Jordan Henderson : voices player welfare fears | Rice: Obscene schedule of games

[Marwood]

Whilst you have a point, you are talking about a small minority of players here.
Not all players can retire early, and several that have (at premiership level) have ran into issues with drink, drugs, depression and financial issues.

Most Championship players and below wouldn't be able to retire, some of them play more games than players in the premiership, as quite a few are also full internationals.

Isn't the average championship player on about 35K per week these days?

 

[RC89]

Because all those players, who are crying about games, are demanding and getting better and better contracts every year. You can't cry about number of games while signing richer contracts at the same time.

Of course you can. I can ask for a higher salary without expecting working conditions to get much worse.

 

[padr81]

People in this thread. "Players need to shut up and clubs need to rotate, that's why they have squads"

The same people when Maguire and Ronaldo are rotated in at the weekend. "what the feck are the club doing leaving out martinez and rashford for these finished has beens? The managers an idiot and needs sacking. I'm angry right now."

 

[Champ]

Isn't the average championship player on about 35K per week these days?

Possibly, That would equate to what, around £500k take-home a year?
you could probably retire after 5 years of that if you live frugal and don't buy any luxury items and keep the money in a high interest account maybe,

The issue here is some players are on much less than that, again we are talking about a minority of players who could do that anyhow.

 

[SilentWitness]

To be fair, the offset is that they can essentially retire in their 20s. Doesn't seem a bad deal to have a worse work-life balance for five years and then retire for the rest of your life. I'd take that.

i dunno. I think there are many players who would rather less games for better life balance while in football too, plus so when they are “semi-retired” they can be healthier than some are. I’d rather play less games yet have a functional knee after retirement than play more games and have a knee which causes me pain everyday. It’s not as simple as “they get paid loads of money while in football, suck it up”.

There are some players involved in lower leagues that will be involved in 40-60 games per season depending on the club and how far they go into competitions and they most certainly can not afford to retire in their 20s.

Or the Scottish league. Callum McGregor played 59 games for Celtic in one season without even considering Scotland games and is still on like 50ish games a season for them.

I don't know, I mean how many hours a day do they train? 3? Kind of compensates for the travel.

I can't put myself in their shoes but I've always thought if I were a player, I might bin off playing for country. Especially if you're nationality is a country that won't win anything.

With their wealth and the time off it would afford them. Seems like a lovely way to go about things.

i couldn’t disagree more about the not playing for your country, especially as you won’t win anything. Take Greece for example. Had no right to win Euro 2004 but did.

 

[Marwood]

i dunno. I think there are many players who would rather less games for better life balance while in football too, plus so when they are “semi-retired” they can be healthier than some are. I’d rather play less games yet have a functional knee after retirement than play more games and have a knee which causes me pain everyday. It’s not as simple as “they get paid loads of money while in football, suck it up”.

There are some players involved in lower leagues that will be involved in 40-60 games per season depending on the club and how far they go into competitions and they most certainly can not afford to retire in their 20s.

Or the Scottish league. Callum McGregor played 59 games for Celtic in one season without even considering Scotland games and is still on like 50ish games a season for them.



i couldn’t disagree more about the not playing for your country, especially as you won’t win anything. Take Greece for example. Had no right to win Euro 2004 but did.

They're probably the only example.

It'd be a big decision but quality of life would shoot up massively if a player didn't bother. The option is there for them.

 

[Champ]

People also need to realise the amount of work it takes to get to the point where these guys are earning a ton of cash.

They have grafted and worked for years and years, since they were a kid in order to get to that point.

They don't just walk into it!

They have grafted for years and years in the academies, in the case of Rice since he was 7, they then have to graft to get themselves up to a point to earn that cash, so this whole 'they can retire in 5 years' is in essence rubbish.

The schedule needs amending, hence the reason the Premiership has been discussing this with the FA,

 

[90 + 5min]

Yes, we all know there are lot of games being played and we could do with less pointless internationals. But doing your favorite thing, getting tons of money and talking about how tough it is. Simple solution is, don't play. Retire. Get a "ordinary" job.

 

[Marauder1]

People also need to realise the amount of work it takes to get to the point where these guys are earning a ton of cash.

They have grafted and worked for years and years, since they were a kid in order to get to that point.

They don't just walk into it!

They have grafted for years and years in the academies, in the case of Rice since he was 7, they then have to graft to get themselves up to a point to earn that cash, so this whole 'they can retire in 5 years' is in essence rubbish.

The schedule needs amending, hence the reason the Premiership has been discussing this with the FA,

The schedule does need fixing but not because of the "grind" these players have put in. Anyone who wants to reach the pinnacle of their profession has to grind for years, footballers or any other sports person are not special in this regard. Footballers just happen to be in a profession that is extremely lucrative. They are also doing something they love and so are extremely lucky in that regard. While I agree the schedule is detrimental to the players health and wellbeing and needs amending my heart is certainly not bleeding for them because of the "grind" they need to put in.

The money men have control of football right now and will rinse it until its dead on the ground, after that player welfare will probably be looked at seriously. Yes I'm cynical!

 

[golden_blunder]

There’s a lot of cynical people in this thread.

its been said for years that there is too much football, I agree, yet they keep adding more and more pointless fixtures and tournaments and you have idiots suggesting more like a north v south game

 

[Ludens the Red]

Because all those players, who are crying about games, are demanding and getting better and better contracts every year. You can't cry about number of games while signing richer contracts at the same time.

Of course you can. I can ask for a higher salary without expecting working conditions to get much worse.

Simon Jordan hits the nail with this issue. His opinion is that yes they play too many games and it’s getting absurd but players contractual demands are partly responsible, that’s a fact. And nothing will change until that changes.

@RC89 the football world is very different. There are many cooks in the kitchen and many people wanting a piece of the pie.
It isn’t sustainable the way it’s heading without an increase in games. High end footballers can’t keep getting obscene contracts without that extra money coming from somewhere. And the obvious thing for the tv companies, associations etc is more games = more money. Higher ticket prices etc to pay the players. They have to take some responsibility for what is happening. A few comments in here dismissing the amount of money they are making but like it or not that is a major factor in why we are seeing more and more games.

You’ve also got a load of national associations and clubs who are falling more and more behind Pl, La liga clubs etc financially and therefore competitively. These are the clubs who pushed for the CL expansion and these are nations who push for expanded international tournaments. This is because they need the finance to keep up. We’re allowing oil states to buy football clubs in our country, PSG have ran the French league into the ground. (Chelsea, Man City and psg are massively responsible for inflating finance in football) You can’t expect those not at the top to just accept things. They want more and uefa and fifa have a responsibility to give them more. And this is the end result……

 

[Withnail]

Yes, we all know there are lot of games being played and we could do with less pointless internationals. But doing your favorite thing, getting tons of money and talking about how tough it is. Simple solution is, don't play. Retire. Get a "ordinary" job.

This is such a terrible take and it's not just you. There's loads at it. Oh they make loads of money and are doing what they love so it doesn't matter how many games they play.

So they can just keep adding more games to calendar and nobody's ever allowed to complain?

The calendar has been far too congested for years now, and in particular the last few were exacerbated by covid. Now we have this corrupt paid-for WC in the middle of the season, which is an absolute joke. The players and managers have every right to complain about it.

 

[SER19]

Reading just dropped two players tonight due to both of them being 'high risk of injury'.
Welfare concern is real in every club, every club has a welfare officer no matter what level.

It's not hyperbolic, it's called looking after employees/humans and saleable assets.

Risk of an athlete getting an injury is a using 'welfare' pretty loosely. This is professional sports and injuries are a risk whether you play one or fifty games a season. In a very literal definition of welfare, we probably all have welfare concerns by that definition.

 

[SilentWitness]

They're probably the only example.

It'd be a big decision but quality of life would shoot up massively if a player didn't bother. The option is there for them.

Tahiti that won the 2012 Oceanic Nations Cup.

 

[pascell]

What about the fans that have to folk out for tickets, travel, accommodation etc to support their team playing all these games, who are paid pittance in comparison?

 

[90 + 5min]

This is such a terrible take and it's not just you. There's loads at it. Oh they make loads of money and are doing what they love so it doesn't matter how many games they play.

So they can just keep adding more games to calendar and nobody's ever allowed to complain?

The calendar has been far too congested for years now, and in particular the last few were exacerbated by covid. Now we have this corrupt paid-for WC in the middle of the season, which is an absolute joke. The players and managers have every right to complain about it.

I think you actually missed part of my post saying pointelss internationals.

However, they are in business where they can choose where they want to play and how much they want to play. There are great amount of leagues and tournaments around the world where it doesn't require playing many games and are also less attractive when it comes to money. They can move to portugese league for example. Or why not clubs in Scandinavian leagues. They can say no to represent their country. There are lot of different choices they can make if they want to play less. To sit there, with all that money (that comes with playing so many games) and complain about games is wierd. Nobody is forcing them to play.

 

[SilentWitness]

What about the fans that have to folk out for tickets, travel, accommodation etc to support their team playing all these games, who are paid pittance in comparison?

This is also a good point.

 

[redcucumber]

Quantity over quality, I'd rather there be more quality matches less often, rather than this nonsense of almost half the league playing 3 times every 7 days.

I reckon towards the end of this season we'll see some quite ridiculous and very surprising results and scorelines as players could be more fatigued due to this early season rut of fixtures. Add in the players who will be at the world cup and some of the big teams could be struggling come April and May.

Sorry, but who gives a feck? The big teams in England already have a completely unfair, financially doped advantage over the vast majority of other teams. It's completely onesided for the most part, so if big clubs have to rotate a bit then good. If Man City are capable of spending 900k a week on one player and of spending £250m on fullbacks in two summers they can deal with the pain and suffering of going far in competitions and thus playing more games.

 

[Withnail]

I think you actually missed part of my post saying pointelss internationals.

However, they are in business where they can choose where they want to play and how much they want to play. There are great amount of leagues and tournaments around the world where it doesn't require playing many games and are also less attractive when it comes to money. They can move to portugese league for example. Or why not clubs in Scandinavian leagues. They can say no to represent their country. There are lot of different choices they can make if they want to play less. To sit there, with all that money (that comes with playing so many games) and complain about games is wierd. Nobody is forcing them to play.

Who says they can pick and choose when they play?

So your solution is to feck off to a lower league or make themselves unavailable for games? That sounds like a great career move.

Players want to play at the highest level they can and most want to play for their country. They can want to do all of those things and still be allowed have an opinion on fixture congestion. You seem to be saying like or lump it which is why I said it was a terrible take on the situation.

 

[Champ]

Risk of an athlete getting an injury is a using 'welfare' pretty loosely. This is professional sports and injuries are a risk whether you play one or fifty games a season. In a very literal definition of welfare, we probably all have welfare concerns by that definition.

The more stress the body is under, the more susceptible it is to injury.
Basic science.

 

[SER19]

The more stress the body is under, the more susceptible it is to injury.
Basic science.

You're missing the point. Im not going to take this chat further

 

[Synco]

Risk of an athlete getting an injury is a using 'welfare' pretty loosely. This is professional sports and injuries are a risk whether you play one or fifty games a season. In a very literal definition of welfare, we probably all have welfare concerns by that definition.

Haven't followed the thread or this particular exchange, but I'd assume the term is used here as shorthand for player welfare (as in the title)? Meaning the necessary workload management for professional athletes to avoid excessive injury risk and perform well? Not about the health or social welfare of the average citizen/worker, or has anyone made such a connection?

 

[SER19]

Haven't followed the thread or this particular exchange, but I'd assume the term is used here as shorthand for player welfare (as in the title)? Meaning the necessary workload management for professional athletes to avoid excessive injury risk and perform well? Not about the health or social welfare of the average citizen/worker, or has anyone made such a connection?

I dont care enough about this to keep talking about it, but I'm leaning towards the side of posters who feel 'player welfare fears' and 'obscene' fixtures feels hyperbolic in the context of all of the supports available to these professional athletes who might play 50 games a year. (by supports i mean doctors, physio, nutritionists, personal chefs, afternoons off, millionaire homes and comfort, very often zero financial stress or even need to handle money etc etc etc) In the context of countless other types of athletes, and ordinary people, I find the moaning a little nauseating. These guys aren't fighting at the Somme or even putting in 90 hour weeks at a hospital. Yes they might get injured, but in my opinion they are absolutely enormously compensated against this risk

I understand the qst you're asking but no, we see this type of talk often and often in grave terms as if these guys are having to risk life and limb

 

[Synco]

I dont care enough about this to keep talking about it, but I'm leaning towards the side of posters who feel 'player welfare fears' and 'obscene' fixtures feels hyperbolic in the context of all of the supports available to these professional athletes who might play 50 games a year. (by supports i mean doctors, physio, nutritionists, personal chefs, afternoons off, millionaire homes and comfort, very often zero financial stress or even need to handle money etc etc etc) In the context of countless other types of athletes, and ordinary people, I find the moaning a little nauseating. These guys aren't fighting at the Somme or even putting in 90 hour weeks at a hospital. Yes they might get injured, but in my opinion they are absolutely enormously compensated against this risk

I understand the qst you're asking but no, we see this type of talk often and often in grave terms as if these guys are having to risk life and limb

It's clear we're talking about athletes in an extremely privileged position.

For me this talking point only makes sense from a pure isolated football POV. And in this sense, a bloated schedule is cack for pretty much everything except profit. From this angle, the players' standpoint is also valid and just common sense imo.

As soon as comparisons to wider society are made, it of course deflates to an issue of near-zero importance and moral weight. Both is true, but it looks like these two perspectives are mixed up in this thread, which usually makes for a fruitless discussion.

 

[ForeverRed1]

Wow, very divisive topic.

Pretty split down the middle with sympathy and understanding for the players and the it’s hard to understand them based on our own and wider society’s experiences.

 

[Lee565]

They are correct it is over the top, how many other such physically demanding sports have to deal with a similar schedule.

Player wellbeing aside another issue from these schedules is think it's hurting the quality of football where it has become quantity over quality.

It's not even the schedule it's the conditions they are putting them in like the scorching heat of Qatar this winter just for the love of money.

 

[JSArsenal]

Whilst you have a point, you are talking about a small minority of players here.
Not all players can retire early, and several that have (at premiership level) have ran into issues with drink, drugs, depression and financial issues.

Most Championship players and below wouldn't be able to retire, some of them play more games than players in the premiership, as quite a few are also full internationals.

I get what you're saying, but people who aren't footballers run into those issues as well. I'm all for the people who generate the wealth that football brings, reap the majority of that wealth, but at the same time let's be real. Championship players earn more in two weeks than a lot of people earn in a year

Yes, footballers are going to live a lavish lifestyle and like most people can't manage their money well all in all but the idea that they need to earn as much as possible or they're going to run into financial difficulties is absurd. Having money, allows you to make more money. They don't have to be financial geniuses, they don't even have to do anything, if they lived a "normal" upper middle class life, their grandkids could probably survive off of what they earned in their playing careers.

Your job isn't going to give you more money, just because you spend it poorly. There are also sources of revenue for them after their playing days are done, sponsorships, punditry work, coaching (even if not at a big club) or as a manager.

That notwithstanding, although I think they should earn more because they're the real stars of the show not the club owners, I disagree with fans saying they need more money to be able to support themselves (what about the rest of us, who don't make their salaries in a year but we're the ones who basically allow football to be the money machine it is through ours support), I do understand from a human perspective how playing so many games can be tiring physically and mentally. I'd like fewer games, especially internationals but I understand the need to feed the beast.

 

[Dancfc]

People also need to realise the amount of work it takes to get to the point where these guys are earning a ton of cash.

They have grafted and worked for years and years, since they were a kid in order to get to that point.

They don't just walk into it!

They have grafted for years and years in the academies, in the case of Rice since he was 7, they then have to graft to get themselves up to a point to earn that cash, so this whole 'they can retire in 5 years' is in essence rubbish.

The schedule needs amending, hence the reason the Premiership has been discussing this with the FA,

Yep. And the people banging the tedious "they earn so much my heart bleeds tell them to get on with it" will be the first upset and outraged when (not if) another Eriksen situation happens.

Mason Mount for example has had little to no break since he broke into the Chelsea team (lockdown doesn't count).

 

[V.O.]

Yep. And the people banging the tedious "they earn so much my heart bleeds tell them to get on with it" will be the first upset and outraged when (not if) another Eriksen situation happens.

Mason Mount for example has had little to no break since he broke into the Chelsea team (lockdown doesn't count).

Eriksen is a piss poor example if you're trying to link his health issue to playing too many games.

He was riding the bench for 18 months at Inter before his collapse. Made 17 league starts that season.

 

[SER19]

It's clear we're talking about athletes in an extremely privileged position.

For me this talking point only makes sense from a pure isolated football POV. And in this sense, a bloated schedule is cack for pretty much everything except profit. From this angle, the players' standpoint is also valid and just common sense imo.

As soon as comparisons to wider society are made, it of course deflates to an issue of near-zero importance and moral weight. Both is true, but it looks like these two perspectives are mixed up in this thread, which usually makes for a fruitless discussion.

Yes this about sums it up. In football terns itself I could live with a reduced spotlight on their schedule and have sympathy only on sporting grounds where bigger clubs have bigger options to rotate

 

[SER19]

Yep. And the people banging the tedious "they earn so much my heart bleeds tell them to get on with it" will be the first upset and outraged when (not if) another Eriksen situation happens.

Mason Mount for example has had little to no break since he broke into the Chelsea team (lockdown doesn't count).

This is just not a credible position. Most cardiac events in football, especially those of the most tragic circumstances, have been related to undiagnosed underlying issues and could happen if playing 20 games a year, or in the general population. Young athletes have tragic occurrences in amateur football at about the same degree so its pretty unfair of you to suggest anybody not especially empathetic with 50 games a year in a highly controlled and monitored level is wilfully unconcerned about the risk of these events.

When the next tragedy occurs on a pitch you don't get to turn around and say i told you so, when it's incredibly unlikely to be caused by the current playing level. There are extreme athletes who massively exceed PL workload

 

[golden_blunder]

Hey let’s watch them all run until their feet bleed!