Fifa to announce 5 new International Friendlies (We need more monies!)

Soldato
Joined
24 Jun 2008
Posts
8,328
Fifa risks war with Europe's clubs over international friendlies


• Fifa could increase number of international dates from 12 to 17
• Europe's leading clubs angry with 'ridiculous' expansion


Fifa faces fresh conflict with Europe's leading clubs over plans to introduce five more international friendly dates into the already crowded football calendar.


The world governing body is understood to have held internal discussions on the insertion of five extra friendly matches into seasons when World Cups and European Championships do not take place. It would raise the total number of international dates from 12 to 17.


Without counting potential cup replays, that would mean a player in England who was ever-present for club and country while reaching domestic and Champions League finals could be required to play 86 times in a single season.


Fifa's discussions have not included the clubs whose fixture lists will be affected by the changes and who are preparing to push back against what they consider to be a Fifa land-grab. The European Professional Football Leagues association, which groups together 30 leagues across Europe, has made Fifa's incipient plans a top agenda item for its general assembly on 8 July. The EPFL chairman is the Premier League's Sir Dave Richards.


"Fifa has been quite busy with its own internal issues, with the presidential elections," said the EPFL chief executive, Emanuel Macedo de Medeiros. "Now these have taken place we believe it is time for Fifa to move forward in discussions with the leagues. The leagues and clubs face the consequences of the decisions made at Fifa level. The national leagues are the bread and butter of football and our members represent 1,000 clubs."


The elite clubs that make up the European Clubs Association, which was born upon the disbanding of the G-14 pressure group, believe there are already too many international breaks in the fixture list. The ECA will also fight the proposals.


"It is so stupid," said a senior ECA figure from a European Cup-winning club. "Ridiculous. Does a national team need more than 12 matches a year? They want 17 matches now, with friendlies in single days. [The Uefa president] Michel Platini is going to control the media rights centrally, to the detriment of domestic clubs and leagues."


There is an assumption that the greatest net beneficiaries will be the federations of smaller European nations. They are expected to draw more income from the centralised broadcast- and sponsorship-rights deal struck last year. The ECA source also complained that this was driven through Uefa's political structures without consultation with the clubs.


Fifa denied there were firm plans to pursue a 40% increase in the amount of international football played. However, it did confirm that talks have taken place.


"The general secretaries of the six confederations sit down with Fifa's secretary general first to discuss this issue, and it is likely that a meeting will take place this coming autumn to first discuss the international match calendar beyond 2014," said a Fifa spokesman. "Any consensus that they then reach is taken forward to the executive committee for further discussion and ultimate ratification."


Neither the proposing nor the ratifying body involves any representation from the clubs or leagues. However, the spokesman added: "The views of clubs will be considered in the decision-making process, [as will the] different domestic and confederation club calendars in different parts of the world."


Fifa has often been accused of giving scant regard to clubs who employ international players. At the Fifa congress in Zurich on 1 June the deputy general secretary, Markus Kattner, gave a presentation explainingthat the World Cup generated $3.7bn for Fifa. Of this, $40m was carved out for clubs as compensation for the use of their players during the month-long tournament. It worked out as an average of $100,000 per club.


Clubs and leagues will now confront Sepp Blatter's organisation to seek a meaningful and influential place within its governance structures. "We want to be engaged in discussion in a constructive and inclusive manner," said the EPFL source.


The ECA insider summed up the mood among clubs. "We at the ECA are really fed up," he said.

All comes down to greed, every single friendly is stuffed with corporate bod's FIFA are trying to squeeze cash out of, what other reason could there be?
Really wish FIFA (and UEFA for that matter) would hurry and implode :(

I realise FIFA have 'denied' its definitely taking place, but does anyone believe a word they say anymore?
 
[The Uefa president] Michel Platini is going to control the media rights

Thats the important part, its clearly not about developing talent (as FIFA will no doubt say it is) when Sepp's lapdog in UEFA is in charge of raking in all the media $$$
 
How can people be annoyed with FIFA over trying to make more money after some of the prices the FA put up and some of the things they want to do.

Really?
 
Because the in thing is to accuse Sepp of everything, he's the reason England didn't get the world cup, and can't play well in internationals, he's the devil incarnate, lets kill him.

Boo hoo, a few more games in non world cup seasons, people seem to forget, the FA is rich as crap, Togo's FA will be desparate for money and 5 more international games can be the difference for a poor country of being able to afford one proper academy, and not being able to.

Every single view on Fifa is always just about England here, someone else got the world cup, England were robbed, Fifa, Uefa, they are all supposed to favour England somehow.

Its an international FRIENDLY, send the under 21 team for a "proper" game against more experienced players, send the under 19's team, send a complete reserve team, make a bit of money, invest that money in......... coaching our youths......... who loses here?

How about not acting selfishly, arrange 5 friendlies against the poorest nations in the world, we automatically generate more money vs anyone than two tiny barely seen teams. We could actually do good, play the Ivory Coast and donate all the proceeds we would get to a relief fund for those caught up in the civil war, etc, etc, etc.
 
Whilst on your save the world crusade, you missed the part where currently Media rights are the host's property, allowing your scenario (Ivory Coast vs England) to generate quite a bit of cash for the host nation.

However the rights are now the property of Mr Platini ? meaning there's a big chance they will see squat (or at least, less).
 
Uefa never, ever put a single cent into worldwide football do they, neither do Fifa.

People seem to assume Fifa and Uefa simply make money, and pocket the lot. I'm sure they do pocket a damned good amount but, they also spend millions upon millions on building football facilities all over the world.

Fifa get more money, a lot of that money will be invested in football.

[The Uefa president] Michel Platini is going to control the media rights centrally, to the detriment of domestic clubs and leagues."


There is an assumption that the greatest net beneficiaries will be the federations of smaller European nations. They are expected to draw more income from the centralised broadcast- and sponsorship-rights deal struck last year. The ECA source also complained that this was driven through Uefa's political structures without consultation with the clubs.



What is actually quoted is that he's controlling them centrally, which gives them bigger/better negotiating power, and takes some of the power away from the super rich FA's and is expected to give MORE money to the less well off nations. Selectively leaving out the word centrally, gives a completely different meaning. It does NOT say UEfa/Platini owns the rights, but will control them centrally.
 
That's all well and good, but I don't give a stuff about international football anymore. So all this means to me are more PL breaks and more players coming back injured. Selfish, maybe. True, definitely.
 
Well as its 5 more games, every other year, in none World Cup/Euro seasons, it would almost certainly be 5 internationals in the summer break, at a guess, the international games after the champs league finals will become a week and 3 games rather than 1, and probably a couple games before the season starts at some point.

Its unlikely to throw a bunch more games in during the season.

I think international footie is almost always rubbish, I still find it funny that people think international footie is somehow the best around. Guys who train 5 times a week and play 2 competitive games a week are going to play better football than a team of constantly changing players who train 4-5 times a year, for a few days at a time.

Don't see why its selfish, football is entertainment, not a way to settle wars, I watch the world cup/euros for entertainment, not because I care if England will win.

But thats the point, you can send anyone to the 5 extra games, use them to give the under 21's more experience with a couple oldies thrown in, before they move up to the seniors.
 
Without counting potential cup replays, that would mean a player in England who was ever-present for club and country while reaching domestic and Champions League finals could be required to play 86 times in a single season.

A bit sensationalist, presumably that means that the current number of games players could be 'required' to play is 81. When was the last time you saw ANY player in England get REMOTELY close to that?

edit: in actual fact I'm not sure those numbers stack up:

PL = 38
CL = 13
FA Cup = 6
League Cup = 6
International = 17

So the total is in fact not 86 but 80 games. To be 86, they would either have to play a bunch of CL qualifiers and the Community Shield I'd guess (only possible in the rare situation where a team finishes 4th and wins the fa cup), and/or come from a lower division with fewer teams, which is is EXTREMELY unlikely, the only way that would be possible would be for a team to be relegated and win the CL in the same season.
 
Last edited:
The thing people should be asking is why is medical science, physio's and doctors so epically rubbish over here. Lampard's 3 best seasons are 65 starts 6 subs, 67 starts and 4 subs, and 70 starts a 3 subs. Vast majority of other players don't come close to Lampard though.

I laugh that he gets called fat frank, just about the fittest English footballer who ever lived, one real injury hit season and he still started 38 games this year :p

Xavi though, 73 starts and 4 sub appearances in his most ridiculous season. So, yeah, Frank has actually gotten quite close to 80, 73 isn't half bad at all, 77 for Xavi is bordering on insane.

Jesus, in 5 seasons Xavi hasn't started less than 47 games a season and he hasn't appeared in less than 55 games a season in that time. But the Barca team has so many players that have played a ludicrous amount of games for years on end.

I get your point though, its sensationalist crap, and its mostly the English slant of "we'll lose a little control and probably make less money so lets be against it". Rotation, resting, most players don't come close to 80 games, I'd guess average would be somewhere around 40-50 games a season. But again, its friendlies so we can play any team, perfect opportunity to blood our younger players with less experience against more experienced international teams, and we'll make some money out of it, and help poorer nations, its win, win, errm, win, win.
 
Last edited:
Yeah to be fair Lampard is an exception, I think until Friedel overtook him he also had the record for most consecutive league games played.

Personally I'd love to see stats for how many minutes players used to play 20-25 years ago:

-Bigger first division (22 clubs) so extra 4 league matches a season
-Infinite FA Cup replays (I remember playing at least 4 replays against Leeds in the 3rd round, they'd already made the draw for the 5th round when we were still playing 3rd round!)
-Proper league cup i.e. 2 legs in every(?) round, top teams playing strong lineups
-ZDS cup
-Fewer subs
-Generally less squad rotation - in Arsenal programmes they show you reports from 20 and 40 years ago, nearly always the same team every week with 1-2 changes max

When you consider the fact there was much less sports science, you had the Tuesday club etc, I can't see the demands on players being that much greater now than they used to be. The only difference really is the fact we play European competition but even then it's not THAT many clubs, I mean you look at the England squad and say how many european games are the Villa boys playing this season?

I just had a look at the MU squad for 1990-1991, they had EIGHT players who played 50 club games or more, that's just club games, not internationals.
Now lets compare with the current MU squad 2010-2011. How many players played 50 or more games for the club this season?

None.
Zero.
Zip.
Sweet FA.

All this "too many games" nonsense makes me chuckle, yes fair enough the international demands have increased, but from a club perspective it is a load of poppycock.
 
If they're going to do it they should turn it into a mini tournament and just accept the top players won't attend. A tournament may at leat make it a bit intresting.
 
Yeah to be fair Lampard is an exception, I think until Friedel overtook him he also had the record for most consecutive league games played.

Personally I'd love to see stats for how many minutes players used to play 20-25 years ago:

-Bigger first division (22 clubs) so extra 4 league matches a season
-Infinite FA Cup replays (I remember playing at least 4 replays against Leeds in the 3rd round, they'd already made the draw for the 5th round when we were still playing 3rd round!)
-Proper league cup i.e. 2 legs in every(?) round, top teams playing strong lineups
-ZDS cup
-Fewer subs
-Generally less squad rotation - in Arsenal programmes they show you reports from 20 and 40 years ago, nearly always the same team every week with 1-2 changes max

When you consider the fact there was much less sports science, you had the Tuesday club etc, I can't see the demands on players being that much greater now than they used to be. The only difference really is the fact we play European competition but even then it's not THAT many clubs, I mean you look at the England squad and say how many european games are the Villa boys playing this season?

I just had a look at the MU squad for 1990-1991, they had EIGHT players who played 50 club games or more, that's just club games, not internationals.
Now lets compare with the current MU squad 2010-2011. How many players played 50 or more games for the club this season?

None.
Zero.
Zip.
Sweet FA.

All this "too many games" nonsense makes me chuckle, yes fair enough the international demands have increased, but from a club perspective it is a load of poppycock.

You are missing out huge parts of the story there.

Yes these guys played more games but they played against players who also played more games so it was even.

As soon as one team expands their squad and rotates their team the level of fitness increases therefore you have to do the same in order to compete or you will have a jaded first XI playing against a fit squad.

If you have a squad of 20 and 19 are on international duty in midweek it doesnt meant they are "too tired" to play the next saturday game, however it DOES mean they will have players MORE tired than the team they may be playing who only have a couple of players away on international duty. Its a loss of one small edge over your opposition so as a club manager its rightly seen as a bad thing, especially when the midweek game is a meaningless friendly.
 
Back
Top Bottom