The Game's Gone

[OutByEaster?]

Why not retire from international football if he feels that way?

He'd get the rest he wants and it would be a statement to UEFA/FIFA.

I think with players a certain amount of sympathy disappears because of the money, and yes, it's easy to make fans look bad for that, but whilst it's true that overplaying could force Courtois into an early retirement, a professional footballer at that level could play for two months and retire with no financial worries for the rest of his life, the effect that has on people's opinions of them is, rightly or wrongly always there; these are people living a dream. They're Hugh Hefner complaining about too many blondes - and sure, that might not be fair on Hugh, but hey, he could always go do something else right?

Football at the moment is a massive, ugly battleground for TV money with club football and international football seemingly on a collision course of self interest - and yes to an extent players are caught up in the middle of that, and it needs to be fixed, but I'm not sure the players should be the primary concern.

 

 

 

 

[OutByEaster?]

3 minutes ago, Zatman said:

Managers have been doing the same thing though. Only the owners and associations want to play more games 

But the owners and associations need to play more games in order to pay the players. 

It would be nice to see players play less meaningless games - in order to do that, would they be prepared to have their salaries limited?

[AXD]

5 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

...

Football at the moment is a massive, ugly battleground for TV money with club football and international football seemingly on a collision course of self interest - and yes to an extent players are caught up in the middle of that, and it needs to be fixed, but I'm not sure the players should be the primary concern.

 

it's not like they are important for the sport

 

Edited October 11, 2021 by AXD

[OutByEaster?]

1 minute ago, AXD said:

it's not like they are important for the sport

Of course they are - but they're not more important than the sport.

We're in a position where clubs are going out of business because they can't afford the rates that players demand, whilst players are complaining that they are playing too many games for the clubs that are desperately trying to find ways to fund players wages.

 

[AXD]

4 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

But the owners and associations need to play more games in order to pay the players. 

It would be nice to see players play less meaningless games - in order to do that, would they be prepared to have their salaries limited?

that's the superleague logic: 'I overspent in buying players and paying their wages, so now I have financial problems. Let's solve this with more games to get more revenue so I can do it all over next summer'

No, don't overspend.Simple 

[OutByEaster?]

1 minute ago, AXD said:

No, don't overspend.Simple 

It's impossible not to overspend and be a sensible business.

A well run business cannot be a Premier League team - in other business's the outlays would be ridiculous.

A sensible business spends between 15 and 30% of its revenues on wages - for a business close to our hearts, like say Aston Villa, that would mean a total wage bill at 20% of just over £20m, ours is £60m plus. Jack Grealish now earns £18m a year.

To compete, you have to overspend, you have to be a terrible business in comparison to 'normal' companies - for clubs to break out of that they'd have to significantly reduce wages.

For your simple "don't overspend" solution to work, we'd need a wage cap of around £20k a week for top players in the Premier league - would Courtois accept that if it meant the game could be scheduled more sensibly? Would he f***.

 

[AXD]

 

2 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

Of course they are - but they're not more important than the sport.

We're in a position where clubs are going out of business because they can't afford the rates that players demand, whilst players are complaining that they are playing too many games for the clubs that are desperately trying to find ways to fund players wages.

 

 

1 minute ago, OutByEaster? said:

It's impossible not to overspend and be a sensible business.

A well run business cannot be a Premier League team - in other business's the outlays would be ridiculous.

 

If I am not mistaken (honestly not 100% sure), the German clubs don't have this problem of massive debts. 

I just disagree with the whole 'you have to overspend to compete' (eg Brentford, though not at the top of the table). If you cannot afford to buy a new galactico, then don't buy one if you're already in debt. The players only ask the high wages becasue they know they will get it. 

[Rds1983]

46 minutes ago, bobzy said:

He isn't complaining about money.  He's complaining about the fact that players are seen as objects that make money rather than people doing a job who need a rest.

The amount you earn is irrelevant to this.  They could be paid £50/week, £10k/week, £100k/week, £1.1m/week - the point still stands.

Complaints will magically disappear if players got a bigger share of the money. They'll feel they generate it so should get more of it. But they don't want to say that as it'll make them look bad. It's a negotiation tactic with a PR benefit. 

[bobzy]

5 minutes ago, Rds1983 said:

Complaints will magically disappear if players got a bigger share of the money. They'll feel they generate it so should get more of it. But they don't want to say that as it'll make them look bad. It's a negotiation tactic with a PR benefit. 

I disagree massively (where do you even get this view from?).

They don't want a load of International fixtures clogging up a year with no break.  They'll have families and friends that they'd want to see over a (very normal!) prolonged period and that's being eroded by a World Cup being held in November with Nations League games tacked on to the end of the season.  There's no let up at all.

[OutByEaster?]

29 minutes ago, bobzy said:

They don't want a load of International fixtures clogging up a year with no break.  They'll have families and friends that they'd want to see over a (very normal!) prolonged period and that's being eroded by a World Cup being held in November with Nations League games tacked on to the end of the season.  There's no let up at all.

I'd agree, I don't think they want more money, but I don't think they can get more time off unless they get less money. Player wages are the biggest problem in the game - they've been allowed to grow to the point where clubs need massive losses covered by murky sponsorships or billionaire largesse to be able to compete - if you don't overspend on wages, you can't get to the big TV income, and if you can't get to the income, you can't pay wages - it means clubs make massive losses right the way from Barca to Bromley and they teeter on the edge of collapse - it's a madness that is hard to break out of. 

The clubs (and associations) then start to look at anything they can do in order to bring in more income - that means more games, more personal appearances for players, more PR and media work for players, anything they can do that might bring in the cash they need to pay wages.

The game is financially a madhouse; ultimately teams can't keep pretending that they can afford to pay players hundred of thousands of pounds a week and players need to realise that unless they can find some way to collectively reach a position where their demands are more sensible, they'll be subject to increased workloads.

I don't think either of those things can happen from within the game - imagine a massive club saying "We're not going to compete for big players anymore, it's in the long term interests of the sport" and expecting their sponsors to stay, imagine a players union saying "Clubs can't really afford this, we're going to tell all our members to accept a maximum salary cap of £40k a week each" it's just not going to happen.

At some point, there will be huge clubs going under and the game will get a reset, hopefully it'll be the right one and not a Super league one, but I wouldn't bet on it. 

 

 

[villa4europe]

side stepping all of the money and days off stuff - he is right though isnt he? does the nations league need a 3rd / 4th place game? of course it doesn't, no one cares

UEFA can make a case for the purpose of the nations league and the semi final, finals and winners etc but not for that game, they dont need it

[AXD]

8 minutes ago, villa4europe said:

side stepping all of the money and days off stuff - he is right though isnt he? does the nations league need a 3rd / 4th place game? of course it doesn't, no one cares

UEFA can make a case for the purpose of the nations league and the semi final, finals and winners etc but not for that game, they dont need it

there's no 3 place game in the euro's either. Only in the World Cup.

[villa4europe]

3 minutes ago, AXD said:

there's no 3 place game in the euro's either. Only in the World Cup.

Exactly, their own major tournament doesn't need that game but this piddly one does? 

He was right about this game 

Hes wrong about the nations league and he's wrong about the europa conference but what he said about that game and neither team respecting it was on the money 

[bobzy]

1 hour ago, OutByEaster? said:

I'd agree, I don't think they want more money, but I don't think they can get more time off unless they get less money. Player wages are the biggest problem in the game - they've been allowed to grow to the point where clubs need massive losses covered by murky sponsorships or billionaire largesse to be able to compete - if you don't overspend on wages, you can't get to the big TV income, and if you can't get to the income, you can't pay wages - it means clubs make massive losses right the way from Barca to Bromley and they teeter on the edge of collapse - it's a madness that is hard to break out of. 

The clubs (and associations) then start to look at anything they can do in order to bring in more income - that means more games, more personal appearances for players, more PR and media work for players, anything they can do that might bring in the cash they need to pay wages.

The game is financially a madhouse; ultimately teams can't keep pretending that they can afford to pay players hundred of thousands of pounds a week and players need to realise that unless they can find some way to collectively reach a position where their demands are more sensible, they'll be subject to increased workloads.

I don't think either of those things can happen from within the game - imagine a massive club saying "We're not going to compete for big players anymore, it's in the long term interests of the sport" and expecting their sponsors to stay, imagine a players union saying "Clubs can't really afford this, we're going to tell all our members to accept a maximum salary cap of £40k a week each" it's just not going to happen.

At some point, there will be huge clubs going under and the game will get a reset, hopefully it'll be the right one and not a Super league one, but I wouldn't bet on it. 

It's basically all this first point, though.  This isn't their clubs (who pay their wages and dictate how much they earn) who are adding in additional fixtures or messing around the entire football calendar to fit in a World Cup in Qatar.  I'm sure if their clubs were organising friendlies away at bizarre points of the season that meant players never get a break, there'd be a maligned shrug but an acceptance that this is what they've signed up for.

It isn't that.  It's a huge shift in the International landscape.  We never had the Nations League before - now we've got it (and there's certainly an argument that it's better than "just friendlies", but a 3rd place playoff?!)  We never had a winter World Cup before - now we've got it.  We've never had a biennial World Cup before - maybe we'll have it soon.  These are big changes from what a player "signed up to" when they did a deal with their respective clubs.

This isn't about having more time off; it's about having the time off that they previously had.  Especially with the crammed Covid season that we've just seen.  I don't feel sorry for the players as such, but I can definitely see where Courtois is coming from here.

[Zatman]

4 minutes ago, bobzy said:

It's basically all this first point, though.  This isn't their clubs (who pay their wages and dictate how much they earn) who are adding in additional fixtures or messing around the entire football calendar to fit in a World Cup in Qatar.  I'm sure if their clubs were organising friendlies away at bizarre points of the season that meant players never get a break, there'd be a maligned shrug but an acceptance that this is what they've signed up for.

It isn't that.  It's a huge shift in the International landscape.  We never had the Nations League before - now we've got it (and there's certainly an argument that it's better than "just friendlies", but a 3rd place playoff?!)  We never had a winter World Cup before - now we've got it.  We've never had a biennial World Cup before - maybe we'll have it soon.  These are big changes from what a player "signed up to" when they did a deal with their respective clubs.

This isn't about having more time off; it's about having the time off that they previously had.  Especially with the crammed Covid season that we've just seen.  I don't feel sorry for the players as such, but I can definitely see where Courtois is coming from here.

Look at Luiz, think he had at most a 2 week vacation from the Olympics. Sanchez I think played international football 4 summers in a row from 2013-17. People wondered why his form collapsed

[OutByEaster?]

5 hours ago, bobzy said:

It's basically all this first point, though.  This isn't their clubs (who pay their wages and dictate how much they earn) who are adding in additional fixtures or messing around the entire football calendar to fit in a World Cup in Qatar.  I'm sure if their clubs were organising friendlies away at bizarre points of the season that meant players never get a break, there'd be a maligned shrug but an acceptance that this is what they've signed up for.

UEFA paid English clubs 38 million Euros in compensation for players at Euros 2016 - they now compensate clubs on a day rate basis while those players are with them.

Last I read it was 9,000 Euros a day per player - the equivalent of about a £55k a week footballer. In most cases it doesn't cover the whole of the wage, but it's not insubstantial.

If UEFA can fit in a quick, profitable tournament with big nations and high TV revenue, it helps them pay for major championships. 

In order to recognise the value of the players, they have to keep increasing that compensation, but TV money for international football hasn't risen at the same rate as for the Premier league- so it's an increasingly difficult expense for them - and as the leagues get richer and can pay more to their players and demand more compensation for them, it'll be even more of a problem.

 

[El Zen]

Read in a Norwegian online paper, so won’t bother linking, but according to a spokesperson for Israeli PM Naftali Bennet, Israel have been ‘encouraged’ by Infantino to submit an application to host the 2030 WC, preferably a joint bid with e.g. UAE. 

Puke.

[OutByEaster?]

20 minutes ago, El Zen said:

Read in a Norwegian online paper, so won’t bother linking, but according to a spokesperson for Israeli PM Naftali Bennet, Israel have been ‘encouraged’ by Infantino to submit an application to host the 2030 WC, preferably a joint bid with e.g. UAE. 

The last time they hosted a competition, 11 of the 16 teams that had qualified pulled out.

 

[TRO]

On 11/10/2021 at 11:20, OutByEaster? said:

It's impossible not to overspend and be a sensible business.

A well run business cannot be a Premier League team - in other business's the outlays would be ridiculous.

A sensible business spends between 15 and 30% of its revenues on wages - for a business close to our hearts, like say Aston Villa, that would mean a total wage bill at 20% of just over £20m, ours is £60m plus. Jack Grealish now earns £18m a year.

To compete, you have to overspend, you have to be a terrible business in comparison to 'normal' companies - for clubs to break out of that they'd have to significantly reduce wages.

For your simple "don't overspend" solution to work, we'd need a wage cap of around £20k a week for top players in the Premier league - would Courtois accept that if it meant the game could be scheduled more sensibly? Would he f***.

 

The Monster has been created and its difficult to know how to regulate it, now....Its a game off the pitch now, as well as on it.

competition has eked out new frontiers, and it is difficult to see how corruption will not engulf the game.

 

[villa4europe]

posted this in the FIFA thread too, FIFA want $250m a year from EA to use their name, the report says that the current deal is worth $150m a year and is FIFAs biggest single revenue stream

FIFA also want a slice of EA's pie if they expand it in to competitions etc