Should footballers go on strike over workload after Rodri’s comments? – The debate

The Athletics has launched a series of sports debates in which two writers analyse a specific topic. In this edition, Steve Madeley and Rob Tanner discuss whether footballers should go on strike because of their workload.

On Tuesday, Manchester City midfielder Rodri spoke about the possibility of players going on strike over the number of games they have to play.

The 28-year-old, who won Euro 2024 with Spain last summer and could have an extended season with City competing in the FIFA Club World Cup next year, said when asked about strikes: “Yes, I think we are close to that. If it continues like this, we have no other option. It is something we are concerned about.”

He made the comments after Liverpool goalkeeper Alisson also pointed out the effect of an expanded Champions League on the players’ workload.

Player welfare is a primary concern for the global players’ union FIFPro, which has taken legal action against FIFA over the Club World Cup schedule, but is a players’ strike the right way forward? Would it garner public sympathy or make a difference? What are the consequences of keeping players playing too long? And is there a better course of action for players to take?

Here two writers discuss the topic.

Rob Tanner: I never thought I would agree with Rodri after his rather unsportsmanlike complaints about my club Leicester City’s “happy” approach when they beat Manchester City 5-2 in 2020. The toys were thrown out of the pram and they went flying again here, but I think he has a valid point.

Calling a strike is an extreme option, but there is no doubt that too many demands are now being placed on top players with the expansion of the Champions League and the Club World Cup and the further expansion of international tournaments (48 teams will participate in the next World Cup).

Being expected to play up to 70 games a season at the level of the modern game, with the intensity and aggression that entails, will take its toll, as the global players’ union FIFPro and the PFA point out. It could also have consequences for them later in life. Players’ welfare is paramount; they are extremely well paid, but they are still human.

Steve Madeley: It’s great to see you and Rodri coming together for a common goal, Rob, but I have to disagree with both of you.

It’s not that I’m unsympathetic or someone who thinks they have to play every day because they earn £250,000 a week. No matter how much they earn, they risk being pushed too far – but a strike would be the wrong way to go.

Firstly, the aim of strikes is to create such a riot that the public will get behind you. However, I am not sure that there are many season ticket holders or TV viewers in the UK and elsewhere who spend their life savings on watching football and who will support players who go on strike.

Crucially, the players’ problem seems to lie with FIFA, UEFA and other governing bodies, but they should be discussing their problems with their employers, the clubs. But by threatening breakaway competitions, the clubs have in fact pushed for the expansion of existing competitions.

In the case of the biggest clubs (especially those that have supported the European Super League) they generally play the most games but also have the biggest squads. If the clubs want to lighten the workload of the players, they should implement a good squad rotation instead of saving it only for the domestic cups.

(Visionhaus/Getty Images)

Browner: You’re right. That strike may not be sympathetic to a large part of the audience, but I think there’s another point about the product they’re paying money to watch.

If clubs and associations continue to push players to play more and more games, the spectacle will deteriorate. Will the fans watching these games at home get their money’s worth?

The modern game is so fast and physically demanding, yet players are expected to play at their optimum level at all times. If they fall below those standards they are criticised, but the truth may be that the player is tired or playing with an injury.

Your counter argument is that the squad rotates, but fans want to see the best team on the pitch and the best players. When clubs rotate players for minor cup competitions, there are often empty seats in the stands. Whether they go to games or watch on TV at home, the bigger picture for fans is that tired players (or an increase in squad rotation) would dilute the quality and sell them short.

The answer is fewer games. And if a strike is the only way for players to force the situation, then so be it.

Madeleine: I take all that into account and in an ideal world we would have fewer games, but I don’t think the authorities will bend, even in the event of a strike. So maybe it’s time for the fans of the biggest clubs to recalibrate their expectations. If they want their team to play more European games and compete to win their domestic leagues and cups, maybe they have to accept that their managers will rotate more to keep overstretched players fresh.

However, if fans don’t want more games and the inevitable drop in quality, they’ll have to vote with their feet or their remote control. Perhaps a drop in interest, attendance and viewing figures — especially if the standard of the competition drops with tired players — could actually have an impact.

It is strange that if the bigger clubs, who play most of the games, were required to rotate more in the Premier League, then perhaps the competition could improve.

Manchester City manager Pep Guardiola complains about playing too many games (Justin Setterfield/Getty Images)

Browner: In addition to player fatigue, I think there is also a danger of football fatigue among fans. There is so much football on television that you can watch one or more games almost every night. You can have too much of a good thing (and some of the games I watched were certainly not that good). The market has to reach saturation point and that is not good for ‘the product’.

If a players’ strike led to a reduction in games (or at least an end to the increase in games) then the standard of games would be better because players would be fully fit rather than having to be rehabilitated. That is surely the sort of argument that authorities and clubs would understand.

Madeleine: I certainly think there are arguments for less football, but I’m not convinced that strikes are the way to achieve that.

Ultimately, they are all part of the same football ecosystem and while I don’t begrudge them the money they earn, they get it because they sign for clubs where they know they will play an incredible amount (and perhaps unsustainable?) of games.

So it is better for them to talk to the clubs they play for, for example when negotiating contracts and bonuses, and argue for a limit on the number of games.

If they go on strike, I fear they will alienate a lot of fans and not achieve much.

(Top photo: Stu Forster/Getty Images)