Could players actually go on strike despite the busy football calendar?

Player frustration at playing too many games and not getting enough rest is growing across football, but how close is the sport to a players' strike?

Burnout has always been a major issue in football, but with the expansion of UEFA club competitions and the brand new FIFA Club World Cup, the issue has moved to the top of the agenda.

In August, ESPN reported that this season would be the longest club season ever, with the Club World Cup set to take place over a four-week period in the United States in June and July. Leading players have already spoken out, with Erling Haaland, Kylian Mbappé and Jude Bellingham voicing concerns about soccer's increasingly crowded schedule.

This week, Manchester City midfielder Rodri became the first high-profile player to warn that footballers were prepared to go on strike. Real Madrid goalkeeper Thibaut Courtois also spoke of the possibility of unprecedented action by players. Liverpool goalkeeper Alisson Becker, Barcelona's Jules Koundé and Aston Villa's John McGinn soon followed.

Coaches such as Pep Guardiola, Mikel Arteta and Jürgen Klopp have also raised the alarm about exhaustion. And on Friday, Real Madrid coach Carlo Ancelotti said he believed players would be willing to accept a pay cut if it meant playing fewer games.

While there have been repeated strikes in American sports over the years, with strikes or lockouts occurring in baseball, basketball and American football, such a drastic scenario has so far been spared in football.

Why are top footballers currently talking about strikes and how likely is it that this will happen?

What is behind the strike threat?

Workload on players has long been a problem. The biggest clubs often stay in competitions until the finals and then fly on long-haul trips to the US or Asia. These trips can last two or three weeks and include several games.

The top players also have to consider international matches and the travel that comes with them during a season, as well as major tournaments every two years. It is very easy to play over 60 matches.

Despite the growing tensions, football has managed to keep the situation under control, allowing players at least the recommended rest period between seasons – usually three to four weeks – while there is a gap in the international calendar every other year for a longer recovery.

But the Club World Cup, which sees a month-long club competition with 32 teams moved to one of those game-free summers, could be the last straw.

FIFA insists the Club World Cup only takes a place on the calendar previously held by the Confederations Cup – an international tournament hosted every four years by the incoming World Cup host as a test event. That's a misnomer, because the Confederations Cup involved just eight nations, lasted two weeks and featured nowhere near as many players as the gruelling European club season.

The Club World Cup, on the other hand, is a 63-match competition with the opening match scheduled for June 15 – just 15 days after the 2025 Champions League final. In between, crucial World Cup qualifiers and the UEFA Nations League finals will take place around the world from June 4 to 10.

There are also two additional games in the extended league phase of this year’s Champions League.

play

Ancelotti wants fewer games to prevent injuries

Real Madrid coach Carlo Ancelotti wants to reduce the number of games to protect his players from injuries.

What steps are the players’ unions taking?

FIRPRO, the global governing body representing over 65,000 footballers worldwide, and the players' unions in England, France and Italy filed a lawsuit against FIFA in June, challenging the legality of FIFA's unilateral determination of the international match calendar and its decision to expand the Club World Cup.

FIFPRO stated in its letter that “players and their unions have consistently described the current football calendar as overloaded and unworkable,” adding that “players and unions view the new FIFA Club World Cup as a turning point.”

Furthermore, FIFPRO stated: “Players' unions believe that such decisions by FIFA violate the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (CFR) without any serious justification. Ultimately, players' unions believe that the aim of this new competition is to increase the wealth and power of the global football governing body without adequately considering the impact on the players involved or other stakeholders in professional football.”

The European Leagues, which represent 39 professional leagues in 33 European countries, joined FIFPRO's lawsuit in July, but FIFA responded by accusing them of “hypocrisy.”

A FIFA statement said: “Some leagues in Europe – themselves organisers and regulators of competitions – act out of commercial self-interest, hypocrisy and without regard for everyone else in the world. These leagues appear to prefer a calendar full of friendlies and summer tours that often involve extensive travel around the world. In contrast, FIFA must protect the overall interests of world football, including the protection of players, everywhere and at all levels of the game.”

What do the players want?

Maheta Molango, the CEO of England's Professional Footballers' Association (PFA), told ESPN in August that he “absolutely cannot” rule out industrial action by the players if their concerns are not addressed. Molango reiterated to ESPN this week that FIFA must “sit up and take note”.

Without players, football would obviously grind to a halt, so players are in a strong position to drive change – if they have the courage to push for it.

FIFPRO and the players' unions want to limit the number of games players can play in a season. Molango suggested to ESPN a figure of between 50 and 60, plus a limit of no more than six occasions where a player can play two games in four days. The unions also want a summer break of three to four weeks to be mandatory, not just recommended.

“Players are talking about it everywhere: at press conferences before the Champions League, before the Nations League. It is clear to see that something has changed,” Alexander Bielefeld, FIFPRO's director of global policy and strategic relations for men's football, told a panel at the World Football Summit this week.

“Players' unions have been working on this issue for more than five years. We have raised and communicated the players' concerns about this to FIFA. When unions in countries like England, France, Italy and other markets visit the players every pre-season and talk to the national team players, the main concern is the workload.

“Players need protected rest periods and a limit on games so they can perform at their best and protect their careers. It's that simple.”

The club owners, who benefit from the higher financial revenues from more games in top-class tournaments, have so far remained silent on the players' concerns.

play

Slots and Alisson's views on the density of the football calendar

Arne Slot and Alisson share their thoughts on the new format of the UEFA Champions League and the tight schedule in the football calendar.

Is a strike even feasible?

Here's the reality check: There are many hypothetical scenarios, but at this point, a strike is not on the agenda and it would be difficult for the players to prevail.

Sources have told ESPN that FIFPRO and the players' unions remain focused on the lawsuit against FIFA at this time, and that is where their energies are directed. Should that lawsuit be successful (there is no set timeline for a resolution), a players' strike is unlikely, as FIFA would effectively be forced to postpone, modify or move the Club World Cup.

Even if the PFA allowed its 5,000 members to vote, it would not be easy to sell a strike to players outside the top clubs who are not directly affected.

Players' unions represent players at all levels of football, so can they be sure they have a majority to support this? Convincing a critical mass to show solidarity with the highest-paid players would take time and a lot of persuasion, which is why the legal case against FIFA is a priority.

For example, would a player from EFL League Two side Accrington Stanley or Newport County, who earns around £500 a week, has a mortgage to pay and a family to support, be willing to give up his services and forgo his salary to support multi-millionaires at the highest level in their battle against too many games?

How will this all end?

That is the big question, but a lot will depend on FIFPRO's lawsuit against FIFA. That is the next important step.

Players and coaches will continue to voice their concerns, but unless their bosses – the club owners – accept their arguments and jointly tell FIFA that football is overheating, nothing is likely to change in the near future.

A players' strike is still a long way off at the moment, but any further comments from leading players will help keep the issue in the public eye. In reality, however, the decision will be made behind closed doors. If the legal case goes in FIFA's favour, a players' strike could become much more likely.