Options
Clubs demand cut in International Fixtures
and not before bloody time either. Too many meaningless friendlies and qualifiers which result in too many injuries to players. I wish them luck in their quest.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/14813668.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/14813668.stm
0
Comments
Clubs have wage bills to pay which is why they go on said tours. Too many internationals serve no purpose at all.
But then the players are at least playing for the team they get paid by.
Kevin Doyle at Wolves has been injured on international duty twice in the last 6 months, we are the ones paying him £35k a week but they get to take him whenever they want for nothing.
I can name 3 players off the top of my head, and I'm sure there are more than 3, going back the last 30 years that have had to retire through injury due to said injuries being picked up on international duty. Steve Coppell, Gary Bailey and Dean Ashton. There will be many more, and this is at a time where rehab and surgical techniques have improved greatly over the old bucket and water era. I'm sure that the Ashton case was the one that broke the English FA and they will now compensate clubs if a player is injured on England duty, but it's only England doing that.
Antonio Valencia hasn't played yet for United this season due to an injury picked up in the Copa America, have Equador paid for his treatment? Have they paid his salary whilst he's not playing? No it's been United. FIFA have placed rules into the game which forces players to link up with the national squad if selected, but they don't force associations to pay for treatments, rehab and wages whilst injured for players.
If anything that's the big issue for the clubs, I don't even think the clubs really mind the international fixture list as it is. This demand if anything is an attempt to open dialouge between FIFA and themselves to try and negotiate a universal compensatory system and even get the associations paying an agreed % of wages whilst on international duty. It has to be a two way system, at the moment it's all one way in favour of FIFA or the regional federations depending on competitions.
True and yes some games are pretty pointless at the wrong time of year but then when England fail its "the squad haven't had time to gel" etc
I don't think the salaries have anything to do with this, apart from the relevant football associations not paying them.
Who develops a player from the ages of 7&8? Is it the FA's or the clubs? The clubs
Who takes the players on as trainiee's? The FA or the clubs? The clubs.
Who pays the wages? The FA or the Clubs? The clubs
Who pays the medical fees? The FA or the Clubs? The clubs
Who takes the players that they don't develop, who they don't pay the wages, who don't pay medical fees of and uses them and breaks them? The FA or the Clubs? The FA.
Yes, it's an honour to be selected to play for your country, but you can't expect to borrow and break for nothing. If you lent something to a friend and they broke it, you'd expect them to repair it, or renumerate yourself as compensation.
If the FA's want to carry on as they are, then perhaps they should look at Cricket and offer players central contracts, that way they can do what they like with the players. However, international football isn't as highly regarded as international cricket in that sense, so it won't happen.
But in most cases it's not like this. It's some foreign player on a huge salary that has been brought over as the finished, or almost finished article. In which case the clubs know the risks.
Although this is closer as to how groups used to be in the 70s/80s
http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/organisation/administration/news/newsid=1454155/index.html
Contrary to what has been published in a newspaper today, FIFA is not looking to increase the number of international match dates by five or at anything related to a 17-game international season.
Shame...
Ain't it funny that all of a sudden we believe in what FIFA is telling us after everything that's gone on over the past 6 months.
As for players being bought, they have to be developed by whom? The Clubs...
International associations should take out insurance policies which cover them for costs of wages, and injuries to all the players they call up for any international team. They don't though do they (apart from England)?
OK let's look at FIFA/UEFA here, who are deteremind to make all top leagues 18 teams no more no less. They also have suggested we switch playing football to the summer rather than the winter. Why do they want to do this? So the clubs play less games, and they can formulate a worldwide calendar. All well and good, but history proves that when they have the opportunity they add in international games in the free time, and whom does that benefit? Oh the national associations and FIFA/UEFA themselves. They are wanting a greater share of the money that TV has brought to the game over the past 20 years or so. Which is fair enough in business, but they are the ones developing or paying the players wages are they?
Which would perhaps give the big leagues 4 fewer games over a quali campaign that most of their players wouldn't have to attend.
International football will never go away, but I think the best you'll ever get as a compromise will be a couple less games per season maybe.
It would be pretty unfair for anyone other than the largest nations, as far as I'm concerned. UEFA qualifying is already incredibly difficult for middle-tier nations, but even very good sides could find themselves with impossible qualification tasks under this system.
Basically any team outside of the top 13 in the rankings could find itself with a route to a World Cup that involves knocking out Spain, or Germany, or some other team they haven't a hope against.
If they want to reduce the number of games then a better idea is to use preliminary rounds to reduce the number of teams in qualifying. That idea has always been scoffed at on the grounds it would hurt the likes of San Marino (who would only get two home/away ties, inevitably lose, and then do nothing for two years) but under the proposed system they're only getting 6 games anyway.
The clubs are quite happy to pocket the extra transfer fees they get because their player is an international, and a lot of the foreign players they sign (in England) wouldn't get a WP if they didn't play enough internationals, plus quite a few players are only noticed on the international stage.
It's also funny how the clubs pushing for less internationals are the same clubs who pressed for more european club football matches and had the competitions rigged to give them more chance of winning and virtually no chance of being knocked out early.
If there's to be any reduction it should be after a vote by every professional club not just the top dozen or so, as a lot of lesser clubs rely on their players getting international recognition to boost transfer values.
I disagree, players are spotted in leagues around the world, and not just because they play international football. The work permit rule could be altered to suit the less number of games, but would make it equally as stringent.
You say clubs pushed for more European games, and yet they reduced the number of games, by taking out the second league phase of the Champions League. So that arguement doesn't stand up I'm afraid.As for rigging the tournement, I don't think so either.
You want every club to vote, well the group that is calling for this reduction consists of over 240 clubs, not just "the top dozen or so" Of course the clubs of the other continents should have a say in this, but don't think it's the odd few who want this. The Premier League itself is fighting to prevent UEFA forcing them to reduce it's number down to 18, which is what they want them to do.
I'm actually all for conversation between the clubs and the ruling parties, as I think the clubs should have more of a say on how football is run. However, I'm not promoting that they should be the ones running the game, far from it. However I do think they should have some say in how the game is run.
Quite a few of the East European, African, Asian and South American players have tended to be signed after a decent World Cup or South American Cup finals.
Well they formed the CL to give some clubs a minimum of 6 matches instead of them being able to be knocked out after 2 matches, they seeded it so that the big clubs can't meet more than one other of the other clubs from the big leagues (they also made sure that their leagues get most entrants as well), nor someone from their own country - and even if they do get knocked out of the play-offrs or finish 3rd they have the Europa League safety net. Before the CL the holders and biggest clubs could have been finished with Europe by the end of September, thats impossible now for some clubs.
There's 732 professional clubns in UEFA so I think they all should be entitled to vote as it'll affect them all.
I agree with this but only if each club is equal regardless of financial status or the league they're in.
I don't particularly agree with that. Fewer marches and no safety net of the play-offs for second place in the group could put out a few top teams.
Ok, we had better players back then, but it worked quite well for Scotland and we put out some top seeds. Since it has gone to bigger groups, some teams like Scotland can maybe get shock resuilts but ultimately fail over the longer run in the group or the play-offs.
As I say, less matches to me increases chances of shocks,
And I think you would find that the really top teams have missed out less since Europe went to fewer and bigger groups.
It'd stop the internationals constantly interfereing with the club season.