The battle for the soul or is it the purse strings of the game? Behind the FIFPro Europe/ European Leagues vs FIFA spat.

The news emanating from Europe that over the last week FIFPro Europe and a group of 33 leagues from across continental Europe have filed a complaint against FIFA with the EU Commission has sent shockwaves worldwide. At the heart of the complaint is the allegation that FIFA is engaged in anti-competitive conduct in managing the international men's football calendar, including FIFA's two premier competitions the World Cup and Club World Cup. The complainants argue that this engenders the player's well-being and sustainability of the football ecosystem with an overloaded international football calendar. They are, however, not enjoining UEFA, the world's biggest organiser of club professional football in the world and thus employer of players. UEFA, whose new format for its premier club competition, the Champions League has just added a whopping 51% more matches than before from 125 to 189 games a year. This has bewildered many. If this is about football sustainability and player welfare you would expect the entity that is at risk of causing saturation and player harm will be a co-defendant if not the first respondent. According to the complainants, UEFA is not on the dock because "we are represented inside UEFA" while they are not in FIFA.

According to the latest FIFPro Player Workload Report, top players can end up playing over 80 games a year with more matches than there are at weekends! It further reveals that 88% of this gruelling schedule stems from club commitments. To put it into perspective, players spend around 253 days a year on club activities compared to just 40 days with their national teams and FIFA-organised activities! In terms of games national games, typical players play an average of 10-12 games a season. The CIES Football Advisory study shows that this extreme workload isn't as widespread as we might think. A survey of over 677 clubs from over 40 leagues around the world over 12 years revealed that only 5% played 60 official club games or more over the last year. The graph above shows that the two events that seemingly are the heart of the complaint the FIFA World Cup and FIFA Club World account for 128 games over a 4-year cycle as both these are quadrennial competitions. In that same period, the top 5 domestic leagues would have organized over 7304 league games, excluding European or domestic cup competitions. Assuming the average league has 18 teams, the 33 leagues would have organised over 40,000 games and they are complaining about 128 FIFA-organised games? What are we missing? Surely if this is about the games saturating the market and protecting players from the overload, a statement of intent will accompany this complaint about how they are working to reduce the player load within their leagues and UEFA. So is this really about the players and sustainability of the game?

?

We analysed the economics of both FIFA and UEFA (where the complainants come from) and they reveal a telling picture. A look at the graph above shows that while FIFA lags UEFA It is closing the gaps faster than it is making Europe comfortable. The two immediate past four-year cycles show FIFA moved from under half (41%) of UEFA in the last comparable cycle to over 2 thirds (71%) in the latest cycle. FIFA has gone on an aggressive growth path, which includes a significant growth in club competition. The club generates over three-quarters of UEFA revenues over a 4-year cycle. There is only a set number of broadcasters and commercials who buy media and licensing rights, the biggest sources of value. Increasingly, Europeans are concerned that FIFA is cannibalizing its revenues. That is a genuine and fair concern but the way to deal with that is to engage FIFA in an equitable revenue share discussion rather than threaten to collapse the global ecosystem. Europe already enjoys a significant share of the revenue from FIFA, in the FIFA Club World Cup, for example, the seeded (and protected clubs) will be from Europe, and they will get a giant share of the $4.5 billion fund. The same pattern prevails for the 2026 FIFA World Cup as well. The Club Benefit programs designed to share revenue with clubs saw European clubs get 80% of all funds set aside for this,

Is there a genuine sustainability and player welfare issue? There most definitely is. Recent data from Howden's Men's European Football Injury Index provides stark evidence of this crisis. Across the top 5 leagues, there were a staggering 4,123 injuries and 14,292 injuries across four seasons, leading to 2023/24. This translates to approximately one injury every 92 minutes of play. The financial impact is equally concerning, with clubs paying €2.3 billion to injured players during this period. But to address it, we cannot simply single out FIFA as an organizer of just 12% of the football matches and ignore the leagues and continental confederations. The clubs are guilty of doing the most to load the player workload not just with relentless back-to-back games but these intercontinental trips at the start, mid or end of the season. Also, despite having this vast squad far too many teams failed to manage the workload of their best talent. No one should play every game 60-game season. Similar to how corporations enforce mandatory time off, football associations and leagues need to regulate player workloads. Teams should rest players after a specific number of games, following the regulations rather than relying on discretion. This is about fostering a culture that values player well-being as much as results and revenue.

Once again, individuals may present a concern for sustainability and fair practice as genuine and noble, but it may be driven by greed that knows no bounds. FIFA serves 211 members and must do what it can to protect the entire 211-strong global system. FIFPro Europe and the? 33 leagues represent an important stakeholder but are not the only one that matters. It is important to address and take seriously their concerns. However, they must not be allowed to prioritize their interests over those of the 211 members of FIFA. Each of these 33 leagues has representation in FIFA. Europe already has an oversized representation in FIFA. If FIFA indeed has behaved improperly, then we need to correct it. However, if this is about curtailing FIFA's growth and protecting the interest of Europe at the expense of the global game, then that cannot be acceptable.

?

?