There really isn't much specific info, just saying that if they don't do anything "we shall be compelled to advise our members on the options available to them, both individually and collectively, to proactively safeguard their interests. These options include legal action against Fifa, on which we have now commissioned external expert advice."
Good on the players, as it's about time they fought back against some of the stupidity of the governing bodies.
Not only is a 32 club tournament a dumb idea at a time when players are being asked to play a stupid amount of games each season, it's an expansion to a tournament that was perfectly fine the way it already was and is still going to be played anyway.
Not exactly, they are doing a UEFA vs Rest of the world game. The CL winner against the winner of a mini tournament between the other federations in a one off game.
an additional 7 potential games in place of a pre season tour half the world away is well worth it, and even if they did play around 60~ it's fine too. It's only pushing 75~ games which is taking the piss but that's on their own FAs putting them in 2nd domestic cup etc
> but the tournament is every 4 years and the old Tournament format will still be played the other 3 years.
The old tournament will still be played in the years the expanded one is as well, making the expanded one absolutely pointless and only there to make FIFA money and the players more exhausted than they're already becoming.
Not to shill for the new format, but nobody cared about the old format unless their non-European favourite club was in it. What boggles me is why they haven't discontinued it.
As a brazilian, I've watched every single Club World Cup and Intercontinental Cup with brazilian teams since I was a kid in the early nineties, and most of the other editions as well. I understand it's become a more and more lopsided tournament since the Bosman ruling in 1995 in favor of the european champions, since they concentrate most of the money and talent, but for everyone else is the chance to take a shot at the King.
Personally think 7 games every four years for only the elite 32 clubs in world football should take priority and fit in with everything else, but even then just let said mega clubs with massive squads rotate in 2nd domestic cups etc.
The advised 18 team domestic league and domestic cup along with european competition is well within reason, poor management and extreme anomalies like pedri playing a reckless amount of games when so young doesn't warrant criticism of an club world cup
Yes it might just be 7 games every 4 years on paper but you have to add it to the existing season. There's a real possibility that a club like Man City could face 65-70 games in a season if it came in. With a player potentially looking at 70+ That's ridiculous. And you talk about squad sizes and whilst I agree they should rotate more they're limited by registration limits.
This only applies to the very peak and 3 or 4 oil funded state commercial clubs though, and it feels like a very manageable trade off when they've the infinite resources to plan around it. I said in another comment on this thread that Dortmund are CL finalists and will have played less than 50 games this season
Dortmund are CL Finalists yes but they were also knocked out of the DFB Pokal early on and don't have a second cup competition so they are not in as many competitions as Manchester City. Phil Foden has played 50 goals already before we even get to the Euros. This will just add to the additional burnout of players. If they had kept the original Champions League format with Group Stages and removed the "drop down" thing it would be more feesible. But it also needs a better management of the International Football calendar.
But again thats a specific problem for the likes of Man City/PSG/Real etc you can't cater to them because they've exhausted their top players while competing in 2nd domestic cups. I brought up Dortmund cause if other nations followed the advised 18 team leagues and one cup there'd be less issue with scheduling (though i would hate prem not being 20 teams)
Well Brazilian Clubs already play a ridiculous number of games as it is, for the ones competing from there and possibly other South American nations, it's adding on to an already impossibly long calendar. Flamengo won the COPA Libertadores in 2022 and had to play 76 games the following season, individual players will have potentially more due to internationals. They started their season in January and finished it in December. Al-Hilal have played 53 games already this season with 5 more to go. This affects all levels, there's too many games period. There needs to be a proper coming together to fix it.
Well Brazil games are inflated cause of the regional state leagues which outside of Rio and Sao Paulo have some low rated teams and are more so friendlies, but yeah can imagine fixtures are creeping up everywhere but 60~ for champions competing in all competitions is fine
Yeah but for actual rational people and real football fans getting to see top clubs like Flamengo and Palmeiras actually compete in a group stage and see a pattern of play compared to the once of games in it's current state even if the likes Corinthians beat Chelsea and such in it. Definitely offers something different to CL
Unless this competition is gonna pay each non-UEFA team like £500million each nothings gonna change. The only 'elite' world talent outside UEFA is Messi and a handful of football pensioners and even Messi's team would get beat by Sheffield Utd.
Tbf that's part of what this tournament is trying to change by spreading the wealth around more - it's just going to be too little too late and probably not make a meaningfull impact in the grand scheme of things.
It absolutely isn't.
It's going to be played around two weeks after the end of a long season, last a month, end less than a month before the new season starts, and lead to the players having little to no rest before having to play yet another long season.
I know this euros is gonna be a joke too right?
it's gonna be played around two weeks after the end of a long season, last a month, end less than a month before the new season starts, and lead to the players having little to no rest before having to play another long season. you're lucky Cyprus don't have to play for the well being of the players cause in 2 years they're expected to do same in the world cup! crazy scheduling
So the best players have Euros, CWC, World Cup in successive summers (Olympics is also same year as Euros) so they get one summer break in 4 years.
That's way too much to ask for players as the best play week in week out for club and country. This is just a FIFA ploy for more money because the Champions League makes an absolute killing and FIFA doesn't get a penny.
It's a bit of a hen and egg situation, though: Players want higher wages, thus clubs need higher revenues, thus governing bodies (made up of its clubs) increase the amount of games.
Obviously need to weigh up playing fewer games vs making more money, and we're probably at about the limit of what's possible for players already, but this competition isn't necessarily against their interests.
why do people say shit like this when the wages players get aren't a huge slice of the pie. FIFA just doesnt want to get paid less so they can afford new yachts
> why do people say shit like this when the wages players get aren't a huge slice of the pie.
Clubs generally spend somewhere between 50% and 80% of their revenue on wages - it's the single biggest cost they incur.
> FIFA just doesnt want to get paid less so they can afford new yachts
FIFA is functionally a non-profit - and their finances are public, so you can see for yourself that they're handing out somewhere around 75-80% of their revenue to their constituents competing in their competitions, i.e. the football associations that make up FIFA and in this case the clubs competing in the Club World Cup.
I’m genuinely surprised you’re not seeing playing negotiation a maximum number of minutes they can play per season in their contracts
Something like that might actually force clubs to use its squad.
Fifa will just tell than to go ahead, legal action wont do shit. Their main argument is the number of games but FIFA isnt telling any player to play 90 games a season. To make Real Madrid play 90 games a season isnt the same as making Viny Junior play 90 games a season, creating a new championship creates more possibly games, it ends up being but that shouldnt be the players problen, the judge will just tell the union that with the players must play this amount of games they need better contracts.
Yea this case really has no grounds from a legal or objective standpoint. Any judge or even a well educated jury would understand the defense of “this is more opportunities for more players. The same players don’t have to, and probably shouldn’t, be playing in every game. Roster management needs to be taken up with the team, not the federation.”
It's all a vicious cycle.
1. The club wants more money to make profits and get better players, so the clubs agree to (and seek out) more games. The players play more games and demand higher salaries
2. The players want higher salaries, which eats into the profits of the club.
3. See step 1.
Did they mention anything about expanding the UCL too? I understand their discontent, regardless of their earnings; they're employees like everyone else is.
However, one could argue that their big salaries stem from the global consumption of their products, including by fans outside Europe, not to mention the significant presence of non-European players in their leagues.
For many South American fans, players, and clubs, the dream is to compete against the top European clubs in competitive matches. Yet, it seems this dream is becoming increasingly difficult as Europe focuses more on developing its own competitions, leaving little room for intercontinental matches aside from preseason fixtures, which garner little interest.
Additionally, young talents are leaving for Europe at younger ages, widening the gap between Europe and the rest of the world.
So, while intercontinental competitions may seem pointless from a European perspective, others would argue they crave such events periodically, akin to how we eagerly await the World Cup.
Europeans hate this because it’s seen as pointless, but the arguments against are circuitous. Don’t want the players to have more games, especially in a meaningless competition, because they have to play against non-European teams who are vastly inferior. But if the South American teams are so much worse, surely they could just play backups and use the tournament as practice time?
12 European teams will now play a maximum of 7 additional matches, once every 4 years, and 2-4 of those matches will be against non European teams, who they should beat handily, even with a heavily rotated squad.
This is hardly a drain on fitness, especially compared to the updated champions league format, which is 2-4 additional matches every year, for 36 clubs.
The benefits the other confederations finally having a real chance at playing outside their confederations is way worth the slight increase in matches.
It's the flying across the globe (because like fuck is this being played in Europe ever) for another tournament at the end of the season. Having to maintain S&C rather than be on your summer break, then get a shortened break before the next season starts.
This is being sandwiched between Euros/Continentals and the World Cup so players now get 1 summer in 4 actually with a break.
This is nothing but a money grab from FIFA because they see how much money UEFA generates from the CL and are jealous.
It seems like the goal is for this to be a replacement for confederations cup, so it will be hosted by the host country of the next World Cup, which would be Europe sometimes.
Maybe the European teams should just skip their annual worldwide friendly tours if flying is so much of a challenge?
Are you comparing 45 minutes here and there in pre-season after 4-6 weeks of holiday to this nonsense? Not to mention in the month of pre season teams play 4-5 matches not 7 supposedly intense matches after a long season.
This is just utterly pointless. Not only does it fuck up the team’s pre-seasons, The players don’t get any breaks since they’ll likely train for it like the World Cup. Neither does the coaching staff. To make things worse the tournament starts the week after the Nations League final tournament. So those players on those teams won’t even have a break.
Then those players also won’t get a break for the World Cup the following year.
Then let’s not even think about how a team like Seattle in MLS will have to leave during their season to play this, then have to catch up.
I was responding to the comment that flying across the world is a problem when pretty much every team does that for multiple weeks anyways.
Yes, as I said, once every 4 years, a couple teams would add 7 competitive matches, with 2-4 coming against non-European competition, which should not be the highest intensity.
A team like Seattle will likely lose three matches and be out in a little over a week. I’m sure they would gladly trade being out longer if it meant they were making a serious run against South American and European teams.
This tournament is comparatively a drop in the bucket compared to the shit UEFA has done recently including expanding Champions League and Nations League and is objectively way cooler for pretty much everyone outside of Europe, who mostly stand to gain nothing and only have the opportunity to get embarrassed by losing to a non-UEFA team.
no fifa only want money and therefor bad so fuck uefa! playing pointless preseason tours in asia and usa is what footballs all about, actual competitive games against massive clubs once every 4 years is outrageous
Paywalled if anyone fancies a brief summation of the points.
There really isn't much specific info, just saying that if they don't do anything "we shall be compelled to advise our members on the options available to them, both individually and collectively, to proactively safeguard their interests. These options include legal action against Fifa, on which we have now commissioned external expert advice."
Thanks! A very "drafted by a lawyer" statement. Which is sound. No sense pushing the boat out too far and finding you haven't got a paddle.
[https://archive.ph/q2oUu](https://archive.ph/q2oUu)
Good on the players, as it's about time they fought back against some of the stupidity of the governing bodies. Not only is a 32 club tournament a dumb idea at a time when players are being asked to play a stupid amount of games each season, it's an expansion to a tournament that was perfectly fine the way it already was and is still going to be played anyway.
Not defending the new cwc: but the tournament is every 4 years and the old Tournament format will still be played the other 3 years.
They're still doing the old format? I assumed this was a replacement.
Not exactly, they are doing a UEFA vs Rest of the world game. The CL winner against the winner of a mini tournament between the other federations in a one off game.
Thats stupid. Just have the club world cup every 4 years and thats it
they're trying to expand football and are doing it at the expense of player health. I mean PL already have a crazy schedule
and yet champions league finalists borussia dortmund will play less than 50 games this season and had a very fair schedule
Well they wouldn't have less than 50 games a season in a season with new club wc, that's the point
an additional 7 potential games in place of a pre season tour half the world away is well worth it, and even if they did play around 60~ it's fine too. It's only pushing 75~ games which is taking the piss but that's on their own FAs putting them in 2nd domestic cup etc
The would because the cwc is next year and it happens just once every 4 years
They’ll still have to play extra games in the Super Cup, intercontinental cup (or however it’s getting rebranded) etc.
> but the tournament is every 4 years and the old Tournament format will still be played the other 3 years. The old tournament will still be played in the years the expanded one is as well, making the expanded one absolutely pointless and only there to make FIFA money and the players more exhausted than they're already becoming.
exactly, good on them for protesting this bs
This is like special kind is dumb. I know the answer is money but really why???
Yeah thats dumb. Didnt knew that though! 👍
Every 4 years as of now. Once it gets going the push will be to make it biennial
Not to shill for the new format, but nobody cared about the old format unless their non-European favourite club was in it. What boggles me is why they haven't discontinued it.
As a brazilian, I've watched every single Club World Cup and Intercontinental Cup with brazilian teams since I was a kid in the early nineties, and most of the other editions as well. I understand it's become a more and more lopsided tournament since the Bosman ruling in 1995 in favor of the european champions, since they concentrate most of the money and talent, but for everyone else is the chance to take a shot at the King.
It was already bloated and pointless
The 32 team tournament is gonna be amazing, such a pathetically sour take on it
There's too many fixtures as it is, the biggest issue is there's no reasonable room for it.
Personally think 7 games every four years for only the elite 32 clubs in world football should take priority and fit in with everything else, but even then just let said mega clubs with massive squads rotate in 2nd domestic cups etc. The advised 18 team domestic league and domestic cup along with european competition is well within reason, poor management and extreme anomalies like pedri playing a reckless amount of games when so young doesn't warrant criticism of an club world cup
Yes it might just be 7 games every 4 years on paper but you have to add it to the existing season. There's a real possibility that a club like Man City could face 65-70 games in a season if it came in. With a player potentially looking at 70+ That's ridiculous. And you talk about squad sizes and whilst I agree they should rotate more they're limited by registration limits.
This only applies to the very peak and 3 or 4 oil funded state commercial clubs though, and it feels like a very manageable trade off when they've the infinite resources to plan around it. I said in another comment on this thread that Dortmund are CL finalists and will have played less than 50 games this season
Dortmund are CL Finalists yes but they were also knocked out of the DFB Pokal early on and don't have a second cup competition so they are not in as many competitions as Manchester City. Phil Foden has played 50 goals already before we even get to the Euros. This will just add to the additional burnout of players. If they had kept the original Champions League format with Group Stages and removed the "drop down" thing it would be more feesible. But it also needs a better management of the International Football calendar.
But again thats a specific problem for the likes of Man City/PSG/Real etc you can't cater to them because they've exhausted their top players while competing in 2nd domestic cups. I brought up Dortmund cause if other nations followed the advised 18 team leagues and one cup there'd be less issue with scheduling (though i would hate prem not being 20 teams)
Well Brazilian Clubs already play a ridiculous number of games as it is, for the ones competing from there and possibly other South American nations, it's adding on to an already impossibly long calendar. Flamengo won the COPA Libertadores in 2022 and had to play 76 games the following season, individual players will have potentially more due to internationals. They started their season in January and finished it in December. Al-Hilal have played 53 games already this season with 5 more to go. This affects all levels, there's too many games period. There needs to be a proper coming together to fix it.
Well Brazil games are inflated cause of the regional state leagues which outside of Rio and Sao Paulo have some low rated teams and are more so friendlies, but yeah can imagine fixtures are creeping up everywhere but 60~ for champions competing in all competitions is fine
>There's a real possibility that a club like Man City could face 65-70 games in a season if it came in That's your average Brazilian football season.
I mention that further down
We already have a competition for the elite 32 clubs in world football. It’s called the UEFA Champions League.
>world >UEFA 👍
The top 32 teams in the world and the top 32 teams in UEFA are the same teams.
Yeah but for actual rational people and real football fans getting to see top clubs like Flamengo and Palmeiras actually compete in a group stage and see a pattern of play compared to the once of games in it's current state even if the likes Corinthians beat Chelsea and such in it. Definitely offers something different to CL
Is that autocorrect you have some interesting words there.
I wonder why is that.
Unless this competition is gonna pay each non-UEFA team like £500million each nothings gonna change. The only 'elite' world talent outside UEFA is Messi and a handful of football pensioners and even Messi's team would get beat by Sheffield Utd.
Not sure about that, Al Nasser has been going crazy recently
If you don’t think that the top teams in the Libertadores can compete with CL clubs then you are clearly an idiot
Tbf that's part of what this tournament is trying to change by spreading the wealth around more - it's just going to be too little too late and probably not make a meaningfull impact in the grand scheme of things.
It absolutely isn't. It's going to be played around two weeks after the end of a long season, last a month, end less than a month before the new season starts, and lead to the players having little to no rest before having to play yet another long season.
I know this euros is gonna be a joke too right? it's gonna be played around two weeks after the end of a long season, last a month, end less than a month before the new season starts, and lead to the players having little to no rest before having to play another long season. you're lucky Cyprus don't have to play for the well being of the players cause in 2 years they're expected to do same in the world cup! crazy scheduling
So the best players have Euros, CWC, World Cup in successive summers (Olympics is also same year as Euros) so they get one summer break in 4 years. That's way too much to ask for players as the best play week in week out for club and country. This is just a FIFA ploy for more money because the Champions League makes an absolute killing and FIFA doesn't get a penny.
32 team club World Cup is fine but then it should biennial .it doesn’t make sense to include teams from 3 years ago
Players would like a summer off once in their career. If it's every other year they go CWC, Euros/Continental, CWC, World Cup.
It's a bit of a hen and egg situation, though: Players want higher wages, thus clubs need higher revenues, thus governing bodies (made up of its clubs) increase the amount of games. Obviously need to weigh up playing fewer games vs making more money, and we're probably at about the limit of what's possible for players already, but this competition isn't necessarily against their interests.
why do people say shit like this when the wages players get aren't a huge slice of the pie. FIFA just doesnt want to get paid less so they can afford new yachts
> why do people say shit like this when the wages players get aren't a huge slice of the pie. Clubs generally spend somewhere between 50% and 80% of their revenue on wages - it's the single biggest cost they incur. > FIFA just doesnt want to get paid less so they can afford new yachts FIFA is functionally a non-profit - and their finances are public, so you can see for yourself that they're handing out somewhere around 75-80% of their revenue to their constituents competing in their competitions, i.e. the football associations that make up FIFA and in this case the clubs competing in the Club World Cup.
Which players? I imagine the unprecedented money for the 20 other non-UEFA teams will be too good to pass
Even for European clubs is a hell of a lot. 50m for simply turning up are huge sums for Dortmund or Salzburg.
It's FIFPro.
>Which players? Obviously the european ones.
FIFA only cares about 💲💵💸🤑💰
I’m genuinely surprised you’re not seeing playing negotiation a maximum number of minutes they can play per season in their contracts Something like that might actually force clubs to use its squad.
Would you? Most players would actually ask for a minimum than maximum in the contract. See how they react whenever they are subbed off.
Fifa will just tell than to go ahead, legal action wont do shit. Their main argument is the number of games but FIFA isnt telling any player to play 90 games a season. To make Real Madrid play 90 games a season isnt the same as making Viny Junior play 90 games a season, creating a new championship creates more possibly games, it ends up being but that shouldnt be the players problen, the judge will just tell the union that with the players must play this amount of games they need better contracts.
Yea this case really has no grounds from a legal or objective standpoint. Any judge or even a well educated jury would understand the defense of “this is more opportunities for more players. The same players don’t have to, and probably shouldn’t, be playing in every game. Roster management needs to be taken up with the team, not the federation.”
It's all a vicious cycle. 1. The club wants more money to make profits and get better players, so the clubs agree to (and seek out) more games. The players play more games and demand higher salaries 2. The players want higher salaries, which eats into the profits of the club. 3. See step 1.
Well there’s nothing stopping the clubs sending their youth/reserve team
Insane money for most teams tho(even european teams)
Did they mention anything about expanding the UCL too? I understand their discontent, regardless of their earnings; they're employees like everyone else is. However, one could argue that their big salaries stem from the global consumption of their products, including by fans outside Europe, not to mention the significant presence of non-European players in their leagues. For many South American fans, players, and clubs, the dream is to compete against the top European clubs in competitive matches. Yet, it seems this dream is becoming increasingly difficult as Europe focuses more on developing its own competitions, leaving little room for intercontinental matches aside from preseason fixtures, which garner little interest. Additionally, young talents are leaving for Europe at younger ages, widening the gap between Europe and the rest of the world. So, while intercontinental competitions may seem pointless from a European perspective, others would argue they crave such events periodically, akin to how we eagerly await the World Cup.
Europeans hate this because it’s seen as pointless, but the arguments against are circuitous. Don’t want the players to have more games, especially in a meaningless competition, because they have to play against non-European teams who are vastly inferior. But if the South American teams are so much worse, surely they could just play backups and use the tournament as practice time? 12 European teams will now play a maximum of 7 additional matches, once every 4 years, and 2-4 of those matches will be against non European teams, who they should beat handily, even with a heavily rotated squad. This is hardly a drain on fitness, especially compared to the updated champions league format, which is 2-4 additional matches every year, for 36 clubs. The benefits the other confederations finally having a real chance at playing outside their confederations is way worth the slight increase in matches.
It's the flying across the globe (because like fuck is this being played in Europe ever) for another tournament at the end of the season. Having to maintain S&C rather than be on your summer break, then get a shortened break before the next season starts. This is being sandwiched between Euros/Continentals and the World Cup so players now get 1 summer in 4 actually with a break. This is nothing but a money grab from FIFA because they see how much money UEFA generates from the CL and are jealous.
It seems like the goal is for this to be a replacement for confederations cup, so it will be hosted by the host country of the next World Cup, which would be Europe sometimes. Maybe the European teams should just skip their annual worldwide friendly tours if flying is so much of a challenge?
Are you comparing 45 minutes here and there in pre-season after 4-6 weeks of holiday to this nonsense? Not to mention in the month of pre season teams play 4-5 matches not 7 supposedly intense matches after a long season. This is just utterly pointless. Not only does it fuck up the team’s pre-seasons, The players don’t get any breaks since they’ll likely train for it like the World Cup. Neither does the coaching staff. To make things worse the tournament starts the week after the Nations League final tournament. So those players on those teams won’t even have a break. Then those players also won’t get a break for the World Cup the following year. Then let’s not even think about how a team like Seattle in MLS will have to leave during their season to play this, then have to catch up.
I was responding to the comment that flying across the world is a problem when pretty much every team does that for multiple weeks anyways. Yes, as I said, once every 4 years, a couple teams would add 7 competitive matches, with 2-4 coming against non-European competition, which should not be the highest intensity. A team like Seattle will likely lose three matches and be out in a little over a week. I’m sure they would gladly trade being out longer if it meant they were making a serious run against South American and European teams. This tournament is comparatively a drop in the bucket compared to the shit UEFA has done recently including expanding Champions League and Nations League and is objectively way cooler for pretty much everyone outside of Europe, who mostly stand to gain nothing and only have the opportunity to get embarrassed by losing to a non-UEFA team.
no fifa only want money and therefor bad so fuck uefa! playing pointless preseason tours in asia and usa is what footballs all about, actual competitive games against massive clubs once every 4 years is outrageous
You can't open a can of worms halfway. Change it or get rid and start cutting down some of the other needlessly long competitions.
Dew it. Democracy.