De Bruyne, Guardiola is right about player fatigue: a solution is needed

In April last year, Manchester City manager Pep Guardiola sounded the alarm, complaining that UEFA and FIFA had arranged too many games but did not have enough time to recover, "killing" the players. 'No player can stick with it, not just physically, but also with the mentality of being ready to compete with their opponents every day to win the game.'

Earlier this week, Pep Guardiola's de Bruyne, a player at Manchester City, said he had two painkiller injections in euro 2020 against Italy and "if I had known in advance what this would have affected my ankle, I wouldn't have played." Last week, FIFPRO, the international players' federation, released a report on the workload of players.

(On Sunday, after losing to Italy in a third-place match in the UEFA Nations League, Belgium goalkeeper Thibault Courtois reinforced the player's tiredness.) "It's just a money game and we have to be honest with it... For UEFA, it's extra money, it's extra games because it's on TV. Of course everyone wants to play, but look how much the two teams have changed. If these teams make it to the final, there will be other players participating. It shows that we have played too many games. ”)

It's no surprise that they find that many of the top players are severely overworked. It's not just a matter of playing too many matches; The problem is that the time in what is defined as a "critical area" is too long. A "critical area" is one of two consecutive appearances, each lasting at least 45 minutes, with no more than 5 days of rest between. During this time, short- and long-term health conditions are most likely to be affected. Of course, there are other issues, from global travel to off-season vacations, which for many are getting shorter and shorter.

Talking to top players, coaches, managers and even Arsena Wenger — who says his biennial World Cup plan is based on playing fewer but more meaningful games — feels like that's the one that everyone can agree on best, at least in public.

The debate has come to the fore because the international calendar of matches – the general agreement governing when national and international football matches will be held – expires in 2024. It's the millennial worm of football (if you remember) and some sort of deal has to be hammered out, but the problem here is that it's an extremely complex issue, just part of the relationship between money and influence, and no one wants to take a step back and play less.

First, even in the same league, there is a significant imbalance in the number of games that teams participate in. Crystal Palace and Manchester City are both English clubs in the Premier League, but the former played 40 games (they were not in Europe and were eliminated early in the domestic cup), while the latter played 61 games – an increase of more than 50% – as they reached the Champions League and League Cup finals, as well as the FA Cup semi-finals.

Will Crystal Palace play more matches? Maybe not like Manchester City's 61 games, but professional athletes usually like sports (bullshit) and of course, the boss likes to look at exposure. You can imagine that crystal palace fans will also love it. It's fun to watch the team play at home, and they only have to watch it 19 times. (Meanwhile, Manchester City fans have done this 28 times.) )

We're talking about crystal palaces. At least they're in the Premier League, which means they can play against players of all kinds of coaches and styles, as well as many of the best players in the world. The vast majority of teams in the Europa League do not understand this. They either play only domestically or, if advanced to Europe, usually out of the two rounds in the qualifiers. That, by the way, is why the idea of reducing the number of clubs in Europe's top leagues to 18 – of the five major leagues, only 18 in the Bundesliga and 20 in the rest – has been unpopular. (It's a bit like swapping a fuel-hungry SUV for a smaller car.) )

Yes, a Premier League or La Liga with 18 teams would cancel 4 matches, providing more rest/recovery time. This will mean more meaningful fixed items (and fewer meaningless items). While TV contracts may shrink a bit, you're actually going to lose midweek games, which is usually less profitable. This will be offset by the fact that you share revenue in fewer clubs. It will also give the club more time to train and prepare, which will actually make the game better.

Of course, while this makes a lot of sense, no one wants to be a loser, so in the end nothing is done. Most players' unions also oppose this practice because the fewer top teams there are, the fewer jobs there are.

In fact, the direction is reversed, at least in Europe. Think of the revised Champions League, where four games will be added to the calendar of each participating club starting in 2024. After all, the easiest way to quickly raise your revenue is to get the big teams with the biggest stars to play more games.

But back at De Bruyne, Guardiola and others, they believe the top players have played too many games, which is bad for their health. What do you do? Let them hold on a little bit?" Oh, and do you like to live in a big house with three sports cars?" Do you enjoy the generational wealth you have accumulated and the fame that comes with it? Is it? Well, playing a few more games is the price you have to pay, so you have to face it. ”

It's an attractive position for some, but hopefully we'll be a little more enlightened. Nor can we just sit back and rely on sports science to do its thing. Yes, despite these legitimate complaints, today's former professional players live better, healthier lives and perform at a higher level for longer than former players. A lot of this goes to sports science and medicine, but you can't expect them to help you out forever. Players who need painkillers to stay energized or don't train properly during the season because they need to play should be the exception, not the norm.

We need to be smarter and do better, and the reset of the schedule offers such an opportunity that there are many solutions being explored.

Just like the limits on the number of hours that air traffic controllers and truck drivers can do at work, maybe some of the restrictions apply to footballers — maybe they can spend time in seasons that offer "critical zones" or "mandatory breaks." Reducing the number of teams in a race (and in a race) may also be part of the solution, although as we've seen, it's difficult. But perhaps there are other better models to explore.

Obviously, international football is another aspect. His plan to host a World Cup every two years has its flaws, but Wenger says people want to play fewer games and more meaningful games, which is right. Ning Fu for the development of players, for the entertainment of fans, and yes, for the cashier of the member association. Sometimes, less is more.

There is also an obvious problem. Clubs make money through competitions, and almost everything is related to it, whether it's ticket revenue, broadcast revenue, bonuses, eyeballs that can be converted into sponsorship funds, or brand building that can be converted into merchandise. Clubs need money, want money, and when you're in that situation, you can cut costs or increase revenue, or both.

Most leagues have some cost control, although they don't have a salary cap. However, there are other ways to limit costs, such as tying a portion of a player's salary to club income (in effect, giving them equal rights unless you call it a bonus). Like we said, when the top players play a lot of games, the vast majority of them will probably continue to play some games. Can they generate the same amount of revenue? No. But they generate some revenue, which may also be part of the answer.

It seems clear that there are many active sections here. We need a holistic solution that can't simply keep the world's top players and teams playing non-stop 24 hours a day.