

Edited Wednesday at 12:12 by Welcome To The Jungle

[Davefevs]

11 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

A professional footballer does not have the right to withdraw their labour from the game they have been employed to play without just cause. Players contracts and the salaries that they receive reflect playing time. Individuals striking because they feel they play too much when their contracts stipulate expectation, playing time etc is not a just cause.

Your question should be have footballers in the last twenty years been paid more as the number of games increased? The answer is yes, the increase is massive, and this is renumeration for the players playing more. The rewards at the top level are lavish, and this reflects the expectation and demands. If players don't want the rewards they can negotiate contracts with clubs that are linked to how much they are willing to play.

Do you think their wages have gone up BECAUSE they play MORE games, or wages have gone up because the clubs are earning more money (possibly because there are more games)?

 

[Numero Uno]

2 hours ago, redkev said:

But if they wish could retire after 1 season of playing top flight football and have every summer off 

been working since the age of 12 paper round / fishmonger / deli counter before I left school 

now 60 never been out of work and will probably ( hopefully not ) still have to work up to pension age ( not a moan just how it is - they don’t know there born some of these players 

I’m not defending it but the likes of Rodri will be lucky to get a month off all year with international duties. Probably nearer a fortnight this year. You would think that a sensible compromise could be reached given the apparent business “brains” in football.

To me it’s UEFA and FIFA expanding rather than streamlining their competitions so they can “maximise revenue” that is causing issues, not the domestic programme which has pretty much remained as is for quite a while now.

[Super]

Of course there is too much football any idiot can see that

[BigTone]

5 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Do you think their wages have gone up BECAUSE they play MORE games, or wages have gone up because the clubs are earning more money (possibly because there are more games)?

 

The latter in my mind

[Cowshed]

1 minute ago, Davefevs said:

Do you think their wages have gone up BECAUSE they play MORE games, or wages have gone up because the clubs are earning more money (possibly because there are more games)?

 

The income flooding into top level football is because there is more product (matches) being sold. The players playing these increasing games are being rewarded for the demands. Cut the league back, cut the cups back, trim the champions league back to the European cup and the income feeding the ever increasing top level players money diminishes. 

Meanwhile a player like Lee Grant ( Man U third choice keeper) gets paid a fraction of the first teamers. He did not play a first team game in four seasons, his contact reflected  his playing time, his ability, and his level. 

[BigTone]

25 minutes ago, Numero Uno said:

So a sub-keeper trains and earns just a basic salary even though the current first team keeper needs other keepers to do a decent training session?

I would imagine agents will be all over this and contracts will have appearance limits. That’s probably what Rodri is after tbh.

They all get paid a basic and then a "pay as you play" bonus if playing in 1st team.  Didn't it work this way yonks ago ?  Also, gives them an incentive to step up a level.

[Barrs Court Red]

I hope they do, as FIFA and the individual confederations seem to want to milk ever more from the game at their expense.  

[SecretSam]

I understand with the issues around physical and emotional stress. But L1 and L2 players have been expected to rock up 50+ times a season for years, due to small squads and multiple competitions, ALL of which are absolutely vital for club survival (££££££).

Also: nurses, care workers, and many others in low paid jobs work like slaves for a mere pittance, so...sit down, shut up, count your money, Rodri.

[Bannerman]

4 hours ago, Jose said:

Ok. So let’s cut their duties down and offer them less to do so. You think they’d accept that? 
 

Anyone feeling any sympathy for these overpaid jokers need their heads looking at. 
 

Try the real ******* world. 

Totally agree, and he or any other footballers don’t like it move on to a club that will ensure first team play, but they won’t because they are motivated (desire) by money and not the desire to play for a lesser club (in their eyes). As always greed self-centred egotistical that’s ever growing.

[42nite]

It's hard untill you're 30, then it's reture in luxury for the rest of your life!

Poor souls.

 

[ExiledAjax]

10 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

The income flooding into top level football is because there is more product (matches) being sold.

It's not though is it. Just to take one example: the Premier League has been a 380 game product, not all of which are available for broadcast (domestically at least), for the best part of three decades now.

In that time the PL's revenue, and therefore the revenue of its member clubs, has soared from about £200m in the mid-90s to £6.1bn in the last reported season (2022/23). No increase in games, 3,000% increase in revenue. Other competitions have expanded, but their revenue increases have not been proportional to the relatively limited expansion.

So player salaries have increased because of the demand and payment for the existing product rather than demand for more product. A player may argue that this is largely down to the increased quality of players.

Therefore this idea that they get paid loads because they play loads is wrong. Hence it's not a case of "if they want to play less then pay them less". That's a flawed argument drivn by jealousy.

4 minutes ago, SecretSam said:

I understand with the issues around physical and emotional stress. But L1 and L2 players have been expected to rock up 50+ times a season for years, due to small squads and multiple competitions, ALL of which are absolutely vital for club survival (££££££).

Also: nurses, care workers, and many others in low paid jobs work like slaves for a mere pittance, so...sit down, shut up, count your money, Rodri.

Hypothetically let's swap nurses pay packets with footballers.

Would you still want nurses to work reasonable hours that means they don't burnout? 

Would it possibly be fairly mental to ask someone to play 65 x 90 minute (some with a bonus of 30 minutes of overtime) professional football matches, all around the world, in one year?

The pay is irrelevant.

[SecretSam]

Just now, ExiledAjax said:

It's not though is it. Just to take one example: the Premier League has been a 380 game product, not all of which are available for broadcast (domestically at least), for the best part of three decades now.

In that time the PL's revenue, and therefore the revenue of its member clubs, has soared from about £200m in the mid-90s to £6.1bn in the last reported season (2022/23). No increase in games, 3,000% increase in revenue. Other competitions have expanded, but their revenue increases have not been proportional to the relatively limited expansion.

So player salaries have increased because of the demand and payment for the existing product rather than demand for more product. A player may argue that this is largely down to the increased quality of players.

Therefore this idea that they get paid loads because they play loads is wrong. Hence it's not a case of "if they want to play less then pay them less". That's a flawed argument drivn by jealousy.

Hypothetically let's swap nurses pay packets with footballers.

Would you still want nurses to work reasonable hours that means they don't burnout? 

Would it possibly be fairly mental to ask someone to play 65 x 90 minute (some with a bonus of 30 minutes of overtime) professional football matches, all around the world, in one year?

The pay is irrelevant.

I take your point, most nurses would willingly work for the same money as they are on now if it was only 60x 90mins (and I know there's more to it than that).

I understand the players' point, I really do, but in the sympathy stakes they are a long, long way down the list. As others have said, play less, pay less. 

As for pay not being relevant, a nurse's pay (say) doesn't allow them to employ people to do menial tasks like childminding, cleaning, home maintenance, etc. And I'm pretty sure nurses work longer hours than footballers.

And there's an element of risk and reward. Yes, there's a risk of injury, burnout, etc for top level footballers, but they're handsomely paid for it.

I believe in decent working conditions for all workers, don't get me wrong - but in relative terms, I'd say footballers were pretty well off, even compared to other sports people - take professional cyclists, for example. Far less reward, far more risk.

[The Batman]

1 hour ago, ExiledAjax said:

I offered no opinion on the rules, but simply posted them in response to @And Its Smith saying:

 

Because, technically, it is compulsory.

That it's not strictly enforced is widely accepted, but that doesn't mean that these rules should not exist.

They are there to be used if, in extremis, a competition organiser thinks they need to enforce them for any reason, and they use a deliberately vague and subjective terms to maximise the flexibility of that enforcement and minimise the opportunity for loopholes to be found. It's the same as some of the terms and conditions of the tickets our club sells, they're not enforced, but they can be if someone is a *****.

Apologies, wasn't implying you were agreeing, I was just giving my opinion on the rulings themselves.